Sitting of 1 February 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
BOURNEMOUTH-SWANAGE MOTOR ROAD AND FERRY BILL

PRAYERS
  SHEFFIELD ASSAY OFFICE BILL
  FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL
  SHEFFIELD ASSAY OFFICE BILL

    UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 3 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Student Grants
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about the changes in provision of student grants; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many representations he has received about student grants following the Budget statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): My right hon. Friend and I have received about 1,275 representations to date.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister realise that, if the delegation of extreme right-wing Tory MPs to the Prime Minister gets its way, this may be the last occasion that he has the benefit of the company of the Secretary of State for Education? Does he accept that the cut in student grants to the tune of 10 per cent. in each of the next three years will result in students either applying for a loan or having to give up their studies? Will he admit that the Government have cut 10,000 places from higher education in the next academic year, and are trying to restrict expansion in higher education by putting financial restrictions in the way of potential students?
    Mr. Boswell: If the hon. Gentleman is as prolix as that, he will put his place at some risk. As we debated extensively in the House in response to a prayer from the Liberal Democrats a fortnight ago, the answer is that we have a record participation in higher education, and we shall continue that percentage. Incidentally, it is twice as great as it was in 1988. During that period, when we made a progressive switch from grant to loan in the burden of support, the number of students and the participation of young people doubled.
    Mr. Pawsey: I hope that my hon. Friend will ignore the ill-considered remarks of the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy). Given the fact that we now have a record number of students in advanced education, does my hon. Friend agree that it is grossly unreasonable to expect taxpayers to fund the total cost of student support, and that the action being taken to bring grants and loans towards equilibrium is entirely right? It certainly underlines the dichotomy that exists on the Labour Benches about taxation and funding for students.
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is entirely right. His view and mine is shared by the Royal Society, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and what I might call the lightly suppressed members of the Labour party. We cannot will the end of higher participation in education and, at the same time, not be prepared to tackle funding, which we are doing.
    Dr. Wright: Is the Minister aware that his policy on student support and, indeed, the funding of higher education generally has effectively collapsed? It is now

    725
    being made by the Treasury, not by his Department. It is causing massive hardship to students, and it is making it impossible for universities to plan. When will the Government come forward with a properly funded plan for the expansion of higher education and a plan for student support to go with it?
    Mr. Boswell: I warn the hon. Gentleman that the taxi meter on Labour commitments is ticking away faster than ever. The fact that there are 1 million full-time students is not a failure of policy. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to tell the House when there were anything like 1 million full-time students under the Labour Government.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we were to attempt to fund the hugely increased number of students—the proportion has gone up from one in eight to one in three—the taxpayer could not stand it? Therefore, we would have to reduce it to a small number. Is that not an elitist policy on the part of the Opposition?
    Mr. Boswell: As ever, my hon. Friend is entirely right: they are elitists on the Labour Benches. We are delivering a mass and popular participation in higher education on a scale never contemplated by the Labour party. What is more, in conjunction with our friends in the Treasury, we are finding a proper and fair balance of financing to do so.
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Hon. Members: Ruskin college, Oxford.
    Mr. Skinner: When I went for three months to Ruskin, the students I went with got grants. They did not have to rely on loans, and some of us got the grants from the trade union movement.
    Why does not the Minister admit that the system has been a total failure, with £376 million being spent on loans and only £5 million being paid back, while the system is costing £11 million to administer? Is not one of the reasons why students cannot pay the money back because most of them cannot get jobs in the tinpot Britain run by this Government?
    Mr. Boswell: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman said that he received a mandatory award for his brief sojourn at Oxford university. He certainly has a PhD in ranting. Every single figure given by the hon. Gentleman is wrong, and last year the additional student numbers of over 70,000 were equivalent to six new universities. Where is the elitism there?

    Grant-maintained Status
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the financial benefits of grant-maintained status.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): The key benefit is that the school controls 100 per cent. of its budget. Decisions can be taken quickly by those who know and care most about the needs of the school. Self-government enables schools to get good value for money and to spend that money where it really counts: in the classroom, on children.
    Mr. Gill: In the light of that answer, and given the fact that there is far greater motivation in grant-maintained
    726
    schools among both pupils and staff, does my right hon. Friend agree that most of the lingering opposition to grant-maintained status is purely ideological?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and, happily, there is no ideological opposition in my hon. Friend's county of Shropshire, where 11 schools were balloted on grant-maintained status and all resulted in overwhelming yes votes.
    Mr. Steinberg: Despite the blatant bribes that the Government have made to opt-out schools, and despite the vast amounts of money that have been spent on advertising opt-out schools, the policy is a failure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] The previous Secretary of State for Education told us that there would be an avalanche—
    Hon. Members: Question.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must have a question from the hon. Gentleman. It is Question Time, after all.
    Mr. Steinberg: The previous Secretary of State told us that there would be an avalanche of schools opting out. That has not happened. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is the Secretary of State aware that, in my constituency, not one school has opted out? Will he give an assurance that he will continue the ballots for opting out, and that he will not force schools, in particular, secondary schools, to opt out without a parental ballot?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman does not give good value to the National Union of Teachers for its sponsorship. He cannot even ask a proper joined-up question without prompting from you, Madam Speaker.
    We have no intention of changing during this Parliament our general election pledge on the conduct of balloting for grant-maintained schools. I am happy to tell the House that, today, some 530,000 children are being educated in grant-maintained schools—that is about 16 or 17 per cent. of secondary school children. It is a popular and progressive policy.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the financial disbenefits which are beginning to creep in for grant-maintained schools? Local authorities that are dominated by the Labour party and by the Liberal Democrat party are starting to take retaliatory action against them. Is that not typified by Essex county council, which is proposing to withdraw—almost at point blank notice—the boarding allowance for Hockerhill school in Bishops Stortford?
    Mr. Patten: That is a disgraceful act; it is typical of the dirty tricks of Lib-Lab councils up and down the land. Only yesterday afternoon I saw one of my hon. Friend's county council colleagues to compIain about exactly that practice in Essex, and only last Friday, when I made a state visit to Swindon, I heard similar compIaints from councillors and teachers at grant-maintained schools there about the actions of the Lib-Lab pact in campaigning viciously and untruthfully not only against grant-maintained schools but against denominational schools. I bet that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) does not realise that her friends in Swindon want to stop denominational schooling in Wiltshire, which is a disgrace.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in the current advertising campaign—

    727
    paid for by taxpayers' money—to advocate grant-maintained status for schools, one of the advertisements for Hatchford school states that that grant-maintained school has been able to reallocate its funds for benefits in the classroom? Would it not have been more honest to say that the reallocation has meant that £68,000 was taken from neighbouring schools? Does not that demonstrate a clear breach of his departmental guidelines on advertising information about grant-maintained schools?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong—the advertisements contain factual information only. There is a level playing field. There are many differences between grant-maintained schools and maintained schools in terms of how they get their money, whether they have to pay value added tax and whether they can look to the county council or the local education authority to vire money from other capital programmes to capital programmes for grant-maintained schools. The hon. Gentleman must brief himself a bit better. Unless he is careful, I shall pay a state visit to Bath and deal with him.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are equal proportions of able, disadvantaged and poor children in grant-maintained schools and state schools, and that, when the Labour party continually attacks those schools, it is attacking poor and disadvantaged children—and it does not care?
    Mr. Patten: I do not think that the Labour party has had an original idea in 15 wasted years in opposition. It has not advanced educational thinking one iota. My hon. Friend, with his long experience as a deputy head teacher, is right: our comprehensive grant-maintained schools, which are the majority, produce very strong results with children from all backgrounds.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Secretary of State realise that parents and school governors, as well as some Conservative councillors, have rumbled him and now realise that the rewards to grant-maintained schools for their political correctness are running out? Will he confirm that two out of three grant-maintained schools have not received any capital allocation whatsoever for the year 1994–95, and that the abolition of cash protection for GM schools means that they will lose £8·.2 million in annual maintenance grants? As it is now obvious that Government targets for GM schools will not be reached, will the Secretary of State tell us whether that is why he is threatening to nationalise all secondary schools? What does that say about his respect for parent power—or is he just a bad loser?
    Mr. Patten: I do not know how the hon. Lady manages to speak with such apparent authority about grant-maintained schools. I understand—I will of course be corrected if I am wrong—that she has never visited one.
    Mrs. Taylor: Yes, I have.
    Mr. Patten: I am very sorry. I understood that she had not. I am glad that the hon. Lady has done so, because I would not like those on the Labour Front Bench to carry out a policy of educational apartheid by trying to marginalise grant-maintained schools.
    The hon. Lady really cannot criticise a policy of devolving power to parents, which is admired in most of the western world and is one of the most original of our policies of the past 15 years, when, over the same period,
    728
    there has been no original thinking on education policy from her or her hon. Friends—15 wasted years. If the hon. Lady were subjected to an educational brain scan, there would not be a flicker on the screen.

    A-level Results
    Sir David Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what conclusions his Department has drawn from the A-level results in England in 1993; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): The 1993 results confirmed that GCE A-levels are popular and successful qualifications. More of our young people are taking them, more are passing them, and more are getting good grades than ever before. The recent report by the Office for Standards in Education has confirmed their reputation for quality and rigour.
    Sir David Madel: Are the Government considering changes in the A-level system in view of the fact that the number of candidates for science subjects dropped in 1993, and that both Government and industry are keen that many more people should have A-levels in science and then go on to university?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. With his wide educational knowledge, he knows that, under the national curriculum, all young people are now required to take maths and science until the age of 16. Many of us trust that that will ensure that more students come to recognise that those subjects are neither boring nor, worse, only for boys—some of the myths that are spread. In due course, that will ensure that a greater number carry on to post-16 studies, whether via A-levels or via the new vocational qualifications.

    Undergraduates
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many university undergraduates there are in England and Wales.
    Mr. Boswell: The Government's policies have led to record student numbers and participation in higher education. There were some 755,000 undergraduates studying in England in 1992–93, the latest year for which figures are available. Figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
    Mr. Devlin: Does not that significant increase in the number of people studying at our universities show how wrong people were three or four years ago to argue that the introduction of student loans would mean a decline in the number of people applying to go to university? Is it not a welcome feature, and a real achievement of the Government, to have got so many talented young people into higher education, including at the two new universities on Teesside?
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I recognise the role of the two new universities on Teesside. Since 1988, the proportion of young people entering higher education has risen from 15 per cent. to more than 30 per cent.
    Mr. Rooker: Notwithstanding the increase—the equivalent of a dozen or more civic universities in recent years—achieved by craimming students into existing facilities, is it true that, as a result of the decline in the staff-student ratio in universities, the vice-chancellors were warned privately by Ministers not to speak up about threats to quality because that would cause further problems with the Treasury?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman seems to have had some problems with his own party. We have no problems with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. We are currently engaged in debating issues of quality. My right hon. Friend and I are determined to assert higher quality, and we shall see some of the vice-chancellors and principals this afternoon at 4 o'clock.
    Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the need for a balance between the cost to students and their families and to the taxpayer, and the point about student numbers. Will he continue to emphasise the lessons to be learned from international comparisons in funding in that respect? Will he also pay attention to the use and administration of access funds and, in conjunction with this colleagues in the Department of Social Security, to support for students during the long vacation in the recession, when many have been unable to find jobs?
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend will know that we decided, at the time of the introduction of student loans, to discontinue the general pattern of students' access to benefits. We did that alongside an increase in the funding package, which amounts to approximately one third extra for students who avail themselves of a loan. We continue to take account and careful note of authoritative studies on any student financial problems, and we recently reflected that with an increase of some £2 million in the sum provided for access funds in higher education for the coming year.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Minister come clean with the House and the country and confirm that he has been trying to get higher education on the cheap? Is it not the case that, thanks to Treasury diktats, next year 10,000 fully qualified intending students, who are as well qualified as those who went into higher education this year, will be denied a place because of his policies?
    Mr. Boswell: Once again, the taxi meter is ticking, and my hon. Friends will be taking careful note of it. The participation of young people in higher education is at record levels, and the numbers will remain at records levels over the next three years. I regard that as a success and, if anything, a compliment to the Treasury and to my colleagues, because we have achieved it, whereas the hon. Gentleman has yet to answer the question I recently put to him. How does he propose to pay for whatever he proposes to do, which he will not tell us?

    Nursery Education
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on nursery education.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): The Government's policy is to
    730
    promote choice, diversity, quality and cost-effectiveness of pre-school provision in the poublic and private sectors. More than 90 per cent. of three and four year-olds now receive some form of provision—more than half of them in maintained nursery and primary schools. We are now exploring ways of adding still further, as resources allow, to the choice parents have.
    Sir David Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although there is excellent provision for nursery education in Stoke-on-Trent, there is virtually none in the rest of Staffordshire? Does he consider that fair?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend knows well that the extent and nature of provision is entirely a matter for the local education authority. I should have thought that his local education authority would find it extremely difficult to justify its position to its electorate if its provision of nursery education were unevenly and unfairly distributed, as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Ms Estelle Morris: Does the Minister realise that he has just made it clear that the Government do not seem to want to adopt a policy on nursery education? Does he accept that that attitude has left Britain at the bottom of the European league of nursery education providers? Is he happy with a policy under which whether one's child gets nursery education depends on where one lives and not on the child's needs? When will he ensure that young children in Tory areas get as good access to nursery education as those in Labour Walsall, Cleveland and Birmingham?
    Mr. Forth: I wonder which of the hon. Lady's colleagues she agrees with? Would it be the Labour conference in 1993, which said:
    "nursery education to be available as of right to children from the age of four"?
    Or does she agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on the Labour Front Bench who said about a year ago
    "The Labour party is, and always has been, committed to pre-school provision"?
    Or does she agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) who said on radio just the other day:
    "there are no manifesto commitments at this stage … there is no commitment to spend money on anything"?
    It is time that Labour Members came clean.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should have choice and diversity in the provision of pre-school education? Does he further agree that we should congratulate the work of the Pre-School Playgroups Association, which does a tremendous amount of good work for children throughout the country? The Opposition never acknowledge that good work.
    Mr. Forth: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is part of the hidden agenda of Labour Members. By implying that they will extend mandatory provision for pre-fives but not telling us how they would pay for it, they are threatening the existence of the excellent pre-school playgroup movement to which my hon. Friend alluded. We acknowledge the excellence of that provision and want to promote continued choice and diversity for children up and down the country.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister tell us—calmly, if he can—whether the Secretary of State ever speaks to the Prime Minister? If so, can he clear up the Government's shambles on nursery education? Last year, the junior

    731
    Minister said that I had an obsession with nursery education. As the Prime Minister now says that he is mad keen on nursery education, will the Minister clear up the confusion in the Conservative party and tell us, yes or no: do Education Ministers back the Prime Minister? Do they favour universal nursery education?
    Mr. Forth: I think that the House will be much more interested in knowing whether—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer—the hon. Lady's colleague, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), shares her obsession with nursery education. From what I said a moment ago, it would appear that he does not. The direct answer to the hon. Lady's question is this. In an excellent speech to the north of England education conference only a few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
    "The Prime Minister and I are therefore keen to find ways of helping to extend over time the amount of nursery schooling available."
    I hope that that answers the hon. Lady's question.

    Dearing Report
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what survey his Department has undertaken of the views of classroom teachers on the Dearing report on the national curriculum and testing.
    Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what responses he has received to the publication of the Dearing report on the national curriculum and testing.
    Mr. Patten: I understand that teachers as well as almost all their associations and unions have since reacted with general enthusiasm for the report's main recommendations. They have, as the House knows, been accepted in full by the Government. I hope that we can continue to raise standards in our schools in the interests of pupils.
    Mr. Greenway: From the school visits that I have made in my constituency, it is clear that heads and teachers hold Sir Ron Dearing in the highest possible regard. Given that he had a free hand with his inquiry, which was entirely independent, and that the Government have accepted all his recommendations, what possible justification can there be for any further disruption in our classrooms? Will my right hon. Friend call on the National Union of Teachers to copy the example of other teacher unions and call off the threat of industrial action.?
    Mr. Patten: I was a bit surprised to learn that the National Union of Teachers is the only one of the teachers' associations and unions that has not accepted Sir Ron Dearing's report and is still unfortunately thinking of continuing the boycott. That is regrettable in the interests of our children. I hope that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) will make known her views on the stance of the National Union of Teachers and use her best endeavours to ensure that the curricular and testing changes recommended in the report go through smoothly in the interests of precisely the good performance of schools that my hon. Friend has seen in his constituency.
    Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend recall that a year ago I had a great deal of sympathy with the concerns, expressed by head teachers in my Worcester constituency, about the way in which we were approaching a national
    732
    curriculum and testing? Is he aware that, a year on, those concerns have been entirely put to rest by the publication of the Dearing report? The report underlines the importance of the national curriculum and effective testing in our schools. Against that background, will he ensure that his Department follows, to the letter and the spirit, the report in the coming months and years?
    Mr. Patten: Yes, I have accepted the report's recommendations in full. They have gone down very well in the classroom, as I saw in a school in Bristol only last Friday afternoon, where I talked to heads and, privately, to trade union members in a number of trade unions. It is an unfortunate reflection on the present state of one of the teachers' associations and unions that it uniquely wishes to continue, perhaps, to boycott testing in our classrooms. I cannot see that that reflects a modern attitude to education. I cannot imagine that a thoroughly modern Labour party would back that sort of action. I hope that the hon. Member for Dewsbury does not.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the considerable part played by local education authorities in the delivery of the national curriculum? Will he put his mind to considering the report on religious education that was sent to us this morning by his noble Friend the Minister of State and acknowledge that if central funding is taken away from local education authorities, the delivery of the curriculum will be quite impossible?
    Mr. Patten: With his long-standing interest in these matters, the hon. Gentleman is probably aware that yesterday my Department issued new guidance to local education authority schools and to grant-maintained schools about the proper conduct of religion education in the classrooms of all state schools, and the critical importance of a daily act of worship and regular assemblies in schools, which, alas, is not taken as seriously in some of our schools as it should be.
    Mr. Dafis: I wonder whether His Royal Highness might honour us with a state visit to Wales, in which, having studied the recent report of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, "Towards an Education Policy for Wales", he could speak to the institute about it. Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is much validity in the suggestion in that report that we in Wales should be looking beyond England for our standards and for ideas on developing the curriculum in Wales? Will he now ensure that he has a meeting soon with the Secretary of State for Wales to consider ways to strengthen the autonomy of Welsh educational institutions, including the Curriculum Authority for Wales, and other aspects, too?
    Mr. Patten: My writ does not run as far as Wales, so I shall not be able to accept the hon. Gentleman's kind invitation and make an official visit; however, I am prepared to go privately. As for my having discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, ours is a long-standing and close political friendship dating back 20 years. We talk about these great issues most days of the week, and there is not a razor blade's distance between us.
    Mr. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend take careful note of Sir Ron Dearing's comments to the effect that rigorous national testing should remain an integral part of our state education system? While my right hon. Friend

    733
    and his colleagues set about welcoming the Dearing recommendations—which are indeed welcome, being designed to reduce teacher work loads—will he also ensure that the Government do not lose sight of that important principle?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: I agree with all that he has said. I also think that all hon. Members in all political parties should concentrate, in the development of our education policies, on trying especially to help the 40 per cent. of boys and girls—young men and women—who have the greatest difficulty in achieving. It is in that regard that we seem to lag behind too many of our continental, Japanese and north American competitors; and it is in that connection that testing, based on the national curriculum, is likely to produce results that are not just good for the country and for schools, but good for individual boys and girls.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Let me remind the Secretary of State that all the teacher unions have accepted in the Dearing report those recommendations whose educational content is positive. May I point out that the unions accepted those recommendations because, for the first time, someone who had some influence over the Government had listened to what they had to say? The National Union of Teachers wants to continue teacher assessment, which Sir Ron Dearing says is more important than the tests themselves; the other two teacher unions want to continue only the tests, not the assessment. If the Secretary of State makes the tests a pilot for this year, he will find that he has everyone behind him.
    Mr. Patten: Oh dear, oh dear. That just shows that there are differences between teacher unions and associations —which is perfectly reasonable as they are free agents. It also shows that there are considerable differences and confusions among Labour party members, who cannot give a straight answer. The straightest possible advice has been given by Sir Ron Dearing, not only in his report but in a number of recent statements. He has said—referring directly to the NUT, which he has named—that national testing should go ahead this summer. If it did not, that would be a terrible slap in the face for him.

    Technology College Status
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have now expressed an interest in obtaining technology college status.
    Mr. Patten: There has been a very encouraging level of interest from schools and businesses. More than 200 schools have made inquiries to my Department or the City Technology College Trust on the technology college initiative.
    Mr. Mans: Bearing in mind the particular need of industry in my part of Lancashire for training in technology, science and maths, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give special consideration and support to St. Aidan's school in my constituency if it decides to apply for technology college status?
    Mr. Patten: Two hundred schools have already shown an interest in acquiring such status. We will certainly
    734
    consider any application from the school in my hon. Friend's constituency, but it had better get a move on: there is a pretty long queue.
    Mr. O'Hara: Does the Secretary of State recall that when the programme for the establishment of city technology colleges was first conceived in the late 1980s, two principal claims were made for them—that they would attract sponsorship from private industry and that they would become beacons of excellence in the system? As the House well knows, the first claim quickly foundered and the taxi meter has been working overtime ever since. Tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money was put into the city technology colleges. Moreover, according to the latest Ofsted report, not a single college has established itself as a beacon of excellence. Is not it time for the Secretary of State to apologise for squandering taxpayers' money, which could have been better spent on meeting the wider needs of the education service, on a misguided experiment?
    Mr. Patten: Technology is vital. We have 15 excellent city technology colleges. Has the hon. Gentleman ever visited one of them? Unfortunately not, I think. I should very much like to take him along to one. We are attempting, in co-operation with business and industry and with a large number of schools, to ensure that the good practice of the city technology colleges is more widely disseminated. I hope that, when money allows, this idea will be extended to schools specialising in languages, schools specialising in business and—who knows?—schools specialising in the performing arts, one of which might be named after my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).

    Student Unions
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received concerning the proposed changes to student unions.
    Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend has received about 1,300 representations since the Education Bill was introduced.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that thousands of students wish to have the freedom to decide for themselves whether to belong to a student union? Does not this contrast with the complacency and—dare I say it? —the arrogance of some vice-chancellors, some peers and several Opposition Members, who think that the principle of voluntary membership is not important? Will my hon. Friend improve the Education Bill by making it spell out the voluntary principle more clearly so that we may abolish the student union closed shop once and for all?
    Mr. Boswell: The House may have noticed, in relation to an answer that I gave a moment ago, that the number of representations on this matter is running marginally ahead of the number of those concerning student support. One of the interesting representations is that of my hon. Friend. I can confirm that we are determined, through our Bill, to secure the principles of choice, democracy and accountability and to ensure that these are universally observed in the activities of student unions. That we shall do.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Has the Minister considered the representations from organisations such as Student Community Action in my constituency of Cambridge, which does an enormous amount of good work in the community? Does not he think that, in their educational experience, students derive enormous advantage from helping such charities? Or does he care?
    Mr. Boswell: As one of the Members of Parliament who have been active in student affairs in the past, I can confirm that our intention is not to frustrate student services or the proper carrying out of student activities. What I regret is the way in which a number of people, whether by accident or by intention, have caricatured our proposals, suggesting that they may, in some way, curtail those activities. We are providing a mechanism for the proper control of public funds. It will be open to institutions to fund activities.
    Dr. Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents who are taxpayers do not want to see their money spent by student unions on politically motivated campaigns? Does he agree that Labour Members are unelectable as a Government while they think that taxpayers' money should so be so used?
    Mr. Boswell: Yes; my hon. Friend holes in one.

    School Buildings
    Mr. Litherland: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he last met the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss the state of school buildings.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, met representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 20 July 1993 to discuss a number of issues, including the state of school buildings. Ministers and officials continue to meet representatives of the local authority associations on a regular basis.
    Mr. Litherland: The Minister will be aware that local education authorities wanted to spend £1·5 billion on a three-year programme just to bring schools up to an acceptable standard. As large authorities such as Manchester want to spend—or need to spend—£1 billion over 10 years, does he agree that the situation is not only deplorable but potentially dangerous? Is not he ashamed of the Government's attitude to the well-being of our teachers and children?
    Mr. Forth: I can confirm that most local authorities seem to want to spend more money most of the time, but that is nothing very new. The hon. Gentleman and the House should be aware that the National Audit Office report of 1991 said that many schools were in an acceptable or better state of decoration and repair and that schools were safe places in which to learn and work. It estimated that some £2 billion, at 1990 prices, was required to put schools to rights. I can confirm that £2 billion of capital expenditure was spent between 1986–87 and 1989–90 and that about the same amount again will be spent over current years. Efficient authorities can ensure that their schools are fit places in which to be taught, and I hope that they will all do so.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Gillan: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mrs. Gillan: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the combination of BMW and Rover, creating the largest specialist car manufacturer in the world, is good news for Rover, for its work force and for the United Kingdom? Given the demand for Rover cars around the world, especially for the Land-Rover, does he agree that this is a far cry from the days when Rover was a state-run bankrupt shambles, producing cars that nobody wanted to buy?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the new arrangements will provide new export markets and more investment for Rover. BMW will be able to offer Rover access to new markets—for example, in Germany and the United States, where the Rover network is weak. With a world-beating product and that link, the prospects for Rover are excellent.
    Mr. John Smith: In the light of that answer, is it now the Government's definition of success for a British company that it is taken over by a foreign competitor?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should catch up with the modern world. He simply does not understand how free markets work. Only a few weeks ago, he welcomed the Government's achievement in working for a successful conclusion to the GATT round. GATT stands for free trade. That means companies trading and buying across national boundaries. He may know that Marks and Spencer owns Brooks Brothers in the United States; Grand Metropolitan owns Jack Daniels; John Swire owns Cathay Pacific; and Hanson, GEC and Racal own foreign companies. That is the world in which we live, not the 1960s, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman covets.
    Mr. John Smith: I deduce, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. If hon. Members wish to make interventions, perhaps they will resume their seats in the normal manner.
    Mr. John Smith: I deduce from that rambling and defensive answer that the right hon. Gentleman believes that a takeover is a sign of success. Why does he think that that view is not held in Germany, France and Italy, which care about keeping their own car industries?
    The Prime Minister: I deduce from that pre-prepared second question—[Interruption.]—that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not listen to the answer. Is he suggesting—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—does not like the fact that we know that he usually has all three of his questions written out, but is he suggesting that some form of protectionism is correct? Is he suggesting that we should have intervened to stop the sale? Is he suggesting that the ramshackle British Leyland that went into the private sector would have been the successful Rover that it is today but for that privatisation?
    Mr. John Smith: Is not the truth that the deal has been done not to further the long-term interests of the British car industry but to satisfy the short-term need of British Aerospace for cash? Is that a good reason for losing our only independent car producer? Did the Prime Minister know of the deal when he told business men in Leeds that he was "betting on Britain"?
    The Prime Minister: I was unfair on the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He should have stuck to his written question, which undoubtedly would have been a good deal better. BMW spent £800 million on Rover because it sees the potential for growth and prosperity. That would never have occurred if the right hon. Gentleman's policy had kept Rover in the public sector. We would have had the drip, drip, drip feed of public expenditure maintaining British Leyland, not a privatised, world-beating company.

    European Council
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the level of public borrowing by member states and institutions of the European Union.
    The Prime Minister: The member states of the European Union have already recognised the need to avoid excessive budget deficits. That objective was included in the broad guidelines on economic policy adopted by the Economic and Finance Council last December.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Prime Minister showed great courage in facing up to the unpopular task of resolving our national finances, will he, in the light of the recently published figures, seek to persuade his continental partners and the EC institutions to follow Britain's splendid example of controlling borrowing instead of following the spendthrift policies promoted by Mr. Jacques Delors and the British Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly seek to do as my hon. Friend suggests. We have taken tough decisions domestically about public expenditure. I believe that those are the right decisions for the British economy. At Edinburgh, we took a step towards controlling Community expenditure. I welcome that step, which means tighter restraint and control. In answer to one part of my hon. Friend's question, I am not sure whether I shall be able to persuade the Labour party. Last year, it called for a European recovery fund costing £77 billion, a public expenditure commitment which seems to have escaped the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Prime Minister recall that on 29 November the House, by a rather arcane procedure, approved the establishment of a European investment fund, and that while that was under the auspices of the European
    738
    investment bank, the people responsible for providing guarantees of £2,000 million for private and public purposes had positions of great patronage? In what way are those people responsible to the Government and to the House?
    The Prime Minister: Part of the funding to which the hon. Gentleman refers was funding that has for a long time been in the European Community budget. Those people are answerable through the Commission to the European Council and hence to this and other Governments.

    Engagements
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the initiative of the Secretary of State for Education, who has today announced measures to combat truancy? Does he further agree that the main responsibility for ensuring that children attend school lies not with teachers but with parents?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. Truancy is a terrible problem in schools and one which needs increasingly to be tackled with the head teachers and with the staff in the schools. All too often, the child who is found loitering on the street subsequently gets into trouble with the law. That is a problem which we need to tackle, Government and schools together, and we are determined to do so. That is one of the reasons for publishing performance tables, which help to reveal the size of the problem. It is a pity, to put it mildly, that the Opposition talk about the problem but argue against one way of dealing with it.
    Mr. Ashdown: It is now some three weeks since the Prime Minister told us of his personal determination to open Tuzla airport—"as soon as possible", in his words —for humanitarian aid to Bosnia. Is he able to tell us what steps he has taken to fulfil that commitment, and in what time frame we might expect it to happen?
    The Prime Minister: I also told the right hon. Gentleman that we would take the advice of the commanders on the ground. That is most certainly what we will do and the right hon. Gentleman will learn what is happening when we have had that advice and when we have taken the action that is appropriate.
    Sir Ralph Howell: May I remind my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of the excellent and far-sighted speech that he made a year ago—[Interruption.]—at the Carlton club—[Interruption.]—in which he suggested that the unemployed might be offered work or even required to work? May I thank him for setting up the North Norfolk action pilot scheme, which has proved a great success and is already saving £1,500 a year per person engaged in it? If that scheme were introduced throughout the country, would not it save £4 billion? Could I ask him—[Interruption.]—if he will now sanction the Fakenham right-to-work pilot scheme which, if operated throughout the country, would save at least £13 billion?
    The Prime Minister: As far as I could hear, my hon. Friend was welcoming the pilot schemes that were set up some time ago to help unemployed people. We are evaluating those schemes; they are showing signs of being successful. We shall examine them and decide to what extent they may be extended.
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Etherington: The Prime Minister will undoubtedly be only too well aware of the fact that only one in four crimes is being solved. Instead of following a path of retribution and vengeance, will he now consider crime prevention and the causes of crime? Instead of forever telling the House about rising crime trends in other countries, will he now do something for the citizens of this country, whom he purports to represent?
    The Prime Minister: We spend a great deal of time, trouble and effort on crime prevention, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I also believe in the principle of punishment for crime when people are caught. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed the remarkable success of the Metropolitan police in dealing with burglary. Operation Bumblebee has cut burglary in recent months by around 15 per cent. That is but one illustration of a series of innovative policing efforts, which are increasingly successful, by chief constables.
    Mr. Lidingiton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the protestations of Mr. Gerry Adams about his
    740
    commitment to peace should be taken seriously only when he has been able to announce that the IRA will cease its violence for good?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Neither Mr. Adams nor the Provisional IRA has given a commitment to end violence for good—a commitment which the House and everybody in the country and Ireland is waiting to hear. We should be clear about that central point. The joint declaration leaves no conceivable excuse for violence. All the words, all the prevarications and all the evasions of Sinn Fein will be utterly and completely hollow until they end violence.
    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mandelson: Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep anxiety among parents and local communities in coastal areas as far apart as Scotland, the north-east, the Isle of Wight and Cornwall about clusters of babies born with almost identical limb defects, in most cases without hands? Is not the best way to get to the truth of that disturbing development to set up a properly resourced, national investigation? Will he therefore ask the Secretary of State for Health to establish such a study without further delay?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly seek advice from my right hon. Friend about the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. Whether his proposition of how it should be dealt with is the right one needs further consideration. Clearly, it is a matter of concern, not only to the communities that he mentioned, but to others.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan>: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I raise the question of the refusal last night of the authorities of the House to accept my early day motion because it included the word "shifty" with respect to the conduct of the Secretary of State for Wales? He first denied and then did not deny that he was aware of the affiliation to the Conservative party of David Rowe-Beddoe, whom he appointed as chairman of the Welsh Development Agency. I was told that I could not use the word "shifty" in that respect. That is why early-day motion 486 on page 1686 of today's Order Paper does not have the word "shifty" in it.
Your ruling yesterday, as reported in column 631 of Hansard, deemed that it was in order to use the word "shifty" as long as it did not personally attack the person concerned. However, the word used by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) did concern the conduct of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), as appears from column 605 of Hansard of social security questions yesterday. That raises the difficulty—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Would hon. Gentlemen resume their seats? An hon. Gentleman is attempting to address the Chair.
Mr. Morgan: If it was in order for the hon. Member for Bury, North to use the word "shifty" with respect to my hon. Friend in social security questions, what is shifty for the goose must be shifty for the gander.
Mr. Donald Dewar>: I do not want to enter into the wider debate, but, on the point that was made by the hon. Member for Bury, North, I have had a word with the hon. Gentleman about the specific words that he used in connection with me. May I assure the hon. Gentleman that I bear no ill will? He would be low on my list of hon. Members who were likely to slip into indiscretion and unparliamentary language.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I am happy to withdraw the expression. I wrote to the hon. Member for Garscadden immediately after questions to give the proper construction of the remarks. The hon. Gentleman is not shifty. We have the warmest possible relationship—[Interruption.] Madam Speaker, there are times when one wishes the ground to open up. We have a good relationship, in the proper sense of the term, and I am happy to withdraw the expression and the connotation that it had, if that is of help to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. It is my turn, so that I may put the matter to rest. When the matter was raised yesterday, I said that I thought that the Under-Secretary of State had attributed the word "shifty" to the policies of the hon. Member for Garscadden rather than to him personally. On reading the Official Report this morning, I found that in fact the hon. Gentleman had attributed it to the hon.
742
Member for Garscadden personally. That was unparliamentary and unacceptable. Had I not misheard the remark at the time, I would have required the Minister to withdraw it.
The matter has now been put right. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), as I am to other hon. Members who have raised the matter. It has now been put to rest.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: No.
Madam Speaker: Very good.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can you inform the House whether you have yet received an intimation from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that he wishes to make a personal statement to the House on whether Westminster City council ratepayers can have the £50,000 that was conned out of the rates account returned to them?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not in order to refer to another hon. Member in that way. If he has a substantive motion, he should table it in the normal way.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order may be of wider interest than just to me. The other day the Table Office told me that the ministerial duties of the Leader of the House did not include responsibility for the parliamentary timetable. That came as something of a surprise to me. When I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, he too expressed surprise. As he said, he feels that he is quite busy. Could you elucidate the point for us all, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker: There may have been some misunderstanding. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is referring to rules for Adjournment debates. If he is not, I do not want to have a discussion across the Floor of the House now. I shall look at precisely what he means and will give him a ruling on the matter.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Five minutes ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) was informed that the Leader of the House intends to move a privilege motion that concerns me. Is not it normal practice, when a privilege motion concerns an hon. Member, for reasonable notice to be given so that hon. Members are available on the relevant day, if they so wish? Despite an explicit request to the Government some two hours ago, no notice was given. In that case, would not it be preferable for the motion to be stood over until tomorrow's sitting?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that a motion is about to be moved; that is perfectly in order. I have looked at the precedents and this is exactly the procedure that the House always adopts on such occasions. I call the Chairman of the Committee.

Hon. Member for Banff and Buchan
3.37 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: It is with the greatest regret that I have to inform the House that at its meeting this morning, the First Scottish Standing Committee, to which the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill was referred, directed me to report Mr. Alex Salrnond, the Member for Banff and Buchan, to the House because the hon. Member, not being a member of the Committee, was present in that part of the Committee Room reserved for members of the Committee, and, having been requested to do so, he declined to withdraw. As the House will know, neither a Standing Committee nor its Chairman has power to discipline Members and it is for the House to decide what action, if any, it wishes to take.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Chairman of the First Scottish Standing Committee in respect of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill shall have power to order any Member who is not a member of the Committee to withdraw immediately from the Committee Room; and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chairman in pursuance of this order.—[Mr. Newton.]
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that the motion is debatable? If so, may I give notice that I would like to debate it?
Madam Speaker: The motion is now open for debate. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly free to speak. I call the hon. Gentleman.
3.38 pm
Mr. Salmond: The point at issue is whether the Chairman of the Committee should be given power to exclude hon. Members from the Committee. My argument is that we should not give the Chairman that power. There is a substantial case for saying that the First Scottish Standing Committee, which is considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, is improperly constituted under the Standing Orders of the House. Under Standing Order No. 86(2), the Committee of Selection of the House of Commons is charged to do two things with regard to the choice of hon. Members to serve on Standing Committees. It is charged with looking at the composition of the House as a whole, and the qualifications of the hon. Members chosen.
My submission is that the qualifications of members of that Committee are substantially in question. I refer to the qualifications of the hon. Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). The Committee has been certified by you, Madam Speaker, as being exclusively concerned with Scottish issues. How on earth can Conservative Members representing English constituencies be considered to be "qualified" to serve on the Committee when they have no constituency interest in the proceedings of the legislation? That is an important point of principle for myself and for my hon. Friends, who were willing to serve on the Committee but were not chosen.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall give way to him in a few moments.
The House might like to consider that the Committee of Selection had available to it other Conservative Members with Scottish constituencies. They were the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—the Minister of State, Department of Employment—the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—the Secretary of State for Defence—and even the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) was perfectly prepared to serve but was not chosen, apparently because the Government Whips believed that he would have been an unreliable ally on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.
In those circumstances, I cannot consider that it would be appropriate to give the Chairman powers over a Committee that may have been improperly constituted.
Mr. Connarty: How many Standing Committees has the hon. Gentleman volunteered to serve on or served on in the House since he came here?
Mr. Salmond: The previous occasion when there was a major Scottish Committee was in 1989. It was the Committee on Scottish self-governing schools. The hon. Gentleman may recall that again I volunteered to serve on that Committee and was excluded. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will appreciate the important principle that, if a Committee is certified by Madam Speaker as being exclusive to Scotland, it is important that Scottish Members have first option to serve on such a Committee.
I see Welsh Members in the Chamber.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On the issue of legislation dealing exclusively with Welsh matters, is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a Standing Order that requires every hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency to serve on the Committee? That Standing Order has to be followed unless there is an express resolution to the contrary. When the Standing Order was put on one side for the Welsh Language Bill 1993, that action was fought vociferously by all Opposition Members. Should not the rule applying to legislation on Welsh matters also apply to Scottish legislation?
Mr. Salmond: I agree with that argument and with the Standing Order. The hon. Gentleman and I wish that other Opposition parties would view the matters relating to Scotland with the same concern as they view matters relating to Wales.
There are two effective and important precedents for such a resolution being brought to the House. The first was in 1989 during the passage of Scottish schools legislation. It was argued that the Chairman of the Committee should have powers to proceed. Two arguments were advanced in favour of that motion: first, that it would be proper for the Committee to be allowed to debate, for the debate to proceed and for each amendment to be judged on its merits; secondly, that people in Scotland had the right and ability not to use the schools opt-out legislation if they so chose. Neither of those arguments stands in the case before us.
If we consider the precedent set during the self-governing schools legislation, in Committee no substantive amendment was accepted by the Government,

745
although debate was allowed to proceed. I suspect that, if debate is allowed to proceed in the Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, a similar situation will arise. There would be no protection for people in Scotland if the House give the Government their way on the Committee.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the House were to accept the principle that he has adumbrated, it would inevitably mean that any Bill dealing with England alone should not have on its Standing Committee a single Scottish or Welsh Member?
Mr. Salmond: I am prepared to accept that principle. The hon. Member will note that my hon. Friends do not vote on specifically English legislation, the most recent example of which was the Bill for Sunday shops opening. I thought that it was not appropriate for Scottish Members to decide for English Members whether shops in England should open on Sundays. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would extend the same courtesy to us in Scotland. In terms of the principle—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Salmond: In a few moments.
As for the principle that he raised, the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) may like to remember that in connection with the White Paper, "Taking Stock" the Tory Government argued that many more measures should be debated in the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland by Scottish Members. How on earth can that principle be upheld if English Tories are required to gerrymander Scottish local government on a Scottish Standing Committee?
Mr. Brian Wilson>: In view of the Scottish National party's declared anti-racist stand, I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) does not seek to drive irrational wedges between Scottish and English Members in the Chamber. Would he therefore care to pay tribute to the Opposition Members representing English constituencies who last night argued the case on behalf of important sections of the Scottish community with regard to the new duty on air passengers? In that lengthy debate no representative of the Scottish National party sought to speak, nor was even present from beginning to end of it. Some good may conceivably come from that debate for Scottish communities, so will the hon. Gentleman please accept that there are hon. Members representing non-Scottish constituencies who have a deep and genuine interest in Scottish affairs? Whether that extends to Conservative Members, especially on the Bill in question, is another matter, but let us not divide the House or the country on racist lines. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is being heartily cheered by the Tories. I should have hoped that on this occasion even the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is not right and proper for English Conservative Members to be parachuted on to the Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. I remember that exact point being made—presumably it was not racist then—by the leader of the Labour party in the first debate in the new Session of
746
Parliament. He said that it would be an outrage if English Conservative Members were put on the Committee on the Bills on local government in Wales or Scotland. If that was an outrage last October, it is still an outrage now. I would have hoped for some support from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), but perhaps I should have known better.
The first precedent dates from 1972, on the Local Government (Scotland Bill). That was the first time that a similar resolution was brought before the House, and it provides an important precedent. The action was taken by several hon. Members, three Liberals and three Scottish Labour Members—the late Jo Grimond, the late John Mackintosh, the late John Robertson, the late Tom Pendry and two Members who are still with us, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). In 1972 those people thought it appropriate, on a Bill far less contentious than the Bill now before the Committee, to challenge the right of the Committee Chairman to exclude them from the Committee. There were then no English Conservative Members on the Committee, but it was still considered appropriate for those Liberal and Labour Members to challenge in what they thought was the most effective way. I wish that Labour and Liberal Members would join us today in making a similar objection.
Mr. Barry Porter>: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman appears to be making a case why he should be on the Committee. That case may or may not have virtue, but the motion before the House relates to whether a Chairman has the right to tell a non-member of the Committee to go away. The hon. Gentleman is not arguing that point at all. May we return to where we are supposed to be?
Madam Speaker: I am listening carefully to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who is a very experienced Member of the House. I know that he understands what the motion is about, and I am sure he will ensure that his speech relates to it.
Mr. Salmond: Of course you, Madam Speaker, with your experience, will have noticed that I am talking about the precedents, when hon. Members came before similar Committees and similar resolutions were moved. That must be relevant to the context of the debate. In determining whether the Chairman should have powers—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am slightly concerned, because I understood the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to describe the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) as the late Member. Was I right to be surprised, or has something happened to him?
Mr. Salmond: I meant to refer to a late Labour Member whose constituency was Edinburgh, Central, I believe—[HON. MEMBERS: Tom Oswald."] Tom Oswald. I accept that correction, but it is the only correction that I intend to accept from Conservative Members.
In determining whether the Chairman should have powers, we must determine whether the Bill should proceed in the light of the arguments put forward. I have no doubt that if the motion is successful, it will enable progress to be made on the Bill. I also have no doubt that

747
progress on this Bill will be against the interests of the Scottish people and my constituents in Banff and Buchan. In Banff and Buchan, 92 per cent. of the people are opposed to the legislation. I cannot conceive of a situation where the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman)—he is keen on water privatisation—can have more knowledge than me about the views of my constituents. I would question whether the hon. Gentleman knows the difference between Peterhead and Portsoy.
Surely, when the Standing Orders of the House provide for exclusively Scottish legislation, hon. Members on both sides of the House should have the charity and understanding to allow exclusively Scottish matters to be debated exclusively by Scottish Members. We have a precedent in terms of the public Bill on legislation for Wales. It would be better if that precedent were followed in Scotland.
Some hon. Members will argue that the Chairman should have powers, otherwise the Government may move a guillotine. After yesterday's experience of five and a half hours' debate and the Government moving towards a guillotine, I thought that all hon. Members would realise that when the Government wish to move a guillotine, they will do so. The most effective way for Scottish Members and, indeed, Opposition Members to register their protest is to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the Standing Orders to deny the Chairman of the Committee powers which are otherwise restricted to Madam Speaker to order hon. Members off a Committee.
The key matter is the rights of Scottish Members as well as those of the Committee Chairman. If Scottish Members must accept the position where we are excluded from a Scottish Standing Committee so that five English Tory Members can be parachuted on it, not because of any qualifications that they may have in terms of the Standing Orders but as voting and Lobby fodder for the Tory Whips, surely we deny our own right as hon. Members to make our case against the gerrymandering of Scottish local government and against the pursuit of putting Scottish water into the private sector.
There is a specific Scottish interest which is recognised in the Standing Orders of the House. In arguing against this motion, I am doing no more than arguing that our Standing Orders should be respected with regard to Scottish legislation. It is possible for hon. Members who are opposed to the Bill to disagree on the specific tactics and to believe that the Chairman of the Committee should have powers. However, if it is not the place of Scottish Members to object to such an obvious injustice, what is our place in the House? What alternative do we have, knowing the make-up of the Committee?
Mr. Eric Clarke: Did the hon. Gentleman or anyone else in his party ask to be a member of the Committee debating the privatisation of the coal industry? If not, why not? The Scottish coal industry should be looked after by the people of Scotland. It is just as important as anything else.
Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman looks, he will see that the Liberal Democrats took the minority-party place on that Committee. Given that my hon. Friends and I put our names forward for the Scottish Standing Committee which we are discussing at present, I ask the hon.
748
Gentleman to consider that it would be difficult for us simultaneously to nominate ourselves for another Committee.
Now that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to consider the precedents and the objections that were raised by Labour Members in 1972, I thought that he would join us in arguing against the principle and practice of parachuting English Tory Members on the Committee. The hon. Gentleman has a substantial interest in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. Midlothian is one of the key issues before the Committee. How on earth can the hon. Gentleman accept the Midlothian boundaries being determined not by him, but by hon. Members representing Blackpool, Stroud and Leeds? The complexion of the Committee looks like the English football league, as opposed to a Scottish local government Committee.
The question is whether the Committee Chairman should have powers, and I say that he should not. Otherwise, Scottish hon. Members will find that the Bill and the Committee will be gerrymandered from under their feet. There is no other way to organise opposition to the Committee.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is in his place. He has argued, I take it in all sincerity, that it is possible to persuade English Conservative hon. Members to rebel and to sacrifice their political careers to save Scottish local democracy. Is it likely that those five English Conservative Members who were chosen by the Whips will go on the Committee and rebel to save Scottish local government? I think that is highly implausible.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the question of parachuting hon. Members, could it be clarified whether a parachute was applied for by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn)? When the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman was mentioned and it was suggested that the Minister did not want him to be a member of the Committee, there was a great shaking of the head from the Minister. Will the Minister now say what the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, because the Minister violently shook his head when the matter was raised? Could it be clarified whether the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to be a Committee member or not?
Mr. Salmond rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The House is moving quite a long way from what is a narrow motion. Will the hon. Gentleman who now has the Floor relate his speech more closely to the motion which is before the House and on which the House must make a decision?
Mr. Salmond: The question raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is pertinent, and perhaps he will have a chance to ask it at a later stage.
The motion, as you rightly say, Madam Speaker, concerns the question whether the Committee Chairman should have powers. My argument is that he should not.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: As the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, perhaps I may say something? I do not think that anybody on the Committee of Selection could forget the differences and the arguments which we had about the legislation. It was debatable whether the Government should have a majority of two or one, and in the end the Government have a majority of one.

749
One of the hon. Gentleman's party colleagues wrote to me to suggest that all three Scottish National party Members should be on the Committee. I am afraid that I have not come across any Standing Committee that has the whole of one party's parliamentary representation serving on it.
The ratio for Committees is that the minority parties should have two Committee members. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the spokesman for the minority parties, took that point on board and there is one member from the Liberal Democrat party and one from the SNP. As a reflection of those parties' numbers in the House, I would have thought that that was fair.
The hon. Gentleman said that he kept out of English matters, but I am afraid that all Scottish hon. Members do not. On a previous occasion on which the vexed question of Sunday trading was discussed, the legislation was defeated by the votes of Scottish hon. Members who denied my constituents their rights.
Mr. Salmond: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not making that point against me, as I did not vote on that legislation.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to Standing Order 86(2), which gives the Committee its guidance from the House. He will note that the first requirement placed on the Committee concerns not its composition, but the "qualifications" of Members. That is the first requirement which the House makes in the Standing Order.
My point is a simple one, but the hon. Gentleman did not answer it in his intervention: how on earth can English Conservatives hon. Members be qualified when there are even Scottish Conservatives whom he has not selected for the Committee?
Sir Fergus Montgomery: The Standing Orders say specifically that there must be at least 16 Committee members who represent Scottish constituencies, and that has happened with the Bill with which we are concerned.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman again fails to answer my question. What are the qualifications under the Standing Orders for the five English Conservative hon. Members? Incidentally, those five did not even turn up for the Second Reading debate. It is normally a prior requirement of the Committee of Selection that hon. Members should show an interest in the legislation.
Finally, Madam Speaker—
Dr. Norman A. Godman: One of the hon. Gentleman's fears seems to be the threat of the guillotine hanging over the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. May I give him some guidance? At a meeting in Edinburgh about two months ago, the parliamentary—
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. Member, but we are moving a long way from the subject with talk of whether there is to be a guillotine or whether there is not. The motion is narrow and concerns whether the Chairman should have the power to order an hon. Member who is not a member of the Committee to withdraw from the Committee Room. It is as narrow as that.
Mr. Salmond: I hope that you will accept, Madam Speaker, that, although I may have allowed—
Dr. Godman rose—
Mr. Salmond: Is it a point of order?
Madam Speaker: Or a point of frustration.
Dr. Godman: I am never frustrated with you, Madam Speaker, or with your pulling me into line. I was simply attempting to illustrate something for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I hope that I have your support for doing so.
Madam Speaker: When hon. Members give illustrations, they move a long way from the motion before us. I also have to take into account the business before the House today. I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will come to his conclusion, as I believe he said he would.
Mr. Salmond: I hope that you agree, Madam Speaker, that I have been sticking as closely as I can to the substance of the motion.
Madam Speaker: I agree. The hon. Gentleman has been doing so. Other Members have led him astray.
Mr. Salmond: Perhaps by giving way I have allowed myself to be diverted occasionally.
I want to come to the point of the resolution and to say why the Chairman of the Committee should not be given powers. The only effective way in which Scottish Members can protest against the Committee is by doing what I have done. It is not feasible to find another way to protect Scottish local democracy.
In support of that argument, let me cite the anonymous comments of a Labour Member in the Scotland on Sunday newspaper a week past Sunday. In reaction to the hon. Member for Hamilton, who believes that English Conservative Members on the Committee could be converted, that Labour Member said:
"Everyone knows that that is not going to happen, but he"—
the hon. Member for Hamilton—
"has raised expectations now and it is too late to water them down."
It is too late to water them down and it is the duty of Scottish Members to oppose the resolution and to ensure that they are seen not to accept the right of English Conservatives to gerrymander Scottish local government and to begin the privatisation of the Scottish water industry.
4.2 pm
Mr. George Robertson: I very much regret that we are having to have this debate and to devote valuable time to the antics of the Scottish National party when local government reorganisation and what the Government are doing to the water industry should be debated by the House and the Government's policies thus exposed.
This self-indulgent stunt today by the nationalists is a spectacular own goal for them and a huge bonus for a Government who are in deep and probably terminal trouble. Once again, just as they did last year when they voted with the Tories on the European Committee of the Regions, the Scottish nationalists have come to the Government's aid.

751
The Government do not need much of an excuse for introducing a guillotine and cutting sensible and reasonable debate in the House on any subject, including the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill—just look at what they are going to do to the Finance Bill this afternoon. At the instigation of the Scottish nationalists, we are having to debate this motion in place of discussions and possibly a vote on value added tax on fuel in the Finance Bill Committee.
Handing the Government, on a plate, the invaluable excuse of a wholly unnecessary delay in the Committee stage today was an act of pure tactical stupidity and political suicide by the Scottish National party. It seems that there is one iron law in Scottish politics—when the Government are in a hole, send for the nationalist firemen to bring them a ladder, and here they come.
I have a sense of déjà vu on this. Last year's Maastricht debate comes back to haunt me. Just before the debate on the Committee of the Regions, I stood in front of the Mace watching three Scottish nationalists wait until the Chamber drained of other Members. They were preparing to enter the Lobby with the Conservatives to defeat a Labour amendment that would have made it obligatory for the Government—
Madam Speaker: Order. That bears no relation whatever to the motion before us. I ask the hon. Gentleman, as I have asked other Back-Bench Members, to debate the motion.
Mr. Robertson: I appreciate your advice, Madam Speaker, and assure you that last year's betrayal of the Scottish people is relevant to the motion.
Madam Speaker: Order. It is my responsibility to determine the relevance of what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the motion before the House.
Mr. Robertson: In relation to the motion, as you rightly and properly direct me, Madam Speaker, Committee Chairmen have the power to exclude Members who are not Committee members. I support the motion and shall ask my hon. Friends to support it and give my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) that power, for the reasons that I am explaining.
Last year the nationalists, who instigated the move this morning and caused this debate, conspired to support the Government on the European Committee of the Regions. They are now conspiring again to get the butchery of Scottish local government through on time.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has just said that he will go through the Conservative Lobby in a few moments. Will he recall when he did exactly the same thing in the early hours of the morning of 22 April, when he arid his Labour Front Bench colleagues saved the Prime Minister's bacon on the referendum clause in the Maastricht Bill—
Madam Speaker: Order. These interventions are becoming irrelevancies.
Mr. Robertson: Not only irrelevant, but a complete diversion from a conspiracy which the nationalists conducted with the Government last year to defeat a Labour amendment.
The Bill on which the Committee is deliberating is bad for local government, local democracy and taxpayers in Scotland—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have already called the hon. Gentleman to order. We are concerned not about the Bill but about the fact that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) sought to sit on a Committee without the right to do so, and about the action of the Chairman of that Committee.
Mr. Robertson: It is important for that Committee to go ahead with its proceedings so that those matters can be considered. To do so requires the Committee Chairman to have those powers. I am expIaining why those powers are necessary and why the arguments deployed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) are irrelevant to the case and to the powers requested by the Chairman.
The nature of this bad Bill necessitates my argument that the Committee Chairman should have those powers. It is four Bills in one: on local government; on water quangoisation; on children's hearings; and on tourism reorganisation.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall give way in a moment.
Even if the Committee Chairman gets the powers which I hope the House will give him this afternoon, and even if we make brisk and proper progress in scrutinising the Bill, the Government know that there can be no justification for curtailing the Committee stage before May this year at the earliest. They know that it would be irresponsible and outrageous to guillotine the debates on water, children's hearings and the promotion of tourism, which is precisely why Opposition parties got together to maximise opposition against the Government on the Bill.
In giving the Chairman the power that he asks for, bearing in mind the arguments deployed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan about why he should be on the Committee, it is important to remember how we have reached this stage. There was an agreement between the parties. The Opposition parties met and, because we were all united against the Bill, it was agreed that there would be an informal degree of co-operation among the Opposition parties in the Standing Committee considering the Bill.
We agreed to meet every Monday; we agreed that we would consider joint amendments and join forces on those parts of the Bill which we all agreed were against the interests of Scotland and its people. We discussed tactics for three weeks. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) even congratulated Labour on the Government's self-inflicted delay, which was caused by the principled stand of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on the composition of the Committee.
However, last night the hon. Member for Angus, East did not make it to the joint committee; he did not come along because he was away conspiring with his leader, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, about how this year again they could do the Government's dirty work and get out of the political silage pit.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: If I understood him correctly, the hon. Gentleman said that I was away conspiring with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond); but I did not meet my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan yesterday. That statement is therefore about as accurate as the rest of the

753
hon. Gentleman's speech. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that such co-operation cannot exist? I have met him on those occasions and he knows that I sent my apologies to the meeting last night. I suggest that he would do better to concentrate his fire power on the Government. [Interruption.] The noise from the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends suggests that he withdraws all possible co-operation. Perhaps that was his master plan at the beginning.
Mr. Robertson: That is one of the feeblest excuses for not turning up to a meeting which was designed to maximise the discomfort of the Government but ended up with the Government having the huge comfort of a debate this afternoon that will delay the guillotine on the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill.
Scottish National party Members were not around for the meeting that we had in Committee, nor for our meeting here. Nor were they here for the debate on the imposition of tax on air fares to parts of Scotland where people are crying out about it.
On behalf of his party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan says that the disruption this morning was caused because he wants to serve on the Committee. The last time the hon. Gentleman served on a Scottish Standing Committee was on 10 November 1987. It was on the Scottish Development Agency Bill, it lasted for one morning session, and the hon. Gentleman did not raise a point of order about the fact that there was an English majority on that Committee.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan says that it is because he wants to delay the Committee stage of the Bill, but the hon. Member for Angus, East did not even know that the motion to report to the House was actually debatable and let it go. He was the only person in the Committee who voted at 10.46 not to adjourn the Committee. Presumably, he wanted to make progress on the Bill and keep it going for even longer.
Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that it is not right and proper to have English Members of Parliament parachuted on to the Committee, but the hon. Member for Angus, East serves on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs which has an inbuilt English Tory majority to make up the numbers.
When the House considered the poll tax Bill, there was no disruption by the then leader of the Scottish National party in Parliament and that point was not raised.
The nationalists say, as does the hon. Gentleman, that this is a brand new tactic, brilliant in its execution, which will not provoke an early guillotine, but it is a carbon copy of the self-indulgent opportunistic stunt that he and his hon. Friends pulled on 14 March 1989 on the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill. They lost a day's consideration in Committee and then the Government introduced a guillotine on the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill.
They say—not here, but outside the House—that they have more procedural tricks to play which are just as brilliant. Frankly, that is good news for the Government but bad news for Scottish local government and Scottish water.
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: I am trying to make progress, Madam Speaker, but the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan keeps jumping up and down.
Mr. Salmond: Before the hon. Gentleman votes with the Conservatives, will he tell the House what progress he is making—according to his forecasts—in persuading English Conservatives to vote with him in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill?
Mr. Robertson: On the night when the hon. Gentleman and his pals voted with the Tory Government, about 26 Tories voted with the Labour party to impose on the Government an obligation to have elected councillors on the Committee of the Regions. I am not making any prophecies as to whether the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) or others will see the benefits of the arguments in the Committee. That is a matter for the Committee. I make one prediction: as the SNP has not ended its co-operation with the Government, and as it has been helpful in the past, by gosh it is almost bound to be helpful in future.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree wholeheartedly that this is a Parliament for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which includes Scotland, and therefore that my English colleagues and I have a perfect right to be on the Committee?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman was helpful during the Maastricht ratification process. Of course this is the United Kingdom Parliament. He has a right to be on the Committee. Nobody questions the right of English Tory Members who are on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, least of all the hon. Member for Angus, East who serves on it with them.
The motion before us is to give the Committee Chairman the power to exclude from its proceedings those who wish to indulge in this morning's stunt, to prevent other people from coming along and giving the Government an excuse or some vestige of respectability for the argument for an early guillotine. The nationalists will say and do anything to excuse their own stupidity. Just as they were rumbled and exposed throughout Scotland last year when they voted with the Tories on Maastricht, they will be exposed again this year. This morning's stunt was counter-productive and designed to get cheap publicity for the Scottish National party, which has always seemed to put its self-indulgence and tactical ineptitude before the real interests of the Scottish people.
The Scottish people want us to delay this bad Bill if we can, to get the verdict on it in the regional elections. They want us to destroy it if possible. That is the principal objective of the Labour party. They want us to change and improve it just in case it goes through on the ludicrously short timetable that the Government have set for it. Kindergarten parliamentary games will simply put advantage in the hands of the Government and we will have nothing to do with them. The nationalists want to divide the Opposition and, it would appear, to make life easy for the Government, as they constantly seem to want and desire. In that case, let them do it alone. But let them be conscious that they will bear the proper contempt of the people of Scotland if they do so. Therefore, I call on my hon. Friends to vote for the motion this afternoon.
4.17 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I believe that the House should support the motion. Everyone knows that, without the powers to remove disruptive Members, the Speaker would not be able to conduct business effectively within the Chamber. That is equally true of the Scottish Standing Committee. If it has those who are determined to cause trouble—we saw evidence of it this morning—the Chairman must have powers so that the Committee can get on with the important business of debating the issues before it. That is the same with the House. We should be getting on with today's business as well.
4.18 pm
Mr. John McAllion: I have listened carefully to the words of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). He said that he took a stand on the matter of principle that English Members in this Parliament should not be allowed to have any role in legislation that relates exclusively to Scotland. He then completely contradicted his principled stand by appealing to Members representing English constituencies, on both sides of the House, to join him in intervening in matters which relate exclusively to the people of Scotland, by denying the Chairman of the Committee the power to exclude Members who are in breach of Standing Orders. He really cannot have it both ways: he cannot tell English Members to stay away from Scottish debates, and then appeal to them to intervene directly in Scottish business to support the arguments that he tried to advance to the Welsh Committee.
I am prepared to accept the principle that hon. Members should be able to halt the proceedings of the House to defend a principle or to highlight an injustice; indeed, when my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) did precisely that during debate on the Housing (Scotland) Bill back in 1987, I supported him. There is, however, a limit to the number of times that such action can be repeated: eventually, other hon. Members will become sick of the constant halting of business, and the hon. Member responsible will begin to discredit hiss own principled position.
That is not just my view; it is the view of Scottish National party Members themselves. Let us consider the way in which exclusively Scottish business has been dealt with over the years. The Standing Committee considering what became the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, for instance, consisted of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and four English Members representing English constituencies—and not a word of objection came from any Scottish National party Member.
It is a contradiction in terms. It seems that English Members cannot intervene in discussion of this Bill, although Scottish National party members did not object to such action on previous occasions. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan did not object to the involvement of English Members in the passage of the Scottish Development Agency Act 1987; the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) considered the Transport (Scotland) Bill—enacted in 1989—along with eight English Members, and uttered not a word of objection.
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend and I both served in Comittee on the Bill to privatise the railways: I hope that
756
we did a reasonable job in defending Scottish interests, along with other interests throughout the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend may recall that a place on that Committee —which was debating a matter of crucial importance to Scotland—was offered to the Scottish National party. The party turned down the offer, with the result that another place was filled by Labour.
Mr. McAllion: That is a fair point.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What is the essential difference between delaying a Bill and the Labour party's current policy of so-called non-cooperation?
Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman must be patient; I shall deal with that point shortly.
It should be understood that the Scottish National party has a long tradition of refusing to serve on Committees. My predecessor as Member for Dundee, East—then chairman of the Scottish National party—turned down the chance to serve on the Scottish Select Committee; and I know that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has served on only one Committee in the six or seven years that he has been in the House.
Recently, the hon. Member for Angus, East was not even present for a vital vote in the Scottish Select Committee, in connection with the investigation of the Peterkin affair. Conservative Members, however, turned up to vote. I cannot use the word "hypocrisy", because it is not parliamentary; but a large dose of something very like hypocrisy is now emanating from the Scottish National party Bench.
When the House last debated a motion of this kind, it concerned the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill, enacted in 1989. Three Scottish National party members were ejected, and the House had to decide whether to give the Chairman power to exclude them.
At the time, the hon. Member for Angus, East expIained why he thought that the Chairman should not be given that power, arguing that it was pointless to table amendments in Scottish Standing Committees, because the Government never accepted them—that the present Government simply could not be trusted. That was in 1989—a couple of years before certain hon. Members tried to make a deal with the Government by agreeing to support their opposition to a Labour amendment to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McAllion: I shall give way in a minute. I have not yet finished with the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has learnt his lesson. He argues that we should oppose this motion as there is no point in Scottish Members tabling amendments to Scottish Bills; yet, in the case of this piece of legislation, there are amendments standing in his name, and no doubt he will argue that they should be supported in Committee.
If there is no point in tabling amendments, why has the hon. Gentleman done exactly that? I have spoken to members of a delegation from Scotland who have had discussions with the hon. Member for Angus, East. Their understanding is that the hon. Gentleman has given them an undertaking that he will support an amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who is a Tory.
Madam Speaker: Order. This is all very interesting, but it is not in order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to look at the terms of the motion before us, I will hand it to him. I hope that he will address his remarks to it.
Mr. McAllion: I am simply trying to deal with arguments that have been put to me by hon. Members who say that the motion should be opposed.
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Angus, East, as he seems to be getting rather agitated.
Mr. Welsh: What is the hon. Gentleman's standing in the Labour party? When he quoted me, he should have quoted also his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who pointed out that the Government simply did not accept amendments. I throw the matter back to the hon. Gentleman and to his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson): which amendments to this Bill do they expect to be accepted? Which English Tories on the Committee does the hon. Gentleman expect to be able to convince about water boards or any other matter except boundaries? Which amendments, and which Tories?
Madam Speaker: Order. I now insist that the motion be debated correctly. Otherwise, I shall have to take steps in the matter.
Mr. McAllion: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has argued that, as a matter of principle, we should oppose this motion. I am arguing that no principle is involved. Where principle is involved, hon. Members must be consistent in its defence. In this case, the Scottish National party has been wholly inconsistent. It is important that hon. Members understand this fact before responding to the appeal of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.
Mr. Connarty: If we were not to give the Chair these powers, we could find ourselves having to deal with such indiscipline in the future. That possible difficulty is in addition to the loss of time today for debate on the Finance Bill. We ought not to lose very important time for discussion of such matters as value added tax on fuel and the Child Support Agency because of the behaviour of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point.
The basic argument of the Scottish National party is that hon. Members who are serious about delaying the implementation of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill ought to continue to disrupt the proceedings. SNP Members believe that they can convince a majority of hon. Members. In essence, that would mean convincing Tories representing English constituencies that they should support moves to defeat the Government. That is clearly impractical: it simply will not happen.
The Bill contains 169 clauses and 14 schedules. It is two and a half times as big as any other Bill relating exclusively to Scotland. The Standing Committee spent 13 days on legislation dealing with housing in Scotland. The number of sittings was 24, and the number of hours spent was between 85 and 86. If the same principles were applied to this legislation, we could look forward to thirty-two and a half days in Committee, 60 sittings and more than 200 hours' debate. During that debate, we could expose the Government for what they are trying to do in Scotland, and seek to have some amendments accepted.
758
It must be remembered that the Government have a Committee majority of only one. They do not want to spend 200 hours knowing that a Division could be called at any moment. They would have to ensure that every Member was present. They are desperate for a guillotine, not only to curtail debate, shorten the timetable and enable them to hit their target of April 1995 for shadow elections to the new councils; but also to ensure that they will know when Divisions will occur, so that they can have their 12 Members present. They are desperate for an excuse for a guillotine on this Bill.
What has the SNP done? It has given the Government their excuse.
Dr. Godman: Two months ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), said in Edinburgh that this Bill would not be guillotined in Committee.
Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but that was before the SNP handed the hon. Member for Eastwood an excuse on a plate.
The Government will now argue: "We cannot possibly deal with the Bill in Committee, because the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and his friends, and anyone who supports them in the Division, are out to wreck the Bill. We therefore need a guillotine and extended powers for the Chair."
It is important that people realise that this did not suddenly happen this morning: it has been months in planning. It was trailed during the Christmas recess, when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan leaked information about what the SNP intended to do to Scottish Sunday newspapers. It was trailed in a press release issued yesterday by the hon. Member for Angus, East.
The SNP is in a desperate political situation. With the Government at an all-time low in Scotland, it cannot make any headway, because the Labour party has seen it off. The SNP's true purpose in opposing the motion is not to get at the Tory Government but to get at the major opposition to the Tory Government in Scotland—the Labour party. It seeks to fool the Scottish people that it is fighting the Bill and we are not, when the opposite is the truth.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) had been cheered to the echo by Tory Members. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was cheered to the echo by Scottish Office Ministers and Conservative members of the Committee this morning.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan asks: what is the alternative? It is very clear—to get rid of the Tory Government and to establish a Scottish Parliament, and the way to do that is to elect a Labour Government.
Mr. Greg Knight rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 41.

Division No. 95]

[4.30 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Arbuthnot, James

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Alexander, Richard

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Ashton, Joe

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Aspinwall, Jack

Allen, Graham

Atkins, Robert

Amess, David

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Ancram, Michael

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

759

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Fishburn, Dudley

Baldry, Tony

Forman, Nigel

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Forth, Eric

Barnes, Harry

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bates, Michael

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Batiste, Spencer

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Bellingham, Henry

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Bendall, Vivian

French, Douglas

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fry, Sir Peter

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gale, Roger

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Gallie, Phil

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gardiner, Sir George

Booth, Hartley

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Boswell, Tim

Gill, Christopher

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gillan, Cheryl

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Godsiff, Roger

Bowis, John

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brandreth, Gyles

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Brazier, Julian

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Bright, Graham

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gunnell, John

Budgen, Nicholas

Hague, William

Burns, Simon

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Burt, Alistair

Hampson, Dr Keith

Butcher, John

Hanley, Jeremy

Butler, Peter

Hannam, Sir John

Butterfill, John

Hanson, David

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Harris, David

Carrington, Matthew

Haselhurst, Alan

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hawkins, Nick

Chapman, Sydney

Hawksley, Warren

Churchill, Mr

Hayes, Jerry

Clappison, James

Heald, Oliver

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hendry, Charles

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hicks, Robert

Coe, Sebastian

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Colvin, Michael

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Congdon, David

Hoey, Kate

Conway, Derek

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Horam, John

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

Couchman, James

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Cox, Tom

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cran, James

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hunter, Andrew

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hutton, John

Day, Stephen

Illsley, Eric

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jack, Michael

Devlin, Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jessel, Toby

Dicks, Terry

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dixon, Don

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Dover, Den

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Duncan, Alan

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Key, Robert

Dunn, Bob

Kilfedder, Sir James

Durant, Sir Anthony

King, Rt Hon Tom

Eggar, Tim

Knapman, Roger

Elletson, Harold

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

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

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Knox, Sir David

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Evennett, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Faber, David

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fabricant, Michael

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

760

Legg, Barry

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lidington, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lightbown, David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Shersby, Michael

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Sims, Roger

Lord, Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Luff, Peter

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Soames, Nicholas

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Speed, Sir Keith

MacKay, Andrew

Spencer, Sir Derek

Maclean, David

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

McNamara, Kevin

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Madel, Sir David

Spink, Dr Robert

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sproat, Iain

Major, Rt Hon John

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Mans, Keith

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Marland, Paul

Steen, Anthony

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Steinberg, Gerry

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stephen, Michael

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Stern, Michael

Mates, Michael

Stewart, Allan

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Merchant, Piers

Streeter, Gary

Milligan, Stephen

Sumberg, David

Mills, Iain

Sweeney, Walter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Sykes, John

Moate, Sir Roger

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Monro, Sir Hector

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Moss, Malcolm

Temple-Morris, Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Thomason, Roy

Neubert, Sir Michael

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Nicholls, Patrick

Thurnham, Peter

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Norris, Steve

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

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Tracey, Richard

Ottaway, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Page, Richard

Trend, Michael

Paice, James

Trotter, Neville

Patnick, Irvine

Twinn, Dr Ian

Patten, Rt Hon John

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Pawsey, James

Viggers, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Pickles, Eric

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Waller, Gary

Porter, David (Waveney)

Ward, John

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Waterson, Nigel

Rathbone, Tim

Watts, John

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Wells, Bowen

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Whitney, Ray

Richards, Rod

Whittingdale, John

Riddick, Graham

Widdecombe, Ann

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Robathan, Andrew

Willetts, David

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wilshire, David

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Wolfson, Mark

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Yeo, Tim

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Sackville, Tom

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Tellers for the Ayes:

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

Shaw, David (Dover)

Mr. Tim Wood.

Sheerman, Barry

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Cryer, Bob

Alton, David

Cummings, John

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Dafis, Cynog

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Davidson, Ian

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Bennett, Andrew F.

Flynn, Paul

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Graham, Thomas

Cohen, Harry

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

761

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Rooney, Terry

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Salmond, Alex

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Sedgemore, Brian

Lewis, Terry

Skinner, Dennis

Llwyd, Elfyn

Tyler, Paul

Loyden, Eddie

Welsh, Andrew

Lynne, Ms Liz

Wigley, Dafydd

Maclennan, Robert

Wise, Audrey

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Tellers for the Noes:

Parry, Robert

Mr. James Wallace and

Rendel, David

Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly:—
The House divided: Ayes 491, Noes 10.

Division No. 96]

[4.43 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Ainger, Nick

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

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

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Alexander, Richard

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Budgen, Nicholas

Allen, Graham

Burns, Simon

Alton, David

Burt, Alistair

Amess, David

Butcher, John

Ancram, Michael

Butler, Peter

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Butterfill, John

Arbuthnot, James

Byers, Stephen

Armstrong, Hilary

Caborn, Richard

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Callaghan, Jim

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Aspinwall, Jack

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Atkins, Robert

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Cann, Jamie

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Austin-Walker, John

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Carrington, Matthew

Baldry, Tony

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Chapman, Sydney

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Barnes, Harry

Churchill, Mr

Barron, Kevin

Clapham, Michael

Bates, Michael

Clappison, James

Batiste, Spencer

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Battle, John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Bell, Stuart

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Bellingham, Henry

Coe, Sebastian

Bendall, Vivian

Cohen, Harry

Bennett, Andrew F.

Colvin, Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Congdon, David

Berry, Dr. Roger

Connarty, Michael

Betts, Clive

Conway, Derek

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Blair, Tony

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Blunkett, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Booth, Hartley

Couchman, James

Boswell, Tim

Cousins, Jim

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Cox, Tom

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Cran, James

Bowis, John

Cryer, Bob

Boyes, Roland

Cummings, John

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bradley, Keith

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Brandreth, Gyles

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Brazier, Julian

Dalyell, Tam

Bright, Graham

Darling, Alistair

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Davidson, Ian

762

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Day, Stephen

Gunnell, John

Denham, John

Hague, William

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hain, Peter

Devlin, Tim

Hall, Mike

Dewar, Donald

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Dickens, Geoffrey

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Dicks, Terry

Hampson, Dr Keith

Dixon, Don

Hanley, Jeremy

Dobson, Frank

Hannam, Sir John

Donohoe, Brian H.

Hanson, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Hardy, Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Hargreaves, Andrew

Dover, Den

Harman, Ms Harriet

Dowd, Jim

Harris, David

Duncan, Alan

Haselhurst, Alan

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Hawkins, Nick

Dunn, Bob

Hawksley, Warren

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Hayes, Jerry

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Heald, Oliver

Durant, Sir Anthony

Henderson, Doug

Eagle, Ms Angela

Hendry, Charles

Eastham, Ken

Hicks, Robert

Eggar, Tim

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Elletson, Harold

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Enright, Derek

Hinchliffe, David

Etherington, Bill

Hoey, Kate

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Hood, Jimmy

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Horam, John

Evennett, David

Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Faber, David

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Fabricant, Michael

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

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Fishburn, Dudley

Hoyle, Doug

Fisher, Mark

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Flynn, Paul

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Forman, Nigel

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Forth, Eric

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Hunter, Andrew

Foulkes, George

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Hutton, John

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Illsley, Eric

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Ingram, Adam

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Jack, Michael

French, Douglas

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Fry, Sir Peter

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Fyfe, Maria

Jamieson, David

Galbraith, Sam

Janner, Greville

Gale, Roger

Jenkin, Bernard

Gallie, Phil

Jessel, Toby

Galloway, George

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Gardiner, Sir George

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Gerrard, Neil

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Gill, Christopher

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Gillan, Cheryl

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Godsiff, Roger

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Golding, Mrs Llin

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Gordon, Mildred

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Key, Robert

Gorst, John

Khabra, Piara S.

Gould, Bryan

Kilfedder, Sir James

Graham, Thomas

Kilfoyle, Peter

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Kirkwood, Archy

763

Knapman, Roger

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Morley, Elliot

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

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

Moss, Malcolm

Knox, Sir David

Mowlam, Marjorie

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Mudie, George

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Nelson, Anthony

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Neubert, Sir Michael

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Nicholls, Patrick

Legg, Barry

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Norris, Steve

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Lewis, Terry

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Lidington, David

O'Hara, Edward

Lightbown, David

Olner, William

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

O'Neill, Martin

Litherland, Robert

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Ottaway, Richard

Lord, Michael

Page, Richard

Loyden, Eddie

Paice, James

Luff, Peter

Patnick, Irvine

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Patten, Rt Hon John

Lynne, Ms Liz

Pawsey, James

McAllion, John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

McAvoy, Thomas

Pendry, Tom

Macdonald, Calum

Pickles, Eric

McFall, John

Pickthall, Colin

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Pike, Peter L.

MacKay, Andrew

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Maclean, David

Porter, David (Waveney)

McLeish, Henry

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Maclennan, Robert

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

McMaster, Gordon

Primarolo, Dawn

McNamara, Kevin

Radice, Giles

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Rathbone, Tim

Madel, Sir David

Raynsford, Nick

Mahon, Alice

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Maitland, Lady Olga

Reid, Dr John

Major, Rt Hon John

Rendel, David

Mans, Keith

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Marek, Dr John

Richards, Rod

Marland, Paul

Riddick, Graham

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Marshall, John (Handon S)

Robathan, Andrew

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Martlew, Eric

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Mates, Michael

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Maxton, John

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Meale, Alan

Rogers, Allan

Merchant, Piers

Rooker, Jeff

Michael, Alun

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Milburn, Alan

Rowlands, Ted

Miller, Andrew

Ruddock, Joan

Milligan, Stephen

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Mills, Iain

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Sackville, Tom

Moate, Sir Roger

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Monro, Sir Hector

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Sedgemore, Brian

764

Shaw, David (Dover)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Sheerman, Barry

Thurnham, Peter

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Tipping, Paddy

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Tracey, Richard

Shersby, Michael

Tredinnick, David

Simpson, Alan

Trend, Michael

Sims, Roger

Trotter, Neville

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Turner, Dennis

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

Twinn, Dr Ian

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Tyler, Paul

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

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Viggers, Peter

Snape, Peter

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Soames, Nicholas

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Soley, Clive

Wallace, James

Spearing, Nigel

Waller, Gary

Speed, Sir Keith

Walley, Joan

Spellar, John

Ward, John

Spencer, Sir Derek

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Waterson, Nigel

Spink, Dr Robert

Watson, Mike

Spring, Richard

Watts, John

Sproat, Iain

Wells, Bowen

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Whitney, Ray

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Whittingdale, John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wicks, Malcolm

Steen, Anthony

Widdecombe, Ann

Steinberg, Gerry

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Stephen, Michael

Willetts, David

Stern, Michael

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Stewart, Allan

Wilshire, David

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Wilson, Brian

Straw, Jack

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Streeter, Gary

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Sumberg, David

Wolfson, Mark

Sweeney, Walter

Worthington, Tony

Sykes, John

Wray, Jimmy

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Yeo, Tim

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thomason, Roy

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mr. Timothy Wood.

NOES

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Salmond, Alex

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Wigley, Dafydd

Llwyd, Elfyn

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Tellers for the Noes:

Parry, Robert

Mr. Andrew Welsh and

Rooney, Terry

Mr. Cynog Dafis.

Question accordingly agreed to
Resolved,
That the Chairman of the First Scottish Standing Committee in respect of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Bill shall have power to order any Member who is not a member of the Committee to withdraw immediately from the Committee Room;and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chairman in pursuance of this order.

Regulation of Political Funding
4.59 pm
Mr. John Spellar: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the system of funding of political parties; and for connected purposes.
I introduced a similar Bill in the previous Session. Events since then have made such a Bill even more relevant, especially in view of the excellent work being undertaken by the Home Affairs Select Committee. Much of the material on the subject has been brought together in Martin Linton's recent well-publicised pamphlet for the Institute for Public Policy Research, although I must stress that the Bill is not concerned with the state funding of political parties.
The Bill has three main aims. The first is to prohibit donations by foreign nationals who are not normally resident in this country, and by overseas companies and overseas Governments. The second is to ensure the recording and publication of donations above a certain limit; I suggest about £1,000, but I am not too tight on that. The third is to require political parties to publish income and expenditure accounts, in the way in which companies and trade unions do.
Those objectives should commend themselves beyond the Opposition Benches. We know that many Conservatives are becoming increasingly concerned about the lack of accounts and accountability in their own party. Even the Prime Minister does not seem to be fully informed. When I asked him at Question Time on 19 October about Tory party finances, he said:
"There are a great many secret sources and they are all cheese and wine parties up and down the country."— [Official Report, 19 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 144.]
There was £440,000 from Asil Nadir and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, from Greek shipowner John Latsis, Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka Shing and fugitive from justice and ex-Nissan boss Octav Botnar. That is a lot of big cheeses, let alone glasses of wine.
Perhaps the Prime Minister thinks that the dinners that he has been persuaded to put on again at No. 10 are just a few chums popping by for a snack. Perhaps his party officers do not tell him how the bite is put on subsequently for party funds. The Bill would help him to know how his party is funded, even if it would not help him to know other matters about his party. After all, his attitude is that we should not ask him because he is only the Prime Minister.
The Bill would also help the Tory party to dispel unjustified accusations about its funding. Tories have been very upset recently by the allegations by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about Saudi funding. Open disclosure would clear that matter up; my proposed ban on foreign funding would have saved them from the embarrassment in the first place. We would not have to concern ourselves with the rumours which were circulating long before the current story on the Malaysian dam that there were payments into Tory party slush funds from Malaysian arms deals. Everything would be there in the open. We would not have to worry about whether funding had come from right-wing foundations in the United States or from the Government of Brunei. Is not it ridiculous that a major political party in this country should be dependent on money from people who cannot even vote in our elections? That is why the United States, Canada and most European countries ban foreign donations; we should follow their example.
766
At one of the famous Downing street dinners, almost half those present benefited from foreign domicile tax status, a nice little loophole that costs ordinary taxpayers £1 billion a year. It makes the United Kingdom one of only four western European countries—I say "countries" in inverted commas because the others are the Channel Islands, Luxembourg and Switzerland—which has that status. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), as Financial Secretary, initiated a review of that loophole. The initiative was stopped by the then Chanceller of the Exchequer, the present Prime Minister. I am sure that the recipients were grateful. We would like to know how grateful. How many pounds' worth of gratitude did they express?
For domestic donors, there is the honours system. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) rather pompously claims that honours cannot be sold because of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. However, some unkind person has noticed a rather strong —how can I put it delicately?—statistical correlation between companies' donations to the Tory party and honours to their chairmen and managing directors. If we knew about individual donations, we might be able to make an even better match.
The Tory party might say that we are being unfair: we should let the public know and we should let them draw their own conclusions. It is not only Opposition Members, but the public and Tory party members, who are concerned. I do not refer only to the Charter Group, which has been most prominent in the campaign for proper accounts. After all, the House passed a resolution in 1949 saying that political parties should have proper accounts. Perhaps it is time that we put that into practice. I refer also to individual Tory party members across the country. Membership of the Tory party is collapsing.
When, for example, it was revealed that party funds had been used to pay the legal expenses of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames in his attempts to evict an undesirable tenant, the vice-chairman of the Tory party estimated that the party had lost £500,000 in donations. Why should ordinary Tory party members fund such excesses? Why should they bother even with wine and cheese parties when they believe, probably rightly, that the super rich at home and abroad will bail the party out? That is why the Tories have become increasingly dependent on donations to central party funds—£7·5 million in 1989, £15·8 million in 1991 and a whopping £20·7 million in 1992.
It is also a matter of public concern that the Tories seem to be becoming increasingly cavalier about the few rules that we have. While attention has rightly been focused on the auditor's report on designated sales in Westminster, we should not forget the question marks over the financing of the Tory campaign in Westminster and the money that may have to be paid back on the instructions of the Charity Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) is only too well aware of a similar undercover channelling of money to her opponent's campaign.
I remember the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 being debated because I was a member of the Committee. Conservative Members called for more detailed accounts. In their own affairs, however, it is clear that they claim the right to silence. In the recent debate on the Criminal Justice Bill, Tory spokesmen speaking on the so-called "right to silence" have been fond of the slogan: "Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear."

767
That is why they so strongly oppose these changes and that is why they claim the right to silence. They have a lot to hide.
I hope that the Bill and the Select Committee report will help to lift the corner slightly on the dark, sleazy world of Tory party finance and expose it to some scrutiny and sunlight. Sunlight, in the words of the American Supreme Court of Justice, is, in a democracy, the best disinfectant. We need to clean up political funding in this country; we need the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Spellar, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mr. David Winnick, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Andrew Macki:nlay, Mr. Gordon McMaster and Mr. Chris Mullin.

REGULATION OF POLITICAL FUNDING
Mr. John Spellar accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the system of funding of political parties; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 March, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)
  5.7 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

  Committee of the Whole House
  1.—(1) The Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
  (2) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 64 (Committee of whole House on bill) shall not apply.
  (3) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.

  Standing Committee
  2.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the remainder of the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill not later than 29th March.
  (2) Proceedings at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 29th March may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 30th March.

  Report and Third Reading
  3.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days.
  (2) On the first of those days, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall, notwithstanding subparagraph (a) of that paragraph, apply to the proceedings on the Bill for only one hour after Ten o'clock.
  (3) The proceedings on Third Reading may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the proceedings on consideration, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between stages of a Bill brought in on ways and means resolutions.

  Business Committee
  4.—(1) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of the allotted days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolution as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than 14th April.
  (3) Any Resolution of the Business Committee may be varied by a further Report of the Committee under Standing Order No. 80, whether before or after 14th April and whether or not that Resolution has been agreed to by the House.
  (4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken, but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  5.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee, the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the

  769
  Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  (3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Standing Committee, but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Report of proceedings in Committee
  6. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, the Chairman shall report such of the Bill's provisions as were committed (or re-committed) to that Committee to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time
  8.—(1) On the first of the allotted days mentioned in paragraph 3, any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period of one hour mentioned in paragraph 3(2).
  (2) If that allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion shall be added to the period of one hour.

  Private business
  9. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Procedure at time for conclusion of proceedings
  10. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a), the Question that the Clause of Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper, whether in the name of a Minister of the Crown or not, which is moved or made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  11.—(1) Proceedings under paragraph 10 of this Order shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20
  770
  (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  12.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.
  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
  (3) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  13. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Recommittal
  14.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  15. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  "the Bill" means the Finance Bill;
  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
  I make no apology for moving the motion, although I do so with regret. The plain fact, as anyone who followed our proceedings yesterday would acknowledge, is that the tactics that were then pursued made the motion inevitable. Let me put my position in words that would be much

  771
  approved of and appreciated by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), if he were able to be in his place:
  "I should have preferred that we completed our proceedings on the Finance Bill with no need for a timetable motion. I wish that the two sides of the House could have agreed on sensible arrangements for allocating what is by any standard a generous amount of time for the remaining stages of the Bill. That would have allowed us to complete our consideration of it in a sensible manner. Unfortunately, such an agreement proved to be unobtainable. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary sought such an understanding last week in discussion … but could not obtain it."—[Official Report, 4 March 1975; Vol. 887, c. 1288.]
  My right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee would have appreciated those remarks because he was present when they were uttered. That was almost 20 years ago when the then Mr. Edward Short moved the guillotine motion on the Finance Bill of 1975. The only words that I have left out are the reference to the person with whom the then Chief Secretary had had discussions —my right hon. and learned Friend who is now Lord Howe. With the exception of that reference, if I had substituted the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the same words would apply exactly to the position that we have today.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before we continue, I should make it clear that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
  Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House admit, that on that occasion when the Finance Bill was guillotined, there had already been 160 hours of debate in Committee'? We have had precisely five hours in Committee on this Bill, which is the longest Finance Bill in history, containing 244 clauses and 24 schedules. We were only on the first clause.
  Mr. Newton: First, the position then was not one in which the Opposition were declining co-operation of any kind on any matter. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said on Second Reading, against the background of obvious obstruction and delay that we saw yesterday, the case for an early guillotine is strengthened to ensure that this important and lengthy Bill is properly discussed.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Leader of the House accept that the motion is an affront to the British people? Does not he recognise that today, and throughout the Bill's passage, we are supposed to debate the largest tax hike in British history, but the Government are ramming the legislation through the House with a guillotine motion? That is an affront. How can he possibly come to House with the guillotine measure today?
  Mr. Newton: I do not accept that it is an affront and I do not think that most hon. Members on either side of the House believe that it is. If the hon. Gentleman believes it, I will quote him the words of hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), who I believe specially assists the Leader of the Opposition. In a debate a couple of years ago, the hon. Lady said that she agreed that
  "our rights"—
  those of the Opposition—
  "are critical for democracy and civil rights. However, sitting all the hours available is not the most effective way in which to
  772
  defend those rights. If the House cannot organise itself effectively, what right do we have to pretend that we can organise the rest of the country?"—[Official Report, 2 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 110.]
  That is the problem that I am addressing.
  Mr. George Foulkes: We can consider the matter rather more coolly this afternoon than we could at 10.30 last night. The Leader of the House talks about obvious obstruction and delay. I sat through some of the debate yesterday afternoon and evening. We were talking about a totally new tax that has not been introduced before and that is a major innovation by the Government. I heard speeches that were not extensive, for example, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who has a great constituency interest in the proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), who is here today, spoke for only 10 minutes and his constituency contains Glasgow airport. It was a genuine debate conducted by hon. Members with constituency concerns. Some of my hon. Friends did not even have the opportunity to voice their views on a major new tax. That is not obstruction; it is democracy and debate, which is what we are not getting from the Government.
  Mr. Newton: I shall have one or two comments to make about yesterday's debate later.
  Let me make it clear, as I did on the last occasion when such a motion proved necessary on a Bill in this Session, that we have not arrived at this position for any want of effort by my right hon. and hon. Friends to achieve agreement on how the Bill should proceed sensibly. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary wrote to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) before Second Reading to suggest arrangements that were very much in line with the conventions of recent years. Those would have provided for two full days in Committee of the whole House to discuss clauses that the Opposition seemed likely to think were appropriate for that forum rather than for a Standing Committee.
  The reply that my right hon. Friend received was swift, short and sharp—I can readily record it in full. The letter
  stated:
  "Dear Michael
  Thank you for your letter of 20th January.
  As you rightly say the Opposition is not willing to enter into informal discussions this year.
  I have passed a copy of your letter to the Chief Whip."
  Despite that rebuff, we continued to do everything that we could to act in a reasonable way. We did not seek to use the Opposition's attitude as a pretext for guillotining the Bill at once or for taking all of it in Committee, as we could have sought to do. We took account of the views of those who were prepared to discuss the proposals—the Liberal Democrats—in deciding which clauses to commit to the days on the Floor of the House. My right hon. Friend wrote once again to the hon. Lady to keep her informed of our proposal.
  Even then our efforts did not cease; on the contrary, further contacts were made, which I have no reason to doubt were conducted in good faith. They led us to believe that, in practice, the business could be handled in a sensible way and in line with precedent and reasonable expectation, with the debate on clause 28 running until about 7 pm and debate on clause 46 running until about 10 pm.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends could not have done more to avoid the need for the motion. Unhappily, the only

  773
  return that they had for their endeavours was what we saw yesterday. Anyone looking into the Chamber would have realised that yesterday's events were a transparent exercise in artificially extending debate. It became clear that there was no serious prospect of this important Bill being discussed in the way that most hon. Members would like and those outside the House are entitled to expect.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Has the Leader of the House looked at today's Hansard and read the comments and statements made by Opposition Members, which I felt were serious? Five million passengers come into Glasgow airport. We are working to increase that number to 8 million. More than £400 million will be spent locally to make the place vibrant once again after the 14 years of Tory Government. It is important that a new tax receives a full hearing. My constituents demand it. The 15,000 people who work in Glasgow airport—and I am sure the hundreds of thousands who work at other airports—wish to see a full debate in Parliament. Yesterday's three hours of debate were not a lot to offer those folk.
  Mr. Newton: There is no doubt that we fully accept that the tax proposal deserved proper debate. It could and should have had proper debate in the time that we had expected to it to take. I understand that, when the Front Bench team had finished their speeches at about 5.30 pm, there were only four Labour Back Benchers in the House and there was widespread doubt as to whether the debate could be kept going until 7 pm. Of those hon. Members who spoke later, many—four, I believe—were among those who had not been present at the outset of the Back Bench debate. Several of them made speeches ranging from lengths of half an hour to, at the extreme, 50 minutes. I am not suggesting that it was unreasonable for hon. Members to make speeches. I am saying that, as a matter of judgment—having been here for part of the time myself, having followed the debate on the screens, and having talked to some of my hon. Friends who were in the Chamber—I know that there could be no doubt in the mind of any reasonable person that the debate was deliberately spun out and delayed.
  Mr. Eric Illsley rose—
  Mr. Calum Macdonald rose—
  Mr. Newton: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who spoke for 50 minutes yesterday.
  Mr. Macdonald: I apologised to Madam Speaker in advance for not being able to be present for the beginning of yesterday's debate. I was coming down from my constituency, which the Leader of the House may realise is quite some distance from here. In my speech, I tried to elicit an explanation of why, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor suggested that the Scottish islands would be exempt when detailed scrutiny of the Budget showed that there was no such exemption. We are still waiting for an answer.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair argument about his constituency interest, but as my right hon. and hon. Friends have just said, he has just managed
  774
  in less than a minute to make the point that took him 50 minutes last night. That tells us something about what was going on.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Newton: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and then to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). Then I must make some progress.
  Mr. Illsley: Yesterday the Leader of the House referred to an agreement having been reached, and just now he referred to contacts and the possibility of agreement on the progress of the Bill. As the Opposition Treasury Whip, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that as far as I am concerned there was no contact and no agreement whatever about the handling of the debate last night. There had been no contact with the Whips Office and no agreement.
  Mr. Newton: That emerged clearly from the course of events yesterday. Nevertheless, what I have been told by my hon. Friends was told to me in good faith and I have no doubt that such contacts as took place took place in good faith. I am simply stating our perspective on those matters.
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is quite common for the Government to timetable business to take place after 10 o'clock at night and also common for hon. Members on both sides of the House to speak for 50 minutes or more? Why does he single out yesterday evening and say that there was something unusual about it? I spoke for only 10 minutes, so I take it that that would be accepted as proof that I was not engaged in any plot. I have no particular constituency interest in the tax, but my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has a very special constituency interest and it is perfectly understandable that he should have spoken for 50 minutes, and also that he could not be present for the beginning of the debate. Why have the Government overreacted in this way? We know what the answer is, but could we have an explanation from the Government?
  Mr. Newton: I have already acknowledged the constituency interest of the hon. Member for Western Isles. I also said that he could have made his point a great deal more crisply—as indeed he has just demonstrated.
  In response to the other objections, I make the point that while I have been Leader of the House, among the main pressures exerted on me by many hon. Members on both sides of the House—not, I accept, by all hon. Members —have been requests that I take steps to enable the House more regularly to finish its business at 10 o'clock rather than continuing late into the night.
  The motion therefore provides for the orderly completion of discussion of the clauses committed to the whole House by 10 o'clock tonight. That fulfils our commitment to provide two full days on the Floor of the House. Of course, the less time that is taken on the motion, the more time there will be for discussion of the clauses themselves.
  The motion goes on to provide for proceedings in the Standing Committee to be concluded by 29 March—the Tuesday before Easter, eight weeks from today—and then to provide for two days, which would of course be after Easter, for Report and Third Reading.
  Mr. Michael Stern: In view of the obvious obstruction that we saw yesterday in the Chamber—[HON. MEMBERS: "What obstruction?"]—and the declared tactics of the Opposition to continue it, will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that if that obstruction continues in Committee he will ingoduce a further motion to ensure adequate debate of all clauses in Committee?
  Mr. Newton: The motion provides for the establishment of a Business Sub-Committee to do precisely that in Committee, and in due course for a Business Committee when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House.
  For both Committee and remaining stages, our proposals are entirely consistent with what has been achieved by other means when the affairs of the House have been conducted more normally and with giving a full and proper opportunity for discussion of the Bill. To underline that fact, I might add that of the past six normal Finance Bills—I exclude the Bill that was debated in the rather special circumstances immediately before the 1992 election—the time taken in Standing Committee was respectively 14 days, 13, days, 11 days, nine days, seven days and 10 clays.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Bill is twice as long.
  Mr. Newton: If the motion were accepted, and the Standing Committee were to sit on Tuesdays and Thursdays from now to the finishing date that I have set —[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am somewhat tired of repeated sedentary interruptions.
  Mr. Newton: The Committee would sit for 16 days, which would be the most days spent on any Finance Bill during that period.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Newton: May I finish this point?
  That would provide for about 100 hours to be spent considering the Bill, which compares with 70 hours last year. The provision for remaining stages is precisely the same as that for all six Finance Bills that I have mentioned.
  Mr. Illsley: I understood the Leader of the House to say that the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill last year sat for 10 days. I checked with the Library yesterday and the Finance Bill 1993 had three days on the Floor of the House and 17 sittings in Standing Committee. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that? Does he mean 10 sittings, or what? Last year there were 17 sittings-17 separate days in Committee.
  Mr. Newton: The Bill certainly had three days on the Floor of the House, but my information is that it had 10 days in Standing Committee—of course, the number of sittings could embrace more than one sitting in a day. The figure of 10 days for last year compares with 16 days this year, under the motion before the House.
  Mr. George Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Newton: I give way to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House tell us which of the previous Finance Bills included totally new taxation, such as the airline tax, the tax on insurance and all the other taxes? This year's Finance Bill is revolutionary in many ways, quite different from the others that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  Mr. Newton: There were substantial proposals in all those Bills. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument stands up.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Newton: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and then I shall try to bring my speech to an end.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Leader of the House accept that the Bill is twice the normal size? It contains 244 clauses, as against—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends tell me that it is 40 per cent. longer. Surely that requires additional time for hon. Members to debate the Bill.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman maintains that yesterday a small number of Members gave long speeches. That is the basis on which he justifies the guillotine motion —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what he told us.
  Mr. Foulkes: He said it was a deliberate filibuster.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why does he think that four or five long speeches should prevent another 635 Members of Parliament from reasonably debating a Bill in the House of Commons? Why should that small number dictate to others in the House whether the Bill is properly debated?
  Mr. Newton: First, let me make it clear that I rest my case on the combination of factors on which I touched in my speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Justifiably, the nature and length of some of the speeches yesterday, and the fact that some were made by hon. Members who, so far as I am aware, had not even attended the beginning of the debate, have been taken into account.
  As for the length of the Bill, my information is that this year's Bill is 417 pages long and last year's was 296. My Treasury colleagues, whose instant maths is obviously better than mine, tell me that this year's Bill is 40 per cent. longer. That sounds about right—and there will be 50 per cent. more time in Standing Committee.
  As I said at the outset, I moved the motion with regret but without apology. In bringing my remarks to an end, I make a point that is often overlooked on such occasions, but which I believe is important. I accept unequivocally that it is right in arranging the business of the House to have due regard to the rights of the Opposition. Indeed, that is clearly reflected in the efforts that we made to achieve an understanding and in the way in which, even in the absence of any understanding, we have sought to follow precedent in the timetable proposed. However, I do not accept the proposition that sometimes seems implicit in the rhetoric deployed by the Opposition, which is that the rights of the Opposition are the same as the rights of Back Benchers or the rights of the House as a whole.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made the point tellingly in his intervention last night, when he gave his eye-witness account of yesterday's proceedings and clearly said that he felt that his rights, as a Back Bencher wishing to take part in the debate on clause 46, had been infringed. In his judgment, what occurred was an abuse of the House.

  777
  As Leader of the House, I have a responsibility to Back Benchers on both sides of the House, not merely to the Opposition Front Bench. Above all, I have a responsibility to the House as a whole, to ensure that our business can be conducted in an orderly and sensible way, to fulfil the duty that we all share to those outside the House who will be affected by the measures that we discuss. The motion fulfils those responsibilities, and I commend it to the House.
  5.28 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I listened with some amazement to the closing words of the Lord President. I do not understand how he had the gall to stand at the Dispatch Box and talk about his responsibility to the House and to Back Benchers on both sides for the orderly scrutiny of debate. He has abrogated that responsibility utterly by moving this motion.
  Some days ago, the Chief Secretary made a speech in which he deplored the cynicism that he perceived as prevalent in Britain today. That observation was received by most of the populace with hilarious incredulity, it being obvious to everyone else that, as far as the Government are concerned, cynicism, like charity, begins at home. Today, we have before us a classic reason why people are cynical.
  The subject of this guillotine motion—taking all control of the debate out of the hands of Parliament and putting it in the hands of the Government—is the biggest single tax hike in British history: taxes on travel, taxes on work, taxes on income, taxes on insurance, taxes on home ownership, and taxes on fuel. For a typical family, that is an extra tax bill of £1,330 over the next two years. The taxes are being imposed because of the utter collapse of the Government's economic policy, and to pick up the tab for the Government's failure.
  The purpose of the motion is not simply about taking control of the debate; it is about concealment—the Government think that, if they hide debate away, people will not notice the extra taxes they are paying—and cowardice. The Government are trying to run away from a further vote on value added tax on fuel.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: Does the right hon. Lady realise that, if the timetable motion is passed and we have some sensible hours and sensible procedure for considering the measure, it is much more likely that interested parties outside will pay close attention to it? What is not likely is that, if we allow debate on the Bill to be extended into the early hours through filibustering, we will get a sensible discussion either in the House or among interested parties outside.
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman should not have intervened at that point, because I had just made the case that the reason for the guillotine is not to allow sensible debate; rather, it is to curtail debate and to avoid a vote on VAT on fuel.
  Mr. Stern: The right hon. Lady says that the Government are trying to avoid a further vote on VAT on fuel. The fact is that Labour Members have been soundly trounced every time we have voted on that subject. How much more punishment does the right hon. Lady want?
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has just agreed with me. The Government are worried about a debate and vote on VAT on fuel, because they are concerned about the number of times that they can get their Members to support it.
  The spectacle of the Lord President trying to defend these guillotines is getting ever more farcical. As I pointed out in the previous guillotine debate, Back Benchers on both sides of the House are here to examine the Government's legislation for mistakes and flaws, and to ensure, so far as we can, that their intentions are exposed and explained. To no legislation does that apply with greater force than legislation on the Budget. To no Budget does it apply with greater force than one that implements the biggest tax hike in British history. Increasingly, the Government are held in contempt, because they consistently treat others with contempt.
  This is the fourth guillotine motion in the past four parliamentary weeks. [Interruption.] I am about to explain that to hon. Members. The Lord President justified the first guillotine by saying that there was no need to discuss the detail of a measure that had been announced months ago. He justified the second by saying that, although it had just been announced, the measure was beneficial in its net effect—that in itself is a highly dubious, probably untruthful, claim, which certainly deserves scrutiny. He justified the third by saying that it was an uncontroversial measure and that the debate—only a few hours—was taking too long.
  The Lord President cannot make any one of those arguments for this guillotine motion. Even he cannot say that there is no need to discuss a Finance Bill of 244 clauses and 23 schedules—the longest Finance Bill in history, because it contains more taxes than almost any other Finance Bill. Even he cannot say that it is beneficial, when it puts up all our taxes—not to finance much-needed investment in Britain's future but to pay for the Government's failure in the past. He certainly cannot say that it is uncontroversial—either that every British family is picking up the bill, or where and how that money is being raised.
  The right hon. Gentleman is being ridiculous when he pretends that the Bill has been debated for too long when only part of one parliamentary day has elapsed. All hon. Members know perfectly well that we intended to finish the second debate on insurance with dispatch last night and to deal today with another important issue—the increased income tax we all face, first, because of frozen personal allowances and, secondly, because of cuts in mortgage interest relief. That is a clear breach of the promises in the Government's fraudulent election manifesto.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) pointed out, on the two previous occasions when Finance Bills were guillotined—apart from debates on the Floor—they spent hours in Committee. In Committee, there were 62 hours on a 56-clause Bill and over 110 hours on a 53-clause Bill—the most recent occasion when a guillotine was imposed. That is not a few hours in Committee and on the Floor.
  There is no justification for the precedent of a guillotine at this stage of the Finance Bill, or for its substance. While we can easily see that there is no justification, it is just as hard to see a reason for it. Today, the Lord President suggested, as he did last night, that there was undue and unusual delay in the first debate. He knows, and the whole House knows, that that is absolute claptrap.

  779
  It is not in the slightest degree unusual for the first debate to take longer than other debates on this or any other Bill. But overall, as the Lord President said, the previous seven or eight Finance Bills have been dealt with efficiently and expeditiously, although some debates have taken a good deal of time and others have taken less time.
  Is the Lord President asking us to believe that yesterday evening he was shocked, stunned and dismayed by the perfectly ordinary spectacle of a debate until 10 pm, and that, when he hunted through his pockets, he happened to find about his person a four-page, carefully drafted guillotine motion? No one believes that. Why did the Lord President not say, as television cooks do, "And here's one I prepared earlier"?
  All that matters to any Government is that they get their legislation through in reasonable consistency with their overall legislative programme and timetable. This Government had every reason to suppose that they would get this Bill through, consistent with a reasonable timetable and before Easter—the best possible reason, because we proclaimed to the world that we intended to force another vote on VAT on fuel before the proceedings are completed. Even the Government are not so incompetent that they are unaware that no such vote or debate can be held within the rules of the House once the tax is imposed on 1 April.
  The Government knew perfectly well that, if we were to have another vote on VAT on fuel, they would have their Bill out of Committee before Easter. Not only did the Government know that that was our proclaimed intention; the clauses on which we intended to vote are on the Order Paper.
  That means that, to ensure proper public scrutiny and coverage of this substantial Bill, the Committee might have to work some long hours into the night. But the Government claim that they are not trying to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, so they could have no objection to the Bill being properly dealt with, as long as it was expeditiously dealt with. The fact is—the evidence for this is on our side—that that is what we were trying to do.
  The Government are trying to avoid either a full discussion on the scale that both sides of the House normally think is needed for a Bill of this length, or a vote on our amendment about VAT on fuel, or both. It has now become clear that it is a further vote on VAT from which the Government are trying to run away, because the Lord President said that he does not anticipate Report or Third Reading—of course, we want that vote on Report—until after Easter.
  Mr. Newton: I want to be absolutely clear, because I have become a little puzzled by the drift of the right hon. Lady's argument. Is the case which she is presenting to the House that the Government have provided too much time for discussion of the Bill?
  Mrs. Beckett: We have made it clear that the Bill could have come out of Committee before Easter, and that we would have sought to ensure that there was a reasonable debate within that time in Committee to scrutinise the whole Bill. The Lord President has tried to claim that the evidence of the debate so far in some way suggests that the Opposition are trying to obstruct the passage of the Bill. I am pointing out to him, the House and the country not only that there is no truth in that suggestion, but that he had
  780
  every reason in the world to know that we intended to scrutinise the Bill properly, and to make sure that we had a vote on VAT before the Bill left the House.
  Sir Terence Higgins: I am genuinely puzzled by what the right hon. Lady is saying. In what way does the imposition of a guillotine prevent a vote on VAT?
  Mrs. Beckett: In my opening remarks, I deliberately used the words that the Government intended to "take control" of the timetable. That is clearly what they intend.
  We had anticipated that we would be able to deal with the Bill, and then have a vote on VAT on the Floor of the House. That is a perfectly reasonable procedure, and that is why we are so suspicious about why the Government have tabled the guillotine. They either wish not to allow enough time to scrutinise the Bill reasonably in Committee and to curtail what otherwise might be a lengthy debate, or they want to take control of the timetable so that they can prevent Report taking place before Easter.
  If we are being unduly suspicious, and if it is simply due to sheer incompetence that the Government have not appreciated that we wanted a debate on VAT before Easter, even though we said so repeatedly and even though the Order Paper confirms it, let the Lord President get to his feet now and say that he was in error. Let him say that he did not realise that the Opposition wanted to have a vote before Easter, and that he is perfectly prepared to allow Report and a vote on VAT before Easter. There would then be no difficulty.
  I am perfectly happy to give way to any Minister who will give the House an explanation. No? Are there no volunteers? The question of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) has just been answered. The Government wish to take control of the timetable because they do not wish to have a vote on VAT and, after all, they are being perfectly consistent.
  The Government would not let members of their own party discuss VAT on fuel at all at the Conservative party conference, and they do not want hon. Members to have a chance to vote for our new clause. The reason is quite simple. The clause contains a new and sensible proposal. It proposes that we delay the implementation of VAT on fuel for a year, and there are many Conservative Members who could perfectly well vote for such a clause.
  Much has changed since those Conservative Members voted for VAT on fuel in the first place. We know that, in 1992, the Government wrote off nearly twice as much money in uncollected taxes as will be raised by VAT on fuel in the first year. That shows that there is always a choice, and that the Government have a choice whether they need to go ahead with the measure this year. Secondly, we have seen the compensation package which has been promised for the least well-off, and most hon. Members judge it to be wholly inadequate.
  Thirdly, we now know that it is only one of a whole gaggle of new taxes. VAT on fuel was presented originally as an alternative to increased taxes on income, and we now know that it is in addition to increased taxes on income.
  Fourthly, we have now been told by the Government and by the Financial Secretary that the tax package of which VAT on fuel forms a part—the biggest tax package in British history—could check the recovery which everyone in Britain wants to see.

  781
  Those are four good reasons for delaying VAT on fuel for a year, and four good reasons why the Government are afraid to have that vote.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: Does the right hon. Lady understand that she is completely and utterly wrong on that point and, as usual, is well behind the times? Does she understand that the reason why Conservative Members are perfectly happy with VAT on fuel is the generous compensation package that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor introduced in the Budget, which satisfied Conservative Members and our constituents?
  Mrs. Beckett: It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, and I am sure that his constituents would be even more interested. His remarks do not wholly square with the letters that some of his hon. Friends have been sending.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my right hon. Friend for the interruption.
  Bearing in mind the exchange that has just taken place, will you give some consideration during the next few minutes to whether you would be prepared to accept from anywhere in the House a manuscript amendment altering the date of Report from 29 March to 15 March? That would give the Government an opportunity to meet the point made by my right hon. Friend, and the Committee stage would then finish early enough for Report to take place before Good Friday. That is clearly a way out which would be acceptable to the Opposition. That would require you to accept a manuscript amendment for that date, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That would have to be a matter for Madam Speaker herself to decide, not for me as her deputy.
  Mrs. Beckett: That is most helpful, Madam Deputy Speaker. My strong advice to my hon. Friend is that he writes that a report should come back to the House before Easter into any motion or amendment which he might move. He would otherwise rely on the good faith of the Government, and I do not think that I need say more about that.
  I was most interested that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) said that Conservative Members were delighted with the compensation package, and that they no longer had problems with VAT on fuel. First, may I tell him that we have received substantial petitions from people in his constituency complaining about the impostion of VAT on fuel. I am surprised if he has not also received the petitions.
  Mr. Streeter indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's constituents did not think that it was worth while writing to him, and I must admit that I am beginning to see why. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the happiness of Conservative Members do not square with letters that some of his hon. Friends have been sending to constituents, which some of hose constituents are inconsiderately sending on to us.
  782
  One letter from a Conservative Member said, for example, that he was worried about VAT on fuel, and that he would have been delighted to vote against it. Owing to the incompetence of the Labour party, however, the hon. Gentleman did not have a chance. The hon. Member who wrote that letter has had one chance since that time, and he has not shown up in the Lobby to vote against it. The Opposition are willing to recognise that it may be difficult for that hon. Member, and we are prepared to give him a second chance. Why will the Government not do the same?
  Sir Terence Higgins: I am still genuinely puzzled. If it would have been possible for the right hon. Lady to table an amendment on Report on VAT on fuel, why is she unable to do so in Committee on the Floor of the House?
  Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous. We want a further vote on VAT on the Floor of the House with the whole House able to vote. We want the House as a whole, not merely those who serve on the Committee, to have an opportunity to defer it. We can only do that by bringing it back on Report.
  Sir Terence Higgins: I genuinely do not understand. If the right hon. Lady were so anxious to have another vote on VAT on fuel, why did not she suggest that we have the vote in Committee on the Floor of the House?
  Mrs. Beckett: We are not in that position. We must have a new clause to move this provision, and the means of doing that is to do so on Report. We provided the opportunity to vote on Second Reading, and we now want the opportunity of a new clause.
  Sir Terence Higgins rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not wish to continue to debate this subject with the right hon. Gentleman. He will readily acknowledge that what we are suggesting would certainly provide the means for the House to discuss and to reach a decision on the matter. The only thing which could prevent that is if, for some reason—
  Mr. John Greenway rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not really want to take more time, and I have given way many times. However, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Greenway: I have been listening carefully to what the right hon. Lady has said. The gist of it seems to be that it does not matter any more how much time is available for consideration of the Bill in Standing Committee and all the technical measures to which she has referred, so long as it is out of Committee in time for there to be the Report before Easter. Hon. Members who are concerned about proper debate—whether in Committee on the Floor of the House or Upstairs—want adequate time for discussion, and my right hon. Friend the Lord President has provided adequate time through this motion.
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point completely. We believe that adequate time can be provided in Committee. It will not be easy, but it is possible, and it can be handled expeditiously and in the same way as previous Finance Bills. We do not have the hon. Gentleman's trust in the Government's good faith, however, or believe that that is what they intend to do; and I suspect that we, rather than the hon. Gentleman, will turn out to be correct. We believed and believe—it has been

  783
  confirmed by this debate—that the Government moved the motion to take control of the Bill so that they can prevent Parliament from having an opportunity to decide on the matter.
  It is strange to hear members of the Government talk—in this debate and on other guillotine motions on various measures—as if they were a popular Government, engaged only in carrying out the election pledges that they so recently made, and being unreasonably obstructed by the Opposition somehow misusing the procedures of the House.
  In fact, they are a ludicrously incompetent Government—the most unpopular in modern times, and not because they have the courage to take hard decisions, as they claim, but because they did not have the courage to tell the country the truth about those decisions, for which, in any case, they always blame someone else; and because they are breaking all the election pledges they so recently made. Not only did the Government lack the courage and integrity to tell the truth about the state of Britain: they lack the integrity and courage to face the music now.
  We are not misusing the procedures of the House, but are using them for the purpose for which they were intended—to hold an elected Government to account on behalf of the people who elected them. We shall continue to do so. They are a Government of weak men, with weak excuses, and a weakening hold on power.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move, in paragraph 1(1), leave out 'Ten o'clock' and insert 'midnight'.
  The amendment occurred to us last night, when we had precious little time—as did the rest of the House—to take account of the business statement. The Government have tabled ever more embellished guillotine motions. They could have taken into account—but did not—the fact that a matter of privilege would have to be discussed on the Floor of the House this afternoon. That has eaten into a good hour of the time allocated for consideration of the Finance Bill, although that time was already constrained. For that reason alone, the Leader of the House should be prepared to accept our modest amendment to enable another two hours of debate. It will allow only the amount of time that the Government thought reasonable before we lost time on the question of privilege.
  It will seem wholly unreasonable if the Government set their face against this attempt to protect urgent consideration of brand new taxes and issues of fundamental importance in the Finance Bill. Those issues were considered important enough to be debated in a Committee of the whole House. As the House knows, this debate can continue for three hours, and we are likely to have to squeeze the three remaining substantial items into one and a half to two and a half hours of debate, which is totally unreasonable.
  Although it is very much the least worst option, I am offering the Government a chance to give the House a more sensible timetable within which to debate the outstanding clauses on the. Floor of the House before the Finance Bill goes into Committee. Unless the Leader of the House accepts that offer, I shall not feel able to support the guillotine motion.
  We are in an extremely serious situation. I take a slightly different view from that of the right hon. Member
  784
  for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). We are getting to the stage where it is not in the House's best interests to deal with matters in such an ad hoc way.
  I particularly noted two things that the Leader of the House said. He thought that the timetable motion was inevitable, but I do not believe it was. The precedents that he quoted certainly do not enable him to argue that that is the case. No Finance Bill has ever been guillotined before the Committee stage, and this is a very serious situation. By definition, the Finance Bill is the most important legislation to be considered by the House during a Session. It is unacceptable for the Government to take the draconian step of casually guillotining it before it goes into Committee.
  The Finance Bill is yet another measure to be guillotined. I repeat what I said during the last debate on a guillotine motion, because it is true—to date, every Bill that this House has referred to the House of Lords has been subject to a timetable motion.
  The Leader of the House said that it was his duty to protect the rights of Members. That is true, but he is not doing so by responding willy-nilly and casually on an ad hoc basis. I understand that he is not in control of the context within which he is taking the action, but candidly it will not do to respond in this piecemeal fashion.
  When the Finance Bill is dealt with in this way, the Government are entitled to say that the House is not being treated properly. The Leader of the House should look for a longer-term solution if he cannot get guarantees that the war of attrition that is going on over the heads of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends will not continue indefinitely.
  The House will require something systematic to be done to protect Members' interests. I do not say that lightly, because, if changes are made, they will be made for all time, but we are reaching the stage where such action must be taken. The right hon. Gentleman is not discharging his duties as Leader of the House unless he considers that option seriously. If he has a proposition, right hon. and hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches will listen to him and carefully consider whatever action he feels is necessary.
  I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), because I shadowed her in her social security days and in previous incarnations, but she owes the House more of an explanation about the end that the Opposition are pursuing through the disruption.
  I perfectly understand that the Government should be given a hard time. I have said that I am in favour of doing so, within the normal rules and regulations of the House. One does not have to be a parliamentary strategic genius, however, to work out how one can bring this House to a grinding halt, especially if more than 200 Members of Parliament are willing to comply with one's request. One does not have to be clever: it is a very easy thing to do.
  The House is teetering on the brink of grinding to a halt. If the official Opposition are intent on doing that, they have a duty to explain why—if they have a plan, they have not vouchsafed it to me. Perhaps there is some great strategic and clever game plan, but all I hear are stories leaked from the office of the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that the disruption will continue until the Euro-elections in June or July.
  I hope to heaven that the Opposition know what they are doing, because the Government must get through their business. If that incontrovertible principle is not followed,

  785
  this place will descend into chaos. Such shenanigans puzzle and perplex people outside: they think that we are not doing the job we are paid to do when such an operation continues and the Government are forced to take action that is not in the short-term interests of the House.
  Mrs. Beckett: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I am having difficulty following his point. I remind him, first, that the House of Commons is like any other institution or place of work—it works best when people seek to work with a reasonable degree of mutual respect, co-operation and good faith. Secondly, reasonable procedures were abandoned because the Government arbitrarily, without consultation or good reason, chose to impose a guillotine on two consecutive Bills. Nobody—not even the hon. Gentleman in his most charitable mode—can say that, since that date, the Government have not continued to treat the House with contempt.
  The Lord President may talk about disruption because our debates take place until 10 o'clock at night, but the hon. Gentleman, at least, knows better than that.
  Mr. Kirkwood: That is tit for tat—and where does it get us? The hon. Lady says that the Government acted scandalously. I was present during the debate on the guillotine motion, and I supported her on it. I am simply saying that I understand the analysis, but what is the prescription? What is she asking for? What needs to change so that we can return to what she considers the only sensible way to get the House to work? If the hon. Lady will say what she wants, I will say whether I am in favour of it, and we can get on with real life.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am not prepared to tell the hon. Gentleman the acceptable price for a return to more normal relationships, but I am prepared to tell him that it stands out a mile that the Government are behaving unreasonably by continuing to introduce unprecedented guillotines.
  Mr. Kirkwood: We must all be careful to measure exactly what we are trying to do. The Government hold all the cards, and we are not in a position to control matters, so if the official Opposition do not clarify their objective and if the Government are hit with a series of changes to the Standing Orders, they will not be easily reversed later.
  The Lord President probably goes around with guillotine motions in his inside pocket. I bet that, if he turned out his wallet, it would contain draft changes to Standing Orders that are waiting to be used any minute now. The official Opposition are walking into an open trap if they do not realise that that is coming down the track, and continue this disruption without a specific time scale in mind. They will then deserve all they get.
  Mr. Illsley: The hon. Gentleman says that the Leader of the House is walking around with draft amendments to Standing Orders in his pocket. If the Government intend to amend Standing Orders to force their business through the House, is that not another example of their treating the House with contempt?
  Mr. Kirkwood: Again, that is tit for tat, but it does not help me. If the hon. Gentleman would say what he wanted, I could have a sensible discussion with him.
  Mrs. Beckett: Exactly what does the hon. Gentleman suggest as an alternative? He has thought of a phrase—"tit for tat"—which he hopes will make him look statesmanlike. Does he suggest that we simply give in and say to the Government, "Oh well, never mind. Just carry on"?
  Mr. Kirkwood: One of two things must happen: either the right hon. Lady will have to "give in", as she puts it, or she must say what she wants to achieve so that we know when she achieves it. I am trying to make sense of this matter, and simply saying that the House is in danger of grinding to a halt. The hon. Lady is as much to blame as the Government for bringing forward the Standing Orders amendment.
  I did not mean to get drawn into such a discussion, but, as I have started, I shall finish it. If the Leader of the House makes changes on a piecemeal basis, such as a timetable motion here or there, with no checks or balances, the House will be worse off than it would be had we had the whole Jopling package. At least the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) gave us some return for the cost of timetable motions.
  I happen to be in favour of timetable motions, and the sooner we can get our hands on some sensible amendments to the Jopling package the better. Although some of it is loopy, the vast majority is extremely sensible.
  The House of Commons is in danger of spiralling out of control. There will be an unedifying spectacle as Front-Bench Members on both sides of the House blame each other for the ensuing chaos. That is not good enough. It is in the interests of neither the House nor taxpayers.
  I apologise for having been drawn into that level of argument. None the less, the Government have proposed this guillotine motion prematurely. There is no rush to bring forward this legislation. When the Budget system changed, the date by which the provisional collection of taxes legislation must be completed was pushed back to 5 May. This is only 1 February, so what is the hurry? There is no need for the motion, which is why the case for this strict timetable motion was found wanting, and we should reject it.
  As to whether a clause on VAT could be added, I am perplexed about why the Business Committee cannot meet and make arrangements for the timetable to accommodate that. If the official Opposition have the discipline to do so, they can simply stay ahead of that timetable by two or three days. They can then find the two or three days they need on the Floor of the House and, if they are really that bothered and can keep their troops in order, they will win a couple of days and can have the vote before Good Friday. So what is the problem? I wonder whether the official Opposition know what they are doing.
  Nevertheless, unless we have an extra couple of hours' debate this evening, I cannot support the Government in the Lobbies on this guillotine motion.
  6.7 pm
  Sir Terence Higgins: I have now spoken on some 30 Finance Bills. On about half of those, I spoke as an Opposition Member or a Government Front-Bench Member. However, I have never previously spoken in a debate on a guillotine motion, but am provoked to do so for reasons similar to those of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—I am genuinely worried about how matters are developing.

  787
  On the point that I raised in an intervention with the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about a vote on VAT on fuel, I still do not understand why, if she wants a vote on VAT on fuel, she could not have tabled a new clause for selection for debate on the Floor of the House. There is no reason why she should not have done that. The right hon. Lady may have felt that she could not have negotiated that if a total breakdown in the usual channels had taken place. That is a matter for speculation, but I see no technical reason—I speak with some experience in the matter—why, if the Opposition 'wish to engineer a debate on VAT on the Floor of the House in Committee, they should not have done so.
  Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman and I are clearly at cross purposes. We cannot table a new clause at this stage in the proceedings. The Government chose the topic, as they always do, for this stage of the Bill. [Interruption.] There are no usual channels at the moment. And even when that is done through the usual channels, the Government choose topics to be discussed on the Floor of the House. We usually try to reach a degree of accommodation, but they have the power.
  Sir Terence Higgins: There is no reason why the right hon. Lady should not have tabled a new clause for debate in Committee and there is no reason why that new clause should not have been selected for debate on the Floor of the House. Of course, that requires some negotiation; if she is not prepared to operate the usual channels, it might be difficult and in that sense she is hoist by her own petard. I do not want to generate an antagonistic atmosphere because I am seeking to pour oil on troubled waters.
  Mr. Rooker: The right hon. Gentleman has been here longer than I have. Before I came to the House, and when he was here, the entire Finance Bill Committee was taken on the Floor of the House. When the change was made to consider most of it in Standing Committee, it is clear from "Erskine May" that only the part of the Bill which received a Second Reading could be selected for debate by a Committee of the whole House. It is not within the remit of the Opposition or any hon. Member to dream up a new clause for a Committee of the whole House. That can be done only at the end of the Bill's consideration in Standing Committee. That decision was made when the present arrangements were put in place not to take the whole Committee stage on the Floor of the House.
  Sir Terence Higgins: I would have to check on that, but I see no reason why it should not have been arranged through the usual channels.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is an argument between the two sides of the House as to whether it would have been possible for the Opposition to table a new clause which, through the usual channels, we could have brought to the Floor of the House during the consideration of the Bill by a Committee of the whole House. I seek your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to whether that would have been possible under the rules of order of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I certainly cannot make a ruling off the cuff now. I need time to ponder.
  Sir Terence Higgins: As always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you show great wisdom in these matters.
  Mrs. Beckett: It is not our understanding of the procedure, but if the Financial Secretary is right, I repeat the offer that I made to him earlier. By tabling our new clauses and saying that we want to take them on Report, we are saying that we believe that it is possible to scrutinise the Bill, get the report back before Easter and have a debate and a vote on VAT. If the Financial Secretary has no problems with that, let him ensure that the Government do nothing to impede it. We are quite content with that.
  Sir Terence Higgins: We may or may not be making progress, but I certainly hope that we shall.
  I follow what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said and I do not consider that the current position is in the interests of the House. None the less, in the present overheated atmosphere I shall support my right hon. Friend's proposals for a guillotine. Otherwise, it is highly unlikely that we shall have any reasonable debate, but instead long debates at the beginning and short debates at the end of considering a massive Bill.
  Mr. Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to ponder a further point of order related to the previous one? If it is possible for us to discuss a new clause on the Floor of the House in Committee, does the present guillotine rule out a further day on the Floor of the House in Committee to discuss just such a new clause?
  Sir Terence Higgins: I fear that my speech will be longer than I intended and I apologise for that.
  Many of our strategic and tactical problems stem from the fact that in his Budget last spring my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) said that we would have a unified Budget the following autumn.
  A decade ago, the Procedure Committee on finance, which I chaired, set out the arguments both ways and did not decide in favour of or against a unified Budget, but it was absolutely clear that before embarking on that course one needed massive and widespread consultation, especially on timing. Many of our problems stem directly from the fact that that did not happen. The consequences were that just before Christmas the Government found it necessary to guillotine two Bills because they did not have time to carry them through on schedule. As a result, they incensed the Opposition and created the present unsatisfactory situation.
  That having been said, there is a case for reconsidering the whole issue of the unified Budget. The Opposition should have a responsibility—as do the Government, the Liberal Democrat party and all right hon. and hon. Members—for trying to get our annual financial programme back on a sensible basis. Until recently, we had three main occasions: the autumn statement, the public expenditure White Paper debate and the Budget. They have all been concertinad into a short period of time. Perhaps we shall have a couple of days on public expenditure just before the summer recess; none the less, the schedule is out of kilter.
  Both sides of the House must have a sensible arrangement for a procedural basis. I am deeply concerned about what is happening at the moment, particularly on the broader question of timing. For example, the deadline for getting the Finance Bill through, which used to be 5 August, has been brought forward to 5 May. In other

  789
  words, it has been brought forward by exactly the same amount as the Budget, but between the Budget and the deadline we have the Christmas recess—the Finance Bill may or may not be published before it—and the Easter recess.
  The period for consultation for outside interests and so on is severely curtailed. There is no reason why the Budget and the deadline should have been brought forward to the same extent. There could have been a longer period, as was proposed by the Treasury Committee and the Procedure Committee, so that we could have a more reasonable time. I do not imagine that the Treasury will be on holiday on 5 May, so there is no desperate need to get the Bill through.
  The unified Budget is an illusion. It is not a unified Budget in the sense of public expenditure and taxation being considered together. That is not even true in Government. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary takes the view that the effect of unification is to bring home to spending Ministers rather more appreciation of the tax implications of their proposals. That may be so, but we do not need a unified Budget for that purpose.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is still determining what is happening to taxation. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Security cannot say that he would like to spend more on something and so taxes should increase on something else: it is still all in the control of the Chancellor. The House is not in a position, as the Procedure Committee recently suggested, to put forward proposals on whether taxes or public expenditure should be increased. We are still in the traditional position where the House can only reduce them, so the Budget is not a unified Budget in that sense either.
  In addition, we are supposed to be debating taxation and public expenditure together. We still have all the old traditional taxation debates, but there is no corresponding stream of debates on public expenditure. We have the Estimates days, which always fulfil a useful function, but there is no serious debate on individual items based on reports from individual Departments on which Select Committees could report and which could lead to a separate stream of debates on public expenditure, which would be sensible if we were really fulfilling our jobs.
  This all gives one grave cause for concern against a background of the biggest Finance Bill ever. That is not disputed by anyone; it is the only two-volume Finance Bill ever.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Terence Higgins: No, I have been talking much too long and I shall make only one more major point.
  The Select Committee on Procedure, the Treasury Committee and others have strongly advocated splitting the Bill into a taxes management Bill on the one hand, with the more political aspects of it on the other. I still believe that the arguments in favour of that are overwhelming and that the arguments against it, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House put to the Procedure Committee, do not stand up. There is no great difficulty in splitting the Bill. We can both say which are technical matters and which are not. The reality is that some nasty things are hidden in parts of it—for example, retrospection and
  790
  whether the Inland Revenue can examine accountants' records even though a mistake was made. The Bill contains a series of difficult items and also a lot of technical stuff.
  One of the objections that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made against splitting the Bill was that it would have to have two Second Readings and two Report stages. It is seriously arguable—I have not thought about this until recently—whether one should not have the Budget and the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, split the Bill into two separate Committees, which could then consider the technical aspects as against the political aspects, bring it back for Report and then on to Third Reading. In the light of the timetable motion, I think that it is a bit late to do that, but it is important that we should seek to get the whole of our financial procedures on an even keel.
  Mr. Illsley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Terence Higgins: With great respect, I am coming to my concluding remarks.
  On balance, we have serious tactical problems, for the reasons that I have mentioned. It is important that we get the usual channels working as soon as possible. That is important not only for the immediate reasons of the Bill, but we must get the fundamental programme for the future consideration of our financial affairs on the right basis, which can happen only through consultation on both sides. The sooner that begins, the better.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: This is the first occasion on which I have spoken in a debate on an allocation of time motion since I have been a Member of the House. There have been many opportunities to speak —far too many. I have held back until now because I have wanted to develop the point in my mind before bouncing it off the House of Commons.
  What the Government are doing is an affront to parliamentary institutions and fulfils Lord Hailsham's idea about parliamentary dictatorship: one wins a general election, gets the parliamentary arithmetic and pushes through legislation regardless of the views inside or outside the Chamber. Of course, that means bad legislation. It also means that an Opposition can win the the debate but time after time they lose the vote; the Government arrogantly proceed. The guillotine motion is bad for those reasons and shows the arrogance of the Government in their approach to Parliament and democratic institutions. I believe that it is time that every Back-Bench Member of Parliament paused to consider whether we should take away from the Executive the capacity and power to decide what should be parliamentary business.
  When I have discussed that concept with one or two of my colleagues, they have looked bewildered, because they have been brought up on the basic British constitution A-level and think that it cannot be done in the Westminster-style constitution. I disagree. It seems to me that we should have, in relation to the Finance Bill and other legislation, a Select Committee of senior Members of the House of Commons with whom the Government would negotiate, every year, "train paths" for legislation. They would not only discuss the amount of parliamentary time that is given to each Bill but also the volume of Bills. In my mind's eye I see a Select Committee, probably chaired by

  791
  the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) or the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). They would be ideal candidates for the chairmanship of a Select Committee that was distanced from the Executive. Of course, there would be a parliamentary majority on it for the largest party, but nevertheless it would be able to decide how much legislation and at what pace and 'volume Parliament could and should allow for Government Bills.
  That is different from Jopling, because he assumes that the parliamentary timetable of the business would still be dictated by the Government. It is that principle that we should consider breeching. It would make for a much better Parliament and better legislation. It would temper the excesses of Government and give them time and pause to determine whether legislation, in its entirety or in part, was prudent for the country or even their parliamentary fortunes. It is archaic that the business of the House, under the guillotine motion, should be dictated to us by the Lord President of the Council, who acts as judge and jury—he obviously had the Opposition in mind—and decides whether we are being tendentious, are filibustering, or that the quality of our speeches is fair. That is nonsense.
  Let us consider the Lord President of the Council. The present incumbent of that office is quite a decent bloke. Contrary to his better judgment, since I have been here, he has been kind and courteous to me. No doubt he is kind to animals, too. Nevertheless, his office is wrong. That point has been brought home this afternoon by the fact that he can and does behave as judge and jury in this place on the quality and relevance of the speeches and the behaviour and performance of Members of Parliament. I would like to see that changed. In parenthesis, the title "Lord President of the Council" is also a nonsense. That grand title sends the wrong signals to people outside about the business of this place.
  The other day I tabled a parliamentary question asking whether the right hon. Gentleman would set out in Hansard the Privy Council oath. He said no; it was secret. What a peculiar set up. We have a supposed open Government, yet we cannot know what is the Privy Council oath. 'The Lord President of the Council presides over such humbug and the business of this place. That is wrong. It is time that his office was reviewed and, in my view, swept away.
  Reference has been made to yesterday's debate. The truth is that the Conservative party Whips said to their hon. Friends, "For goodness sake, do not get up. Do not come out of your corner fighting. We do not want to give an opportunity to the Opposition to explore the foolishness and consequences of the air passenger duty. Keep quiet." As a consequence, there was the apparent disparity that Opposition Member after Opposition Member spoke, but no Conservative Members came out of their corners to defend the proposal for which they were prepared to vote.
  Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that I spoke briefly in yesterday's debate precisely to lend my support to what the Government are doing with the air passenger duty. The fact is that the imbalance came about not because of any reticence on the Government side—we were merely following a disciplined approach—but because Opposition Members were speaking for too long and filibustering.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman has a number of distinguishing features, one of which is that, unlike his
  792
  colleagues, in parliamentary terms he came out fighting. There was a dearth of hon. Members who were prepared to speak and defend that policy, particularly those whose constituencies are around regional airports or whose work force and the economy of their area are dependent on regional airports or the airline industry. I think that you, Mr. Morris, were in the Chair. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) used the occasion to suggest that the Government—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's memory is failing him.
  Mr. Mackinlay: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will take my word for it. On another occasion last night, the hon. Member for Torbay suggested that, in place of the tax under discussion, value added tax should be imposed on the package holiday industry. The body language of the Paymaster General suggested that he wanted the ground to swallow him up: he was acutely embarrassed.
  Yesterday, Conservative speakers did not give the Government's policies sustained support. The message went out—I except the remarks of mavericks and of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) —that the Conservatives wanted to minimise the opportunity for debate, and to deny the Opposition a chance to explore and expose the foolishness of that tax proposal and others.
  As has already been said, the Government fear a further airing of their proposal to impose VAT on domestic fuel, and of all the consequences for the poor and disadvantaged. They fear the political consequences, particularly in view of the approaching municipal and European elections. I am not a very sophisticated man, but let me advance a proposition: all that is required is an opportunity for the House to vote on the proposed imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. Not only Opposition Members but people outside want that. People want to know whether their Members of Parliament were for or against the proposal.
  Earlier opportunities have been blurred by parliamentary procedures and the wording of motions. Ultimately, however, we want to know who supports the proposal, who is against it and who—among Conservative Members in particular—had the courage to oppose it, despite the party machine.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why his party failed to table an amendment to the Budget debate back in December, which would have given hon. Members the opportunity to debate the proposal? Was the reason incompetence or forgetfulness—or both?
  Mr. Mackinlay: You will observe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am being advised by my colleagues. I have candidly confessed that I am not a very sophisticated person: all I want is for the House to have an opportunity to decide whether it supports the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel—and, implicit in that, the ability of our constituents to run their fingers down the Division list and find out how their Members of Parliament voted.
  There has been dispute about both the wording of motions on the issue of VAT on domestic fuel and the timing and structure of those debates; but we have had no opportunity to debate the issue in black and white. This guillotine motion is frustrating because it is preventing us

  793
  from showing the electorate where we stand on this important matter. I would welcome the opportunity for the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for instance, to go into the Lobby and vote on the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel: it would enable my hon. Friends and myself to point out to his constituents that he supported it.
  I take a fairly ecumenical view of the Liberal Democrats outside the House. I have always said that the defeat of this Tory Government is of paramount importance, and that anyone who joins us in the Lobbies with the aim of defeating them is welcome. Having listened to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), however, I must add that his party must decide whether it seriously wants to frustrate the Government in their implementation of policies designed to disadvantage ordinary working people. More important, are the Liberal Democrats prepared to do all that they can to defeat the Government and bring forward the date of a general election?
  In short, the Liberal Democrats must decide whether they are with us or against us. The speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire betrayed a confusion of thought. Liberal Democrats are trying to have it both ways. The challenge, or test, lies in whether they are prepared to vote with Labour on this issue and others between now and the general election, thus demonstrating that they oppose the Tory party. I hope that, in areas of the United Kingdom where the Liberal Democrats allegedly hope to maximise their majority over the Conservatives, potential Labour voters and others opposed to the Conservatives will note the ambiguous stance of Liberal Democrats in this debate and others.
  The repeated use of the guillotine by the Leader of the House and his colleagues will ultimately prove foolish from the point of view of the Conservatives. They have been in office for so long that they see themselves as almost divine; few Conservative Members can envisage the day on which they might just be sitting over here. Two years from now there will be a Labour Government, and that Government will have an important duty: they will have to get through a bottleneck of legislation in a short time. After 14 years of Conservative government, we shall want to reverse many decisions—legitimately, because we shall have a mandate.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): More spending.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The Chief Secretary may interrupt from a sedentary position, but we shall have a mandate. One thing that we have learnt over the past 15 years is the need to stick to the programme and press on. I hope that my hon. Friends will do that. I also hope that—because one of the hallmarks of the Labour party and its traditions is democracy—we will restrain ourselves from giving way to the legitimate temptation to behave as Conservative Members have behaved in recent years.
  Mr. Portillo: Will the Labour party's mandate be to spend more, or to spend less?
  Mr. Mackinlay: Our mandate will be to support and sustain Britain; to restore essential public services that are
  794
  much missed by working people; to invest in our manufacturing base, which has haemorrhaged over the past 15 years—and much more.
  Our capacity to right the wrongs of 15 years will, however, be limited by problems of parliamentary time. Nurses, teachers, parents, trade unionists and others, both in and out of work, will all be seeking remedies for the excesses of the Thatcher years and the era of the present Prime Minister. We shall be faced with the temptation of using the guillotine. I hope that we shall act with restraint; but Conservative Members might be prudent to reflect for a few moments on the fact that there will soon be a change of Government. Then decisions about parliamentary timetables, the use of the guillotine and appointments to boards and police authorities will be taken by my right hon. Friends. Because we are democrats, we shall refrain from the excesses demonstrated by the Lord President of the Council today, and for a long time before today.
  I was not able to make the point when I was interrupted by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but I say now that we shall review and modernise the United Kingdom's parliamentary institutions and constitutional structure. I may then be able to persuade my right hon. Friends to consider ways and means of ensuring that this legislature —in particular, Back-Bench Members—can influence the volume of legislation and the capacity to facilitate serious debate on legislation.
  This Finance Bill is a monstrosity. There is not a stapler capable of going through it. Such is its size that it has had to be produced in two parts. Never before have we had a Finance Bill as thick as this one. When you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, became a Member of Parliament Bills were not printed on A4 paper. If the paper size had not been changed, this Bill would have had to be produced in four or five parts.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Ministers have claimed that the Bill is 40 per cent. longer. That figure is based on numbers of pages. The Finance Bill of 1993 had 69 clauses and 12 schedules, so that there was potential for 81 debates; this year's Bill has 244 clauses and 23 schedules —a total of 267 provisions. In other words, this measure is three times as big, in terms of number of provisions, as last year's. Here we have a further example of the Government's disgraceful conduct.
  Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend is right. Very often Members of Parliament are approached by constituents —people who have supported and sustained the Tory party over the years—with complaints about measures that they have discovered are on the statute book even though they have not been properly scrutinised in this House. An example is the Child Support Agency, which we are to debate tomorrow. An enormous number of my constituents—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman has said, this matter is to be debated tomorrow.
  Mr. Mackinlay: In the not-too-distant future this House will have to address itself to the effects of the Government's foolish behaviour in relation to the Child Support Agency.
  Many constituents have told both Conservative and Labour Members quite openly that, although they voted Conservative at the last and previous general elections, they feel betrayed by the Government. To such people I

  795
  have to say that Parliament is a peculiar place, that it is not geared up for detailed scrutiny of the plethora of legislation that the Conservative Government are railroading through. I have to admit that this will be a problem for the next Labour Government unless we are prepared for self-denial —as I am sure we shall be. In any case, we shall devolve power, and many matters will be dealt with by assemblies in Edinburgh and elsewhere.
  The Lord President of the Council has complained about the behaviour of Opposition Members yesterday and about the content of their speeches. I have a complaint to throw back at the right hon. Gentleman. In the course of my few moments' speech last night on the proposed air passenger duty I challenged the Paymaster General to tell us whether there had been discussions with the Isle of Man Government about the impact of this tax on their affairs. I wanted to make the point that, even if there is no legal requirement, there is a constitutional convention that the Isle of Man Chief Minister and his colleagues are approached at an early stage and given an opportunity to make representations. The right hon. Gentleman was not listening when I tried to make that point.
  I referred also to Northern Ireland and expressed regret at the absence of Northern Ireland Members. This measure certainly has an impact in their Province. The Paymaster General, in his winding-up speech, failed to respond to my points. This illustrates how, when we make legitimate points—sometimes in the form of questions—to Members on the Treasury Bench they are ignored.
  The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that I did not respond specifically to his points. In fact, I have had talks with the Isle of Man Minister about this tax. The reason for my not responding last night was that I was under very considerable pressure from both sides of the Committee at the end of a very long debate, in which I was speaking for the second time. A good many points—not just those of the hon. Gentleman—were left to be responded to at a later stage.
  Mr. Mackinlay: No doubt the Paymaster General will deal with these points in Committee, where there will not be so many Members of Parliament as witnesses and to which the television cameras do not have access. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was under pressure. He wanted to get the debate over with the minimum contribution and the minimum defence of the Government's policy on the imposition of this tax.
  I shall go into the Division Lobby in opposition to this guillotine motion because I believe, above all else, that the House of Commons is not scrutinising adequately the vast amount of legislation with which it has to deal. This makes a mockery of parliamentary democracy and produces bad legislation.
  Mr. Newton: I have been resisting the temptation to get to my feet. Although I am prepared to pay the hon. Gentleman as many compliments as he pays me, I have to say that brevity is not notable among his many qualities. I want to draw attention to the apparent paradox between most of the contents of his speech during the last few minutes and the demand of his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that less time be provided for debate on the Bill.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Either the Lord President of the Council is on a different planet or he has been listening to a different debate. The Labour party wants an opportunity to debate and expose the Government's proposal to impose value added tax on domestic fuel—a measure that will hit poor and disadvantaged people. We want our constituents to see who supported this decision and who opposed it.
  When the Lord President interrupted me I was explaining why I shall oppose the guillotine motion. What the Government are doing makes a mockery of parliamentary democracy, and it is time to demonstrate that they are completely disregarding the people of this country. They are imposing taxes that will have an enormous impact on many individuals and many enterprises. What is being done will have a deleterious effect on manufacturing industry and on our capacity to export. It will be bad for Britain.
  I look forward to the day when my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South is Lord President of the Council so that we may have a sensible and fair timetable for all legislation and may take the initiative of reviewing and revising our rather outdated parliamentary institutions and our rather old and inadequate constitutional structures. That day is not far away.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I shall endeavour to be very brief. In the interests of allowing the debate to proceed rapidly, I do not intend to give way.
  I listened carefully to the rather entertaining speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). At least one rather interesting and serious point lay behind much of his rhetoric: the House faces a choice between an approach to the management of our business that rests principally on the usual channels—parliamentary management by party duopoly, which is why the Liberals and nationalists have cause to complain from time to time—or greater control over the allocation of parliamentary time.
  I think that, rationally, the Speaker should make more of such decisions. That would be an alternative approach. In other mature democracies, especially the United States, more responsibility for the allocation of time is given to the occupant of the chair. I am not advocating that solution, but there are other ways of proceeding, and perhaps in future the House will conclude that it is necessary to look more widely.
  The debate is a bit like Hamlet without the Prince. The evil genius of the situation, whereby civilised conduct has apparently broken down between the two main parties, is the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who is not in his place tonight but who has much more influence on such matters than even the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), dignified though she may be by the technical title of deputy Leader of the Opposition.
  I had much sympathy for the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who spoke much good sense about the timetabling of Government legislation and about the need fairly swiftly to adopt many of the solutions proposed in what is described as the Jopling package. I therefore hope that Ministers will consider that argument carefully to see whether that package can be implemented in agreement with the Opposition.
  As the House knows, I took, part in yesterday's debate on the air passenger duty, which has some relevance to

  797
  what we are discussing. I was happy to support the Government, and I briefly explained why. I wanted to make a five-minute speech yesterday—that is what I had intended—but on checking the record I discovered that it lasted 13 minutes. The reason for that is germane to this debate, because, in what I had intended to be a five-minute speech, I felt it necessary and polite to take five interventions from Labour Members, which lengthened the speech from five minutes. That is but one example of the way in which Opposition Members were doing an operation.
  Mr. Clive Betts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Forman: I said that I would not give way, because I want to make progress.
  Opposition Members are perfectly entitled to do such an operation, but it is important that the House, the country and anybody listening to the debate realise that Conservative Back Benchers took a disciplined approach to yesterday's debate. I believe that only three Conservative Back Benchers spoke. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General made two excellent speeches—one in opening the debate, in which he provided much essential information, and the second in winding up, in which he sought, with difficulty and against the clock, to answer some of the points that had been made. I make no criticism of the way in which Ministers performed their duties.
  In general terms, it would be much better for the House to timetable its important legislation almost as a matter of course. That would have been sensible for this enormous Finance Bill, to whose length many hon. Members have referred. The arrangements proposed in the motion are, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, very generous. After all, it proposes 16 days and 32 sittings and, with well ordered debates, it should be perfectly possible to give all important aspects of the Bill serious consideration.
  I would go further than that. I would support timetabling all Government Bills and it would make good sense to do so at an early stage of a Bill's passage. That would be better than the alternative suggested by the deputy Leader of the Opposition, when she said rather disingenuously that it is better to have waffle, filibuster and endless debate on minor points for hours and days—I have been involved in many such discussions—and to introduce a timetable later. It defies the purpose of a sensible timetable to introduce it later, because time is lost before it is introduced.
  It would be much better for the quality of legislation, which concerns interests outside the House, and for the reputation of the House, if we timetabled all Government Bills, as has been proposed many times by Procedure Committees and others. If there is not sufficient political will in the House to do so, let us get back to sensible, grown-up working of the usual channels and see whether we can find ways, even at this late stage, of enabling the House to function more effectively. I hope that experience of recent events will contribute to a return to common sense, and that Opposition Members will grow up.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: The Government have staggered on for quite a few months advancing vacuous arguments and offering feeble excuses, but they have reached new heights of feebleness and vacuity in relation to the two subjects that are relevant to this debate—justifying their tax position and this motion.
  The Lord President advanced a series of arguments, if I can use that word, for the motion. His first was that the Labour party is deliberately obstructing the passage of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) dealt adequately with that. We want a vote on the extension of VAT before 1 April, so there is no way in which we shall obstruct the Bill beyond that point. That is perfectly clear to the Government, so they have not a shred of evidence that we intend to obstruct the Bill.
  The Lord President went on to deal with the length of speeches last night, and complained about one hon. Member who spoke for 50 minutes. Many Opposition Members spoke for 10 or 15 minutes—I spoke for 10—and my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) was singled out for criticism, but he had good reason to speak for 50 minutes, given the serious concerns of his constituents about the air passenger tax.
  There is nothing unusual about hon. Members speaking for 50 minutes. Indeed, I wanted to speak in last Friday's debate on the Bank of England (Amendment) Bill, but was prevented from doing so by two Conservative Back Benchers, who spoke for more than an hour each. I did not make a point of order and say that deliberate filibusters were preventing me from speaking. We know that such things happen all the time, and many Conservative Members have good reasons for making long speeches.
  That has long been respected in the House. I am told that, if we go back into history, we shall find that Members used to speak for longer than they do now. It is cant and hypocrisy for the Lord President to complain about one Member speaking for 50 minutes, when most of us were much briefer.
  The next reason that the Lord President "advanced" was that it was wholly unreasonable for a debate to go beyond 10 pm. It takes some gall for the right hon. Gentleman to say that, given all the timetables he imposed on Maastricht, when debates went beyond 10 pm and 4 am, and when some even went beyond 10 am the next day. Everybody knows that the Government have timetabled many debates in the House to go beyond 10 o'clock.
  It would seem perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to expect the debate to go beyond 10 pm when the usual three days for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House had been deliberately reduced to two by the Government. It was perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to expect a debate until 10 pm on the air passenger tax, and a debate thereafter on the insurance premium tax.
  The final "argument" of the Lord President was that he is proposing the guillotine to protect the rights of poor, slighted Back Benchers. This was the most vacuous and feeble of his arguments, because what he is really saying is that he wants to allow time mainly for his own Back Benchers to discuss the insurance premium tax, the freezing of allowances and mortgage tax relief.
  The motion allows Conservative and Labour Back Benchers and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and Ministers two hours to discuss those three matters. How

  799
  can the right hon. Gentleman possibly expect anyone to take seriously his argument that he is trying to protect the rights of Back Benchers? Everyone knows the reason for that guillotine. The fundamental reason is—as we realise if we also consider the previous two guillotines—that the Government do not want to discuss tax.
  It is not surprising that the Government do not want to discuss tax, because whenever they do so they come out with a series of vacuous arguments and feeble excuses. The Government do not want the people of the country to be reminded by the Opposition that they lied at the general election. They do not want people to be reminded that we are debating in the Finance Bill the biggest tax hike in British tax history.
  That is a cause of considerable embarrassment to the Government, so the less time that is spent in the House debating those matters, the happier the Government are. They can troop round the television studios, as they have done for the past two weeks, presenting their feeble excuses when the Opposition are not there to point them out, but they do not want to come to the House and present the series of feeble excuses that they have been using during the past two weeks.
  There are various versions of those excuses. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer started them off, by presenting the idea that somehow those tax increases are the result of economic circumstances—some unfortunate accident that came on the Government, beyond their control. That is so obviously fallacious that it does not even require a reply.
  The Prime Minister's excuse is that he did not know what the economic situation was at the time of the election; he could not possibly know that he was going to have that big Budget deficit. Yet The Sunday Times made it absolutely clear on Sunday that, if he did not know, he should have known because many experts told him before the 1992 election.
  The Chief Secretary prefers to use what one might call the law that, at any time, a Conservative Government will tax less than a Labour Government. That is the type of mantra that the Chief Secretary has propagated. Yet that proposition is unprovable, mainly because it fails to take account of the economic situation at any one time, but also because it fails to take account of the fact that the Labour party would lax in a fairer way, and would change the balance of taxation.
  As to the state of the economy, two thirds of the deficit is the result of unemployment—that is what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says—so the main reason for the high taxes imposed by the Government is the mess to which they have reduced the economy.
  The next person in the Treasury Front-Bench team is the Financial Secretary, who, when I saw him interviewed on television, had given up any hope of trying to justify the tax position of the Government. Instead, he resorted to the argument, "Yes, people have to pay more taxation under the Government, but people's incomes have increased a lot since 1979, more than under Labour."
  The simple reply to that is that the average increase in income between 1964 and 1979, a period when we had 11 years out of 15 of Labour government, was 10 per cent. greater than the average increase in income during the past 15 years. The other factor is that the income increases have been very uneven and unfair during the past 15 years. The Government's arguments therefore amount to nothing.
  800
  The final argument is one that all the Tory Back Benchers in chorus parrot at every Question Time: "But look at the rest of Europe. We are doing so much better than them, so all the Opposition's claims about economic incompetence cannot possibly be true." However, the snapshot view that they are suddenly trying to impose on us is one that they normally reject, for good reasons. It is impossible to consider an economic situation as a snapshot; it has to be considered throughout a period.
  Let us take as an example a fairly reasonable period, from 1989—to be fair to the Government—when things were a bit better, to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman was going to relate this to the guillotine motion. May I gently remind him that we are dealing with the guillotine motion?
  Mr. Chisholm: I am sorry about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out that the Government did not want to have to bring their excuses to the House, in debate, where we would have the chance to shoot down their arguments and expose their flaws. However, I will not pursue that route any further. Perhaps, when we debate the substance of the Bill later, I will be able to develop that argument.
  It is not surprising that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury does not want to have the television cameras in the House. He does not want the people of the country to hear the arguments and the debate that is taking place here, especially about taxation. As he is unable to remove the television cameras from the House, he wants to remove the debate from the House.
  Apart from the fundamental desire to curtail debate in the House, the other reason that has been clearly stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South and others is that the Government do not want to have another debate and another vote on VAT. An amendment has been tabled by the Labour party, asking for a year's delay, and that could be renewable a year later. That position should be put to the vote, so that the people of the country realise that all the claims and all the false concern of the Conservative party about VAT amount to nothing, and that it is hiding behind the smokescreen and the illusion of the compensation package. I criticised and, I hope, exposed that package on Second Reading last week.
  I will therefore vote against the guillotine motion, because it is an attempt by the Government to take control of the Bill, when it should be in the control of the House as a whole.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I refer to you the headline in tonight's Evening Standard:
  "For God's sake give London the money: MPs plead for special status",
  which purports to be a representation of the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, published this morning, on standard spending assessments. There is no truth whatever in the story, and I am greatly concerned that my Committee's report should be misrepresented by a newspaper in that way. I wonder, therefore, whether I could ask you to rule whether the story in question should be further investigated by the House to find out how it is possible to take action to deal with such gross distortions.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I regret to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is not a matter for the Chair.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. John Biffen: This motion for a timetable motion has inevitably attracted a wider debate and entertained the House a great deal. However, I shall return to the core of our consideration, which is a timetable motion about the Budget, and which, because it is about the Budget, is of some sensitivity for the House.
  I was encouraged, when listening to the debate, by the growing acceptance of the wider issue of some automatic —albeit liberal—timetable arrangements for most of the legislation which comes before us. The debate revealed an interesting difference of opinion between those who prefer control of the timetabling arrangements to remain in the hands of the usual channels and people who are more radical, such as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and myself, who believe that this should be an opportunity for the control of the timetabling arrangements to rest with a Committee of the House or with some organisation other than the usual channels.
  I hope that, out of the reservations and unhappiness about timetabling which were expressed in the debate, those wider considerations are there for a more fruitful use at some future time.
  I shall also reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about the generally unsatisfactory state of our current affairs, which is characterised by the withdrawal of the usual facilities provided by the usual channels. Those delicate issues—those masonic mysteries—cannot easily be revealed to a wider public. That was shown this afternoon when, for a horrible moment, it looked as though the prospects of an agreed re-run of the debate about value added tax on fuel might be sensibly and reasonably canvassed before Madam Speaker herself. Quickly, the parties concerned adopted the posture of open disagreement, openly arrived at.
  That is the unhappy situation in which we find ourselves and it is one in which there can be no prospect of a return to civilised conduct in this place, not for the sake of the convenience of hon. Members—not that that is a consideration to be disparaged—but for the full and effective operation of the House, for the drawing of a balance between Government and Opposition, between Front Bencher and Back Bencher and between the consideration of private Members' Bills and other legislation. All of that is part of the seamless robe that constitutes the usual channels and all of which, for one reason or another, has now fallen in desuetude. I shall say nothing about the factors that have given rise to this situation or, rather, I am not inclined to offer remedies but I should like to think I am speaking for many hon. Members who earnestly hope that something like street politics and rough common sense will break out.
  Some believe that there are other motives behind the present situation. I agree that we mostly think of procedural disagreements having procedural change as an objective, but I accept at once that that has not always been the case. When the Labour Government were in office in 1950, the Conservative party engaged in the most vigorous harrying procedural tactics over the tabling of prayers. Folklore has it that it was material in securing the early demise of that Government. Certainly, that Government lasted no more than 18 months or so and their subsequent
  802
  defeat ushered in 13 glorious years of Conservative rule. However, I have no wish to raise the temperature or perhaps even falsify the accounts of today's situation.
  Some people believe that the use of procedural devices can secure political ends, but I very much doubt it. If we go through this rigmarole until after the Euro-elections, Conservative morale may not crack—heaven knows, we can generate enough difficulties of our own without any assistance from the Opposition's strategists—but Parliament will suffer, our procedures will suffer, the quality of our legislation will suffer, and above all, our reputation will suffer and such suffering cannot easily be redeemed.
  7.12 pm
  Ms Angela Eagle: I reacted with astonishment to the disgraceful and reprehensible performance by the Leader of the House in moving to guillotine the Bill last night barely five hours into the Committee stage. As has been said many times, the Bill is not the usual Budget Bill because of its great length and the fact that it covers the first unified Budget. We have not considered such a Bill before. In such circumstances, I should have thought that we would want to ensure that we had the maximum opportunity to scrutinise this complex, technical and very long Bill.
  The feeble attempts to justify what I regard as a constitutional outrage and a gross affront to Parliament are even less convincing today than they were at 10 pm yesterday. The guillotine motion is an attempt by the Government to run away from another vote on value added tax. It is worth remembering that "Erskine May" deals specifically with the allocation of time motion, describing it as
  "the most drastic method of curtailing debate known to procedure"
  which
  "may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House".
  Yet all the legislation that we have discussed this Session has been guillotined—we seem to have a guillotine a week. There have been more guillotined debates on the Floor of the House than there have been debates on the content of legislation—that is the state to which the Leader of the House has brought us. "Erskine May" also states that guillotine motions are
  "capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance … between the claims of business and the rights of debate."
  I believe that the Leader of the House's action in seeking to curtail debate after a mere five hours in Committee upsets that balance.
  No one doubts that Finance Bills are crucial. They are central to any Government's political and economic programme and are therefore of the greatest political significance. They are at the very heart of the parliamentary battle between Government and Opposition. A Government who failed to get the Finance Bill through the House could not hope to survive without calling a general election. Likewise, only the House has a voice in determining what levies should be placed on the people. It is our duty to do that job.
  It was the attempts by unelected Members in another place to disrupt and delay a Government with a popular mandate by denying them their Finance Bill at the turn of the century which led directly to the special arrangements that now operate in this place for the scrutiny of such

  803
  legislation. Neither the House of Lords nor the Sovereign can have any influence in these matters, which infinitely increases the duties imposed on us to do a proper job as we alone can scrutinise and amend the Bill. That makes the guillotining of a Finance Bill an especially unwelcome event and one which should not be undertaken merely for the greater comfort of the Government's business managers but only as a last resort in dire circumstances. I do not believe that the Leader of the House was in dire circumstances when he acted as he did last night.
  The Government cannot argue that their precipitate rush to the guillotine procedure has any validity. To resort to a guillotine motion so quickly is, therefore, unforgivable and it is a complete abuse of the rights of Parliament, which should not be given away easily. In the sudden and disgraceful interruption of last night's proceedings, the Leader of the House quoted three examples of the guillotine being applied to Finance Bills, two under Labour. Governments and one under a Conservative Government. The first was in 1967, the second in 1975 and the third in the election year of 1992 when, admittedly, the election was already upon us so it could be argued that there were special circumstances. In other words, the Conservative party had to legislate quickly for their irresponsible pre-election bribe which subsequently knocked the economy off course in time for it to feature in their election campaign which, I seem to recall, it did.
  Let us take a closer look at the two Labour precedents claimed by the Leader of the House as justification for his action. In 1968, the Finance Bill had already been discussed in Standing Committee for no fewer than 62 hours prior to the guillotine motion being moved. That Bill contained 56 clauses whereas this Bill contains 244. At that time, Finance Bills were certainly shorter, so in considering the fact that there had been 62 hours of debate in Standing Committee before the guillotine was imposed it is necessary to bear in mind that the average time spent debating Finance Bills in the period 1951 to 1964 was 64 hourso—only two hours short of the time already spent in consideration of that Bill. On this occasion, we had spent only five hours considering a much longer Bill in Committee prior to the guillotine motion being moved.
  Even so, in 1968 the then Conservative Opposition were so outraged by the guillotine that the then hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds accused the Leader of the House, Lord Peart, of acting like a drawing room storm trooper. The attempt to guillotine the longest Finance Bill in history, which introduces the largest post-war tax hike, after only five hours in Committee and after consideration of only one of its 244 clauses and 23 schedules resembles a blitzkrieg rather than the antics of one paltry storm trooper. The shadow Leader of the House at that time, Edward du Cann, called the guillotine "shocking", "shameful" and "deplorable" and "intolerable". He said:
  "It raises a larger amount of taxation than any other Finance Bill."—[Official Report, 21 May 1968; Vol. 765, c. 438.]
  That is also the case in this Bill. He went on to say that the guillotining of a Finance Bill was
  "a situation which we would never have countenanced…We would not betray the trust which people put in the elected representatives of the majority party"— [Official Report, 21 May 1968; Vol. 765, c. 439.]
  Perhaps he would not, but he is a Tory of the old school his—successors in the present discreditable Cabinet have, it seems, no such qualms. There is no betrayal of the
  804
  electorate that the Conservative party will not countenance to save their own skins and to close sensible discussion of their appalling Budget betrayals.
  The only other precedent for guillotining a Finance Bill, on 4 March 1975, offers even less comfort to the Leader of the House in his vain attempts to defend his indefensible actions of last night. When the guillotine was moved, that Bill had already been considered in Standing Committee for 160 hours, not five hours, and was being deliberately filibustered by the respectable Lord Howe and the Conservative Opposition in an attempt to destroy a proposal to implement the capital transfer tax.
  Hon. Members may recall that the capital transfer tax would have raised revenue from those who were already well off and would have affected a small minority of well-off people. Decidedly, it did not affect all taxpayers like the Government's current tax proposals. There was another difference between that tax proposal and the proposals that we were attempting to scrutinise in the Bill. The Labour Government signalled their intention to introduce the capital transfer tax in their 1974 election manifesto and subsequently obtained a mandate from the electorate to do so. In the current case, the Government were elected by conning the people and by claiming that they would cut taxes, not increase them. Nowhere in their manifesto did it say that there would be 12 new tax increases, three completely new taxes and the application of VAT to fuel and power. Indeed, in the election campaign the Prime Minister explicitly rejected all suggestions that he would do that. Tonight's circumstances are therefore different from those which prevailed in 1975.
  We attempted to scrutinise the Bill, albeit for five hours only before we were so rudely interrupted last night, because it contained huge tax increases worth £12 a week for the average family. In 1975, the Conservative party deliberately filibustered for 160 hours to destroy a tax on the rich of which the electorate has been told and had approved. How can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in his speech to the Thatcherite Conservative "Way Forward" group earlier in the month, deplore
  "the new British disease, the self-destructive sickness of national cynicism"
  when his own Government treat Parliament and the electorate with such contempt? Instead of launching juvenile McCarthyite witch hunts about the new enemy within in an early bid for the succession, he should look to his own Government's behaviour for an explanation of the cynicism now abroad towards politicians. I can easily understand why people viewing the Government's disgraceful behaviour and their contempt for the public are turning to cynicism, which threatens our democratic institutions. Those cynical people have been made so by the disgraceful actions of a discredited Government.
  We know the real reason behind the guillotine: it is a hidden agenda to prevent further discussion of VAT. The Government have been exposed as deceiving the public about their tax plans at the general election and as not being the party of low taxation. They are now running away from debates in Parliament on tax and closing down our opportunities to debate. That is why they imposed the guillotine. It has been a cynical and disgraceful effort.
  Mr. Macdonald: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Ms Eagle: I am just finishing. The motion sets a precedent which the Government may live to regret and Labour Members will oppose it for the reasons that I have set out.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friends will know of my concern about the incessant use of the guillotine. That concern has been long-stated and I have tried to argue in —most such debates;six in recent years—that it seems increasingly to have become an instrument of executive Government to control and manage the House. That is a matter of concern for us all because I recognise that, in the course of my life, it has not only been one-party government. Governments have alternated from side to side across the House. I see no reason why that bold tradition of the British people called democracy will not continue.
  The arguments adduced by Conservative Members some 60 times since I have been in the House will, no doubt, be used against me at some later time should the Opposition become the Government.
  It was not just the issue of the guillotine that I wanted to address. The motion touches on something to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) also referred—the withdrawal of the usual channels. It was not a seamless garment. At times I have thought of it more as a shroud under which we concealed and buried the vitality of the House. Reasonable people across the House may think that it is so intolerable that we cannot reach arrangements, that whatever the Executive bring forward is better than having no discussion or co-operation.
  Any Member of the House can bring proceedings to a halt. We know that. I tried to advocate it during the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. One could have objected to almost every non-debatable motion and brought the business to an end. Wisdom, in the form of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North, advised me that I may alienate the House and that by frustrating the purposes of House I was not serving my own argument well. In that lies the resolution of such matters, to which the Opposition must address themselves. Do they really want to drive the Government into taking measures that I shall find loathsome, which many hon. Members will find distasteful, and which will so control the debates of the House as to affect the function which we serve? It is tolerance that makes the House work. We are 651 people with passions and beliefs. Why else did we enter into politics? We have an understanding of what we want for our country. If there is no co-operation in the management of business, we shall break the thing that is the only legitimate expression of the wishes and passions of our people, however poor that expression may be in the eyes of the people of country.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is more used to being abused by me. I would like to kick him and I do kick him because this is such a comprehensive motion. Should we give up to the Executive, through the Committee of Selection, the absolute determination of how we manage the House of Commons and the future legislation of this country? That must be wrong and it was not our purpose.
  806
  I would like to take issue with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire on one point. There is a notion that runs around the Benches of the House—it is not one that I share and not one for which I can find a constitutional basis—that the Government must have their business. I have never heard of such a constitutional notion. It never arose in the House before. The only thing that the Government should have is the finance. With that, they can manage the country. That does not mean that I came here to support every jot of nonsense or every original idea and fantasy of a temporary member of the Executive who flitted through the House and perhaps took a job merely as an item on his curriculum vitae for a City position. I want and expect, as do the electorate of Aldridge-Brownhills and of the west midlands, hon. Members to look cautiously at every ambitious engagement of a Minister of the Crown. That is our function. I understand the anger of the Opposition Front-Bench Members at the motions tabled before Christmas. I hope that I expressed the views of many Conservatives about the way in which that business was conducted. Without tolerance and without understanding of the purpose of the House, the feud between Opposition Front-Bench Members and the Government will break that purpose.
  Let us have a cheer for what we are. Let us really get together. I cannot believe that it serves the interests of Labour Front-Bench Members—I accept that it is not for me to judge those interests—to conduct matters in this way. The Opposition's attitude was clearly set out by the deputy leader of the Labour party when she was asked what she wanted and what was the point at which we could engage or re-engage in proper business. There was no answer; there is no answer from Opposition Front-Bench Members at the moment. Is it a great political engagement? Is this the means by which they believe that they can bring down the Government? I tell Labour Front-Bench Members this. There is a resolution among Conservative Members which will not permit the Government to be brought down in that way. The Government will be brought down, if they are ever brought down, by the British people voting in an election; that is the way in which it will be done.
  I hope that Opposition Front-Bench Members will consider what they are doing in their attempt to break the Government. They will break the House of Commons and they will see, introduced and supported by Conservative Members, measures that cannot be in the interest of themselves, of the Government or of the country at large.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: If, as a result of the present impasse, the interregnum and the breaking of the usual channels, there is a revolution in this place, and if we then take a fundamental look at the way in which we act on behalf of our constituents, I for one will say that that is a good day's work. Having switched off co-operation, there must be a legitimate reason to switch it back on. The Government must take that point on board.
  I am not party to the discussions, so I do not want to go down the highways and byways, but I have described the political reality. Some of my constituents have said to me in the past couple of weeks,"Haven't you been opposing for the past 15 years, Jeff?" I say,"Yes, within the rules and procedures, archaic though they are, understood by few outside and not understood by everyone in the House."

  807
  I have come to the conclusion that our ability to scrutinise and to do a decent day's work on legislation on behalf of our constituents has diminished over the years.
  I have been in Committee, both as a Front Bencher and as a Back Bencher, to do a serious job. Sometimes the Opposition have known the date by which they wanted to finish. It may have been part of the game plan to create a logjam later in the summer on matters totally unrelated to the legislation with which we were dealing. We wasted hour after hour. We missed debates on many key points; I do not deny that. We were forced into those circumstances because of the culture of this place, which is passed from one generation to another. No one says,"Stop. Why are we doing things in this way. Why do we have these Standing Orders? Is this the best way in which to promote and to scrutinise legislation?" We have never said, "Let us stop and have a look." If the interregnum provides that opportunity, it will be a good day's work.
  The motion shows how quick the Government are to respond in the traditional way. If on the day set aside for Report there happens to be a delay in starting—an emergency debate, for example—there is injury time. However, there is no attempt to table a manuscript amendment to give us injury time of an hour and a half today, although time was legitimately taken up on the privilege motion.
  What on earth was the House of Commons doing spending an hour and a half from 3.30 pm debating the archaic rule that the Chairman of a Standing Committee does not have the right to turf out someone who should not be in the Committee? Why did not the Leader of the House say,"Here is the new model Standing Order to stop that nonsense ever again taking up time on the Floor of the House"? That would be sensible, but nobody seems to follow through those issues. We are offered no injury time today even with the privilege motion. The Government could not have known about the privilege motion last night, but they could have made provision for injury time.
  The Government's business was known about. There were to be three key debates on insurance, on the freezing of tax allowances—creating 400,000 more low-paid taxpayers—and on mortgage tax relief. I did not come to speak on the guillotine motion; I have not sought over the years to speak on such motions. There are good and bad reasons for guillotines. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) did an admirable job demolishing the Government's case on the 1975 Finance Bill. That Finance Bill did not follow a Budget and it is wrong to use it as an example in the generality of arguments about why this guillotine has had to be introduced. It was not an ordinary Finance Bill. The Budget followed it and there was then a Finance (No. 2) Bill to put into legislation the Chancellor's Budget resolutions and the Ways and Means resolutions.
  We are offered three hours to debate the guillotine. This House follows Parkinson's law; if there is time available, it will be filled. The Opposition and the Government have sometimes sought for the convenience of everyone—the business—to say, "This does not need to go until 10 pm; it can be wrapped up earlier." The Whips say, "We can't have that. We have sent them away until 10 pm. They will not be back here to vote." It is beyond belief that we do not have the flexibility in our own procedures to come to a conclusion earlier on an issue. I make no complaint. The Leader of the House knows that the full three hours will be taken on a guillotine motion.
  Mr. Newton: The previous guillotine that I moved applied to the Non-Domestic Rating Bill. The full three hours was not taken and, what is more, the Opposition could not fill the time for which the guillotine provided.
  Mr. Rooker: That is a point of criticism. We are at fault if we do not fill all three hours. Yet I and my hon. Friends will be criticised if we take the full three hours to complain about the chopping down of debate. We shall be told that we have deprived ourselves of the opportunity to discuss the issues.
  I did not originally come here to speak on the guillotine debate. I came because I wanted to make a brief speech on clause 72 and on the amendments. The clause concerns personal allowances and I wanted to make the point, at greater length than was possible on Second Reading, that the Government are creating 615 extra low-paid taxpayers in every constituency. That is the reality. I wanted to make that point at some length.
  As I said on Second Reading, 13 Conservative Members have majorities of under 600 and there are 24 with majorities of under 1,200. They have a vested interest in knowing about clause 72. The new taxpayers will make the connection between the rows over the Budget, the rows over the withdrawal of co-operation in running the House and the fact that they are paying tax for the first time. The new taxpayers will be low-paid people because clause 72 will apply only to people earning between £60 and £70 a week. I shall be deprived of the opportunity to develop that point at length because of the guillotine motion.
  There are three issues for debate. If we had an hour on each and then a vote—we would need to push the matter to a vote to register our protests effectively—we should have a total of three and three quarter hours. There will be two votes at the end of this debate because we shall also vote on the amendment which proposes that we should be able to debate the Bill until midnight. If that is carried, we shall have the extra two hours. I hope that we shall vote for that.
  If I had had the opportunity to do so, I would have referred in complimentary terms to the Leader of the House. Perhaps we should not keep these files, but I dug out some debates from 1977 on the Finance Bill. There were some excellent speeches by the right hon. Gentleman about the need to raise income tax allowances and thresholds to protect people who were on the margin of paying tax. In those days he was an ally of mine and of my hon. Friend who is now the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), and he had some valuable things to say. Time has passed since then, and as the Government have now seen fit to renege on raising tax allowances two Budgets running, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman deserved to be reminded of that time.
  The motion will also deprive us of the opportunity to discuss not only the extra tax on the low paid but the reduction in tax relief for the millions of people with mortgages. We shall not reach that debate. Those people will get less tax relief and will have to pay more for their mortgages, but Parliament will not have debated the issue, because of the guillotine motion, which gives no opportunity for hon. Members on either side of the House to deploy the case for or against.
  Moreover, the motion gives no opportunity for those of us who argue, as I do, in favour of raising thresholds, to explain where the money might come from. When we argue for what is in effect a tax decrease, it behoves us to

  809
  discuss where the money might be found to fund it. The Government have to balance the books and meet the £50 billion deficit that they have caused.
  Under the rules of the House, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, neither Opposition nor Government Back Benchers can table amendments to raise taxes on individuals. We can table only amendments that would decrease taxes. That is why we need the opportunity of debate, not merely the opportunity to table amendments for the record. We need to be able to say that, although we ask for a tax reduction in one area, on balance there could be a tax increase somewhere else. As I said last week, one example would be an increase in tobacco tax—there is no disagreement between the parties about that. Hon. Members should not be deprived of the opportunity to debate such ideas.
  If the draconian guillotine motion had not been introduced I would have wanted the chance to update some figures that I gave at the end of my speech on Second Reading. I was talking about the burden on the lowest fifth of income earners over the past decade, compared with that on the other four fifths of income earners, and I cited what were then the latest figures available—"Social Trends" for 1993, which the Government published a year ago. Since Second Reading the latest, 1994, edition of "Social Trends" has been published.
  If I had had the opportunity I would have updated my statistics, although not in great detail, and explained what happened to the figures when the extra year since 1979 was added on. Of course, I cannot do that now, but it shows that by 1990–91, in real terms, the bottom fifth of income earners had had a 3 per cent. reduction in their median real income after housing expenses. Meanwhile, the next fifth of income earners had had a 12 per cent. increase, the middle fifth a 25 per cent. increase, and the next fifth a 34 per cent. increase. Finally, you will be astonished to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, between 1979 and 1990–91 the top fifth of income earners had a 49 per cent. increase in their real median income after housing costs had been taken into account.
  I would have used the argument of fairness and said that some of the money to pay for the increase in tax thresholds, to relieve the burden on the low paid, could be found by taking a couple of per cent. off that 49 per cent. increase for the highest-paid one fifth of the population. I make no bones about that. The cake is there and the Government have set the size of it. I cannot make it grow, but I want to be positive rather than negative.
  It is outrageous that both Opposition and Conservative Members have been deprived of the opportunity of speaking in those three key debates. We may manage to discuss the insurance premium tax, but, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that will take all the time until 10 o'clock. There can be no argument about that, because it is an important brand-new tax that deserves to be debated in the House.
  I do not want to take all the rest of the time available, and there are only a few minutes left for the debate on this squalid guillotine motion. Last week, to the annoyance of Conservative Members, I made a point that I shall make again now, because it cannot be repeated often enough. The Government have a mandate in this place because they have more than half the votes here, but they have no
  810
  mandate from the British public for such measures. They received the support of only one third of the total electorate in 1992; that is all that they got. With all their promises—their lies, as it turned out—they still managed to secure the support of only one third of the electorate. Translated into a percentage of those who could be bothered to go out and vote, that is still only 42 per cent.
  The Government can claim no democratic legitimacy for the biggest tax hike in history. They cannot claim support at the ballot box. They can come to the House and try to shut us up and stop us talking about it, but if there is any justice, if the Leader of the House wanted to hold out an olive branch—it would behove the Government to do that, because they created the conditions for the present impasse, with their two Bills before Christmas—there are things that he could do to ameliorate the situation.
  For example, the right hon. Gentleman could put the Opposition on the spot. He could meet the legitimate demands that he has heard for the past three hours to make possible a vote on VAT on fuel on the Floor of the House before 1 April. We would move heaven and earth to create those circumstances. We would not argue about time, or delay whatever business happened to be in front of us. It is not up to me, and I have no idea about the discussions, but if it were up to me I should be willing to give up an Opposition day for the Government to use for that purpose.
  The Opposition cannot use Opposition days or Adjournment debates to change the law. People outside the House must understand that. It is not within the power of the Opposition to say, "It is our debate, so we shall decide what to do." Under the rules of the House we cannot do that, but the Government could, with our co-operation. That would earn some brownie points for the Government and I hope that the gesture would be reciprocated, because we are dealing with a key demand.
  I believe that my hon. Friends are signalling to me to shut up because I have lost track of how much time is left. I shall gladly walk into the Lobby to vote against this unfair motion. The Government could have taken a more reasonable position, because they knew what the demands of the Opposition were, even though we are not operating through the usual channels. However, it is not too late. It would not be too late, even after the motion were passed, if the Government wanted to bring it back and amend it so that the Bill could be dealt with differently. We would not then come up against the impasse. But the Opposition will have even more reason to pursue our legitimate arguments against the Government if we see that they are not prepared to be reasonable on this matter.
  7.47 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: I welcome the opportunity to follow the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).
  Let us be clear what the debate is about: it is about a Government running scared, a Government who have broken their promises and who are now attempting to stifle debate. A Government who have lost all the arguments will do anything to avoid losing the vote. A Government who have trodden all over the people of Britain are now treading all over the House of Commons.
  The guillotine motion marks a new low even by the Government's standards, because for the first time in history a Government are guillotining a Finance Bill before

  811
  it has even gone into Standing Committee. For the first time in the history of the House a guillotine has been imposed when only one clause of the Finance Bill has been debated.
  We should make no mistake about it: the timetable motion is a carefully planned cynical exercise designed to give the Government absolute control over the debates and the timing of votes on the Bill.
  This guillotine has two simple objectives: to prevent the House from having the chance to vote down value added tax on gas and electricity before it comes into force on 1 April, and to close down the debate on tax increases. The Tories are running scared. They are scared of the people; they are scared of debate in this House; and they are scared of some of their own Back Benchers. They are scared of the people of this country because people are angry at the Government for putting up their taxes and at the unfairness of the Tory tax increases. People are angry that the Government have broken all of their promises.
  The Government are scared of debate in this House because they have lost all the arguments. They have lost the arguments on taxes; they have lost the arguments on the economy; and they have lost the arguments on public services. They are scared of their own Back Benchers because they know that some fearful Tory Back Benchers have privately promised their constituents that, if only there was an opportunity, of course they would vote against VAT.
  Labour has tabled a new clause which would delay the VAT on gas and electricity coming into effect for one year. But the Government's purpose in this timetable motion is to delay any debate on VAT or on our new clause until after 1 April when VAT would already be in force. The Leader of the House shakes his head. I challenge him to intervene in my speech and to put the record straight. He could take this opportunity to deny that if it is net true.
  What we are saying to the House and to the country is that this squalid guillotine motion is an attempt by the Government to paper over the cracks in their ranks and to prevent their Back Benchers from having to make a choice on VAT.
  Mr. Newton: If it is of any interest to the hon. Lady, may I say that what she has just said is flatly, totally and completely untrue. What is more, there are Labour Members who know that to be the case.
  Ms Harman: We seem to be making some progress. Can the Leader of the House say on what occasion we will have the opportunity to discuss the new clause before 1 April?
  Mr. Newton: I am not saying that that opportunity will arise. The hon. Lady suggested that the purpose of this motion was as she described it. That is untrue. We went into yesterday's debate in the expectation that some contacts that had taken place would bring about a position in which the Bill would proceed in a different way by agreement. By this time yesterday evening, that expectation had been destroyed by the opposition of Labour Members.
  Ms Harman: It is absolutely clear, and the Leader of the House has given us all the evidence we need in his intervention, that the purpose of the guillotine motion is to prevent Tory Back Benchers from having the opportunity to vote against VAT on gas and electricity.
  812
  The Government know that they have lost the debate in the country and in their party. They now take the only course left open to them—they seek to control and manipulate the debate in Parliament. They seek to prevent their own Back Benchers from voting on VAT. They seek to spare Tory Members from having to make what they find to be a difficult choice on VAT. The choice should be obvious—honouring the promises that they made to their constituents, or following the orders of their Whips.
  We are determined to ensure that Tory Members have the opportunity to make that choice. We want to ensure that they have another chance to join us and delay the imposition of VAT—a chance to honour the promises that they made to their constituents and the pledges that the Prime Minister made to the country on their behalf. Tory Members who tell us that they also want the chance to vote against VAT on gas and electricity should vote against this timetable motion if they want that chance.
  This guillotine motion seeks to deprive a Committee of the whole House of the chance to engage in full debate about three Tory tax increases—tax increases which are all clear breaches of election pledges. The new insurance premium tax is a tax on the victims of crime. It hits hardest at ordinary people and their families—those who are already paying the price for the Government's failure on law and order. They must pay it again with this new tax. What is more, as with all Tory taxes, it is unfair. It hits hardest those who can least afford it. People who live in less prosperous areas already pay up to seven times more in insurance premiums to protect their homes than people in better areas. This tax will hit people living in the inner city areas of Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow and London up to seven times harder than those living in more affluent areas.
  Both the insurance tax and the airport tax are the thin end of the tax wedge—introduced at a relatively low rate and then jacked up to pay not for new hospitals, schools or railways but the constant bills of unemployment and low growth.
  It is a bit disingenuous for the Leader of the House to say that all the Government want is a reasonable debate on the Finance Bill because when the Chief Secretary introduced the Bill he did not even mention the insurance tax and the airport tax. So keen is he to debate the Bill that he could not even get the words "airport tax" and "insurance tax" past his lips. Perhaps he will manage to refer to them tonight and explain how the Government have come to break their promises.
  Perhaps the truth is that the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) was more prophetic than he realised when he wrote in his election address to the people of Dudley, West:
  "Tax is the dirtiest word to the Conservative philosophy"
  It certainly is such a dirty word now that Tory Ministers who are putting up taxes do not even want to discuss it.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr mentioned, the Government are also stifling debate on the freeze on personal allowances. Of course, this is a tax increase which hits hardest at the low paid. In response to questions from my hon. Friend, the Government have been forced to admit that it will drag an extra 400,000 low-paid people into the tax net. No wonder they do not want to discuss it—no wonder they wanted to squeeze the debate. They are also stifling debate on the cuts in mortgage interest tax relief, which amount to the equivalent of nearly

  813
  2p on the basic rate of income tax for a typical family with a mortgage. No wonder the Government do not want to discuss it. In their manifesto, they promised the electorate:
  "We will maintain mortgage tax relief."
  Of course, it was only after the election that the Chancellor said with a snigger:
  Luckily we didn't say at what rate".
  The promise of tax cuts was made by the Government to the country and by Tory Members to their constituencies. These tax increases break those promises. Faced with their betrayal, the Government try to hide from debate. They try to force these tax increases through with only a one-hour debate. Labour's tax in the face of that contempt for democracy becomes even more important. Not only must the economy be rebuilt and the community and publice services restored. We must rebuild the confidence of the British people in democracy—the confidence that the Tory Government have destroyed.
  The Government are in office but not in power. Despite holding the great offices of state, they are powerless. They cannot use the power of their officers to keep their election promises, so they shut down debate. They cannot run the economy, so they shut down debate. The one thing that they have not lacked is money. They have squandered £130 billion in North sea oil revenues and privatisation receipts. Having squandered all that money, they are now dipping into the pay packets of ordinary families. They cannot command the respect of the British people, so they stifle debate.
  There is only one thing that the Government are good at any more, and that is guillotine motions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) was absolutely right: this is the fourth Bill in four parliamentary weeks that the Government have guillotined. Although they can shut down the debate in this House, they cannot shut down the debate in the country. This gagging motion is the last refuge for a Government who have lost every argument and broken every promise. This Tory Government are nothing more than a rabble—a rabble without a cause. We will vote against the guillotine tonight.
  7.58 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasu (Mr. Michael Portillo): My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House began the debate sombrely enough by saying that the Government entered into this guillotine motion with no pleasure and no cheer. During this debate, the genuine concern felt throughout the House at the present state of affairs—the breakdown of normal communications between the two parties—was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), my right hon. Friends the Members for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman). That concern was also expressed by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and, to a certain degree, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).
  In seeking some agreement across the House, I begin by agreeing with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) that this is a big and serious Bill, as the Finance Bill always is. That means that the Bill could only proceed through the
  814
  House on one of two bases—agreement between the parties, or by guillotine. I would have much preferred that there should be agreement.
  It is important that the House considers the Bill in a serious and methodical way, partly because that will enhance the reputation of the House—it is the job of the House so to do—but also because it is important that outside interests are given the reassurance that the matters will be considered seriously. Those outside interests must be given time to make their representations.
  I wrote to the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) to suggest that we reach agreement, and I was rebuffed in the way in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House described. I struggled to cope with that disappointment, but I wrote again to the hon. Lady to inform her of the way in which we then intended to proceed, both on the Floor of the House in Committee and in Committee upstairs. We proposed that we should take four clauses on the Floor of the House over two days.
  There was every expectation that the Opposition might stick to that. Indeed, we began well with the small number of hon. Members who came to the House yesterday afternoon apparently wishing to address issues seriously before the House. However, at about 6 o'clock yesterday afternoon, there was a clear change of mood—I would say a clear change of control—in the Labour party. A new squad of people entered the House who had not been here at the beginning of the debate. That group of people apparently were uninterested at 4 o'clock, but by 6 o'clock they had become interested to the point of verbosity.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) showed in her opening remarks that she was not interested in what I believe the House and the Government are interested in—providing time upstairs for serious consideration of the Bill, and for outside interests to make their points known. The right hon. Lady has become obsessed with getting time on the Floor of the House to consider VAT.
  First, the right hon. Lady was offered precisely that in discussions which we thought we were having with the Labour party. We very much hoped that we could reach some agreement, and she said that she wanted to reach an agreement. For all I know, the right hon. Lady did want to reach that agreement. The divisions in the Labour party today are so severe, so arcane and so deep that it is perfectly possible that the right hon. Lady is being sincere.
  The right hon. Lady was then in the extraordinary position of having to argue—I think this argument was being made by an Opposition for the first time in history —that the fault of the guillotine motion was that it was giving too much time to the Committee upstairs. Unfortunately, the right hon. Lady failed to tip off the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who went on saying that the problem was that the guillotine gave too little time to consider a Bill that was too long.
  The right hon. Lady said that we should have trusted her. How could we possibly have done so? She was not talking to us and, like a petulant teenager who is not talking to his parents, she then complained that we not been able to reach agreement between the channels.
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not remember saying any such thing, but I do remember vividly that, on at least four or five occasions during the debate, the Government have been told that the Opposition certainly wanted the timing

  815
  of the Committee to be controlled. After all, it is a matter of the distribution of time, not just a matter of the number of weeks.
  We are nervous about how the Government will seek to control the time. They have had repeated offers to accept that we want Report and a vote on VAT in the House before Easter. 'That point was put to the Government no fewer than four or five times during the debate. The Chief Secretary can accept it now, as he has singularly failed to do on every occasion when it has been mentioned before.
  Mr. Portillo: Another point which was put to the Government was that the Opposition would proceed in a normal way during yesterday's debate, which they did not. Everyone in the House saw what happened at 6 o'clock yesterday.
  I remind the right hon. Lady that, despite what she says she said to us, the hon. Member for Peckham said in a press notice on 10 January:
  "Labour will be fighting every step of the way".
  The hon. Lady was then quoted in The Times on 12 January:
  "Labour will be making no agreements with the Government about the timetabling of the Finance Bill, as part of our policy of non-cooperation."
  I remind the House also that the hon. Lady wrote to me on 21 January:
  "As you rightly say, the Opposition is not willing to enter into informal discussions this year."
  All that gives the lie to what the right hon. Member for Derby, South has been saying.
  The right hon. Lady, when intervened upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, let out a lament that there were no usual channels. Whose fault is it but the Labour party's?
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire wanted us to accept his amendment. I am not able to do that, and I say that also to the hon. Member for Perry Barr. It is not the Government's fault that three hours have been devoted to the guillotine today, because that is not what we intended. It has been the choice of the House this afternoon to devote three hours to debating the guillotine.
  The Government had allowed 10 to 12 hours for debate on four clauses on the Floor of the House, and that was a perfectly reasonable amount of time. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire went further, and said that a more comprehensive solution was needed to our problems. The attitude of the Government has been that we wish to continue to act in a normal way, and we wish to see normal relations restored across the House.
  Nonetheless, I noted with great interest what the hon. Gentleman said, and I know that he meant it in a spirit of co-operation. The hon. Gentleman's concern about the matter is genuine, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have heard it. Our attitude has always been that we wish to proceed with normal arrangements as much as we possibly can.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North said that he hoped that we could return to street politics and rough common sense, and that those could again break out. I heard the interesting speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. I repeat that we took no pleasure in tabling the guillotine motion. An arrangement on the Bill was very much to be preferred. We have the independent testimony of the hon. Member for Roxburgh
  816
  and Berwickshire, who has recognised that the situation has been forced upon the Government for the protection of Back Benchers.
  It is the duty of the Government to make sure that the Bill is considered in detail. It is our duty to the outside interests to make sure that they have time to make their representations. I believe that it is for the convenience and reputation of the House that this Finance Bill should be considered in an orderly way. We would much prefer to have done otherwise, but, given the situation, the Government have no choice. The Government must protect the House, protect business and protect those people outside who depend upon us, by moving the motion today.
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 288.

  Division No. 97]

  [8.7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Coe, Sebastian

  Alexander, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Congdon, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Conway, Derek

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Ancram, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Couchman, James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cran, James

  Aspinwall, Jack

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

  Atkins, Robert

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Day, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Devlin, Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bates, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bellingham, Henry

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dover, Den

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan, Alan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dunn, Bob

  Body, Sir Richard

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dykes, Hugh

  Booth, Hartley

  Eggar, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Elletson, Harold

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evennett, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Faber, David

  Bright, Graham

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Burt, Alistair

  Forth, Eric

  Butcher, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Butler, Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Butterfill, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  French, Douglas

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Cash, William

  Gallie, Phil

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Churchill, Mr

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Clappison, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gill, Christopher

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  817

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marland, Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorst, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grant, Sir A.(Cambs SW)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Merchant, Piers

  Hague, William

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hannam, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Needham, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hendry, Charles

  Norris, Steve

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Page, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Paice, James

  Horam, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jack, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Richards, Rod

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Key, Robert

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

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

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shersby, Michael

  Legg, Barry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lidington, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclean, David

  Stephen, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Allan

  Madel, Sir David

  Streeter, Gary

  Malone, Gerald

  Sumberg, David

  Mans, Keith

  Sweeney, Walter

  818

  Sykes, John

  Ward, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, John M.(Solihull)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wells, Bowen

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Thomason, Roy

  Whittingdale, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Willetts, David

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

  Wilshire, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Trend, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trotter, Neville

  Wood, Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Yeo, Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Viggers, Peter

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walden, George

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Waller, Gary

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ainger, Nick

  Corbett, Robin

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Allen, Graham

  Cousins, Jim

  Alton, David

  Cox, Tom

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cryer, Bob

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cummings, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Barnes, Harry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barron, Kevin

  Darling, Alistair

  Battle, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beggs, Roy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

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

  Bell, Stuart

  Denham, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dewar, Donald

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dixon, Don

  Benton, Joe

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Betts, Clive

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blair, Tony

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Blunkett, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Boateng, Paul

  Enright, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradley, Keith

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fatchett, Derek

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

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Burden, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Byers, Stephen

  Flynn, Paul

  Caborn, Richard

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fraser, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Canavan, Dennis

  Galbraith, Sam

  Cann, Jamie

  Galloway, George

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gapes, Mike

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Garrett, John

  Clapham, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clelland, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Coffey, Ann

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cohen, Harry

  Gordon, Mildred

  Connarty, Michael

  Gould, Bryan

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Graham, Thomas

  819

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Meale, Alan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michael, Alun

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gunnell, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Hain, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Hall, Mike

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hanson, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hardy, Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morley, Elliot

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Rt Hon A.(Wy'nshawe)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Henderson, Doug

  Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

  Heppell, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mudie, George

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoey, Kate

  Murphy, Paul

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Hara, Edward

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Olner, William

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pope, Greg

  Hutton, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Prescott, John

  Jamieson, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Janner, Greville

  Purchase, Ken

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Keen, Alan

  Rogers, Allan

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rooney, Terry

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leigh ton, Ron

  Salmond, Alex

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lewis, Terry

  Sheerman, Barry

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Livingstone, Ken

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Short, Clare

  Loyden, Eddie

  Simpson, Alan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McFall, John

  Snape, Peter

  McKelvey, William

  Soley, Clive

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Spearing, Nigel

  McLeish, Henry

  Spellar, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Madden, Max

  Stevenson, George

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Stott, Roger

  Maginnis, Ken

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mahon, Alice

  Straw, Jack

  Mandelson, Peter

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marek, Dr John

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D.(Strgfd)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

  Trimble, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Tyler, Paul

  Maxton, John

  Vaz, Keith

  820

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wilson, Brian

  Wallace, James

  Winnick, David

  Walley, Joan

  Wise, Audrey

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wray, Jimmy

  Watson, Mike

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Welsh, Andrew

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

  Committee of the Whole House
  1.—(1) The Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
  (2) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 64 (Committee of whole House on bill) shall not apply.
  (3).Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.

  Standing Committee
  2.—(1)The Standing Committee to which the remainder of the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill not later than 29th March.
  (2) Proceedings at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 29th March may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 30th March.

  Report and Third Reading
  3.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days.
  (2) On the first of those days, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall, notwithstanding subparagraph (a) of that paragraph, apply to the proceedings on the Bill for only one hour after Ten o'clock.
  (3) The proceedings on Third Reading may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the proceedings on consideration, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between stages of a Bill brought in on ways and means resolutions

  Business Committee
  4.—(1) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of the allotted days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolution as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than 14th April.
  (3) Any Resolution of the Business Committee may be varied by a further Report of the Committee under Standing Order No. 80, whether before or after 14th April and whether or not that Resolution has been agreed to by the House.
  (4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken, but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  5.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee, the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the

  821
  Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  (3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Standing Committee, but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Report of proceedings in Committee
  6. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, the Chairman shall report such of the Bill's provisions as were committed (or re-committed) to that Committee to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time
  8.—(1) On the first of the allotted days mentioned in paragraph 3, any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period of one hour mentioned in paragraph 3(2).
  (2) If that allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion shall be added to the period of one hour.

  Private business
  9. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Procedure at time for conclusion of proceedings
  10. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a), the Question that the Clause of Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper, whether in the name of a Minister of the Crown or not, which is moved or made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  11.—(1) Proceedings under paragraph 10 of this Order shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20
  822
  (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  12.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.
  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
  (3) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  13. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Recommittal
  14.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  15. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  "the Bill" means the Finance Bill;
  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

orders of the Day
  Finance Bill

    (Clauses 28, 46, 72 and 77)
    Considered in Committee [Progress, 31 January]
    [MR. GEOFFREY LOFTHOUSE in the Chair]

    Clause 46

      INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX
      Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 32, line 4, after "(1)", insert—
      "Subject to subsection (3) below."
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 5, in page 32, line 7, at end, add—
      "(3) This tax shall not be charged until the Government has presented a report to Parliament on its effects on policyholders, the extent of insurance cover and the future of the insurance industry."
      Mr. Darling: I shall now deliver the speech that I would have delivered last night shortly after 10 o'clock had the Government not stopped me doing so. My speech will be of exactly the same length as it would have been last night, which would have enabled the House to consider the clause in the detail and time required, before the Government decided that they wanted to stifle debate on yet another new tax.
      The amendments seek to delay the imposition of the tax until a report has set out the effects on not just the industry but the public who will be expected to pay it. On Second Reading last week, the Chief Secretary told us that his instincts were against high taxation, yet this is the second new tax that we are debating in the Bill. It is not surprising that the Government did not want much discussion on it and attempted to stifle debate by using the guillotine. Once again, what they say and what they do are entirely different. The Chief Secretary mentioned in his speech neither this new tax nor the other new taxes.
      The insurance tax is a tax on victims and will affect 16·5 million households. It is yet another "double whammy", an expression that the Conservatives will remember from the last election. People will be robbed by a villain in the street and robbed again by the Chancellor in Downing street. The tax is, effectively, VAT on insurance and will be paid by 85 per cent. of all households. In the next financial year, it will raise £295 million; in the following year it will raise £775 million; and, the year after, it will raise a staggering £840 million if people continue to insure their properties properly. I say that because there is a substantial risk that the imposition of this tax will tempt too many people to underinsure their risks or not insure them at all.
      The new tax illustrates a philosophic point on which it will be interesting to hear the Government's view. As a matter of public policy, we should encourage people to insure not just their houses and cars but many other risks. The tax is unavoidable. It is socially necessary and economically desirable that one should not be able to get
      824
      out of insuring one's car, especially for third party liability, or one's house, whether it is for the building or contents. So, once again, the Government tax it.
      Given that the average car insurance premium is about£340 and the average house contents premium about £300, most households have an outlay of between£ 600 and£ 1,000 a year—sometimes more—depending on the risks that they must insure. That is a substantial and unavoidable commitment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said in her closing speech in the previous debate, insurance premiums are much higher in the inner city areas of Liverpool, London, Manchester, Glasgow and many other cities than they are elsewhere, and the annual insurance commitment can be as high as £1,500 or even £2,000 a year.
      The Government said that the tax would cost 35p a week. As usual, they are wildly out. Many people consider that a minimum of 70p a week will have to be found by people who are already hard pressed because of other taxes imposed by the Government. So the insurance tax will be paid by people who are already stretched. Victims of crime pay more for their insurance and will therefore pay more in tax.
      People can do nothing to avoid paying the tax if, through no fault of their own, they live in an area that is particularly prone to crime. In many areas of England and Wales, the crime rate is rising dramatically and the most vulnerable people in society will be hit by a tax which they can do nothing to avoid. Unemployed people must still insure their house, so people with little at their disposal will be hit in a way that income tax would not hit them, because income tax depends on the amount of money that people have, not simply on the fact that they happen to exist.
      People are already badly hit by other taxes. They are paying VAT on fuel, increases in income tax, and will be faced with reductions in mortgage tax relief, yet the Government do not want us to discuss any of the new taxes and have only reluctantly allowed enough time to discuss this new insurance tax. People now pay more tax than they ever paid under the last Labour Government, but the crucial point is that they are getting nothing for it because the increased taxes will pay off debts that the Government ran up. A report is necessary to assess the effects on the industry and the people who pay the tax..
      The point of principle is whether insurance should be taxed at all. Tax will be paid on general insurance—buildings, vehicles, holidays and so on. Surely we should encourage people to insure themselves when they go on holiday because many countries have no national health service or anything like it. Even in some advanced countries, if one is run over in the street, the first thing that the ambulance driver asks is how one proposes to pay for the treatment. Now, people will be tempted to cut down on holiday insurance because of the tax.
      I welcome the fact that no tax will be imposed on long-term contracts, but for how long will long-term contracts of insurance be exempt? Is it only a matter of time, as with the provision for VAT, before the scope of the tax is extended to cover long-term insurance contracts for pensions, life assurance and so on? Will the Government clarify that issue? I suspect not. The 3 per cent. rate will be just the beginning. Having introduced the principle, it will not be long before the Government increase the tax to 4, 5 and 6 per cent. It is no coincidence that the tax will be

      825
      collected by the VAT man and, in time, the Government will be tempted steadily to increase the tax from 3 per cent. to 17·5 per cent., or whatever is the prevailing VAT rate.
      The issue of the long-term insurance rate is important. The Government must make their intentions clear on a point of political philosophy. I understand that private health care insurance will be caught by the tax but that, not surprisingly, the industry is already clamouring for an exemption. I want to hear a clear commitment from the Paymaster General that the Government will not give in to the clamour from an industry whose whole future is perilled on the failure of the national health service, and will not give a tax exemption to private health care insurance. In addition, I want a commitment that they will close the loopholes that currently exist within the legislation so that private health care companies cannot get around the insurance tax by changing the way in which they write their policies.
      8.30 pm
      In the Financial Times on 12 January, Mr. Julian Ross, a product development manager with Prime Health, a specialist medical insurer, said;
      "If the whole philosophy and policy of this government is to make people more self-reliant, it seems rather stupid to penalise them for taking out private medical insurance."
      Most people want to be self-reliant, but they do not want to rely on private health insurance. They want to rely on a national health service that is there to meet their needs. That is a fundamental philosophical difference between the Opposition and the Government who have never believed in the NHS. It is clear from the way in which they look after the health service and their general approach to such matters that they are deeply sympathetic to private health insurance which depends for its existence on the NHS being unable to fulfil its obligations. Nobody would go private if they did not have to.
      I want the Government to tell us tonight that they will not allow the private health insurance industry to get the tax break it is seeking. We want to hear that, if private health care insurance is caught by the tax, it will remain caught and that the loophole that might be provided by schedule 1 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 will not be used to allow companies to write their policies in such a way as to bring themselves within its protection. That protection is generally accepted in cases such as that of a company director who insures himself against catastrophic illness; if there were no insurance, there might be disastrous consequences for the individual, the company, and its employees.
      The Government must make it clear that they will have no truck with further tax breaks for private health care insurance. Every penny saved by the private health care industry will have to be paid for by those who insure their houses or their cars. If the Government give in to the industry, which has a ready ear in the Treasury, they will pay a heavy political price.
      People struggling to pay their insurance premiums, perhaps those who lost their houses and possessions in the recent floods in the south of England, will not understand why they have to pay more in tax while people who take private health care insurance seek and may get a tax break for so doing.
      826
      The flooding in the south and other parts of England and in Perthshire last year illustrate an important point about the Government's philosophy. If individuals do not insure against loss through flood and so on, there is all the more obligation on the Government to dip into the public purse to bail out people. Clearly, the Government have a general strategic responsibility when there is a wholesale disaster, but it cannot be in the interests of the public or the Treasury to make it less likely that people will insure against such risks.
      The people we saw on the television and read about in the newspapers who suffered from the floods at the beginning of the year will face increased premiums next year. Anyone who has ever taken out an insurance policy will notice that, apart from the fact that the small print is loaded on the side of the companies rather than on the side of those who take out insurance, if a claim of any substance is made, the premium will go up.
      One of the growing problems in Britain is vandalism, theft and damage to cars. Car insurance premiums are rising dramatically. If the Government take a percentage on top of that, there will be a disincentive to insure properly, and that cannot be in the public interest.
      When we hear the Government preaching self-reliance, as the man from the private health insurers would have us believe, it would be interesting to hear what justification or philosophy drove the Government to the decision to tax what is entirely necessary and laudable thinking.
      The Government are sending people a confused message. What are they saying to responsible and prudent people? It seems to me that they are saying, "We will tax you for your responsible attitude and again for your prudent increase in insurance cover". Tax and tax again —that is the story of the Government and people will get nothing for it.
      It is not as if the tax will go towards better policing or crime prevention. The Government's record on crime prevention is as dismal as their record on running the economy. People are facing a rising crime rate and the Government appear helpless and are doing nothing except lashing out in all directions when the crime rate continues to rise in most parts of England and Wales.
      Insurance premiums are increasing anyway. Lloyd's is facing substantial risks and premiums will have to increase to meet them. There is also the problem of fraudulent claims which are costing insurance companies dear. Those who do not make claims have to pay increased premiums each year.
      There are also technical matters, but I shall not go into them in great depth because other hon. Members want to speak in this short debate. However, one or two points ought to be mentioned.
      There is the matter of creditor insurance. At a time of recession and difficult economic circumstances, people have wisely taken out insurance to cover that risk, yet that is to be caught. Will the Minister say something about that?.
      There is the technical issue of commission. Commission is excluded, but, as the Paymaster General will know, there are many different ways of selling insurance policies that do not involve commission and there is understandably a feeling within the industry that those companies with a direct sales force may be adversely affected. We may wish to return to that issue in Committee in the four or five minutes allocated to the clause. At the same time, we shall consider whether the tax should be paid when the premium is received or at some other point.

      827.
      Perhaps tonight the Minister will let us know the position with regard to the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association. Both consider that on one reading of the Bill their entire fee will be caught by the tax because of the nature of the services they offer. Perhaps the Government will let us know whether that is their understanding and, if it is, whether it was their intention as it does not seem desirable to tax the AA, RAC or any other motoring organisation.
      I draw attention to the anti-forestalling measures. I understand that certain steps have to be taken to stop people avoiding any tax. However, there is some strength in the argument that the Government should strike at an abnormal payment rather than circumstances in which it is normal to pay for insurance cover in advance.
      Perhaps the Minister will tell us how the consultative process is progressing on the fiscal regime for those companies that make reserves against future losses.
      The Paymaster General may recall that during the debate on last year's Finance Bill—which was discussed expeditiously so that every clause was done more than justice, yet did not seem to have the problems visited upon us by the Government after the first few hours of debate —when we were discussing insurance, the point was raised that European insurance companies have a more favourable tax regime which allows them to make provision against future losses. Because we do not have that, it is sometimes difficult for our United Kingdom companies to compete effectively against other insurance companies in the European Union.
      This might be an opportune time for the Paymaster General to tell us how the discussion process is progressing as many in the industry would like to know what has happened to it. It was announced last year but did not get far.
      Insurance tax is yet another tax. It is another way in which the Chancellor seeks to raise money to avoid blatantly increasing what used to be referred to as the standard rate of income tax. It will not fool anybody. It will hit many prudent and responsible people very hard indeed.
      It is ironic that the Government, with all the rhetoric of the 1980s, should be a Government who tax prudence and responsibility. That comes as no surprise to us. What the Government do is quite different from what they say.
      People do not trust the Government, not just because of what they have done to the economy or in raising tax despite the fact that at the last election they promised not to increase tax. What they are doing is damaging to people in the country. It goes against the grain and causes offence because it chooses to tax responsibility and prudence. It is for those reasons that we will oppose the clause tonight
      The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): It may be convenient for the Committee if I speak briefly at this point. I hope to have more time to speak later in the debate, and certainly later in Committee. I had hoped to speak yesterday and earlier today, but I will not take time now rearguing the debate on the timetable motion that we have had for most of today.
      The introduction of any new tax is the subject of careful consideration, and that includes the insurance premium tax. Careful thought was given before the Budget to the matters listed in the amendment, and to other matters, before we made the proposals in the Budget that are incorporated in the Bill. Since the announcement was made on Budget day, we have been able to consult much more
      828
      widely outside the Government with all kinds of other interests affected by it. I want to make it clear to the Committee that those consultations are continuing. In some cases particular points are outstanding. I shall refer to those in a moment.
      In common with other financial services, insurance and associated services are exempt from VAT. That exception is expressed in European Community agreements. That is one of the reasons why we have introduced the tax. Similar taxes apply in many other countries within the European Community. It seemed to the Chancellor that this area of consumer expenditure was subject to less indirect taxation than many others. It was therefore appropriate to introduce the tax when we faced the financial problems that the House has endlessly discussed. We must consider the impact of the tax on private individuals and those policy holders who will be affected by it and also the insurance industry and other industries which must pay it.
      On the rate and the scope of the tax, it is important to understand that there are exceptions, which are part of the nature of insurance. For example, if we were to tax reinsurance, it would create double taxation. It is important not to do that. The principal exemption is long-term insurance—life insurance, endowment mortgages and pensions. We see those essentially as a form of savings and investment that are quite distinct from the bulk of general insurance, to which the tax is addressed. We have provided for them to be left out of the tax. We have no proposals to change that at any time. I am happy to reassure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on that point.
      We have been careful in the design of the tax to exempt overseas risks. The British insurance industry insures many risks all over the world, through both reinsurance and direct insurance. It is important not to damage our international earning capacity in that way. Also covered by exemptions are various marine and aviation risks, international trade credit, and so on.
      Our approach has been to have an inclusive tax. The tax is intended to apply across a broad base. In so doing, it can be set at a low rate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central implicitly—almost explicitly—recognised that fact in what he said about private health insurance. As he recognises, we have designed the tax so that it applies to private health insurance. We see that as a form of general insurance. Like other general insurance, it offers an indemnity against costs incurred in a particular eventuality. I do not think that there is any reason to treat it any differently.
      That brings me to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about whether we were trying in some way to discourage insurance. To tax something is not necessarily to say that one does not think that it should take place. After all, we tax income. We have taxed many other things that we are not trying to discourage but which nevertheless we think form a proper basis for contributions to the national Exchequer.
      8.45 pm
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Paymaster General give way?
      Sir John Cope: In a moment.

      829
      It is a fact that, in the past, and up to now, insurance has been exempt, for example, from VAT and has not paid much in indirect tax. That is why the Chancellor has looked in this direction.
      Mrs. Campbell: Does the Minister agree that a tax on insurance will deter people, particularly those on low incomes who are already subject to high rates of crime in their neighbourhood, from taking out any insurance?
      Sir John Cope: I will say something about particular individuals in a moment..
      Applying the tax at a relatively low rate of 3 per cent. across such a broad base serves to achieve as fair as possible a distribution of the tax burden. As the hon. Lady suggests, there are inevitably variations in the level of premiums depending on the risk insured. In setting the rate, the Chancellor was able to conclude that it would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall cost of insurance and thus on the take-up of insurance. Clearly, the price of insurance is dictated by a range of things.
      At 3 per cent., the impact of the tax will not realistically be a major influence, particularly if one reflects, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central did, on the significant premium increases that the market has borne in recent years. The impact of the tax on individual taxpayers will vary considerably according to their particular pattern of insurance in every respect.
      Mr. Darling: The Paymaster General seems to be saying that cost does not matter. That must fly in the face of everything that Tory Ministers have been telling the country for years. He is saying that, because costs are going up anyway, it is all right to slap another tax on top from the Government. That surely cannot be right.
      Sir John Cope: No, that is not what I said earlier. I said that if one looks at the effect of the way premiums have increased in recent years one can see—or one can try to measure—the effect that cost increases have on the take-up of insurance. That is relevant in considering the potential effect of the introduction of the tax on the take-up of insurance.
      The hon. Gentleman pointed out also that the Chancellor had said, and it is a fact, that the average cost of the tax to a household with buildings, contents and motor insurance—some 44 per cent. of households—will be about 35p a week. Obviously, as the hon. Gentleman and everybody else will recognise, that is an average. The average cost of the tax on three quarters of households with some contents insurance will be about 6p a week. Sixty per cent. of households have some motor insurance. The tax for them is expected to average about 18p a week. Overall, the figures reveal that the tax is mildly progressive, because on average richer households pay more on insurance as a proportion of their income than poorer households, and have more valuable possessions of every kind.
      Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Will the Paymaster General give way?
      Sir John Cope: I am not anxious to give way a lot, because many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, after I have finished making this point.
      830
      The family expenditure survey shows that the poorest 20 per cent. of households on average spend about £120 a year on taxable insurance. That means that their IPT would come out at about 7p a week. The richest 20 per cent. of households pay about £800 a year. Their IPT will come out at about 47p a week.
      Mr. Ainsworth: Will the Paymaster General depart from his prepared script for a moment? He mentioned the progressive nature of the tax. The insurance premiums of the people to whom he referred are low only because they have few possessions; many others have no insurance at all, because the incidence of burglary in their area has made the premiums unaffordable or, indeed, has caused the insurance companies to refuse them cover.
      Some inner-city dwellers feel that the Government are already effectively taxing them by not providing a decent standard of law and order, thereby forcing up insurance premiums. To impose a tax on top of that is appalling.
      Sir John Cope: The hon. Gentleman must make his own speech, if there is time..
      The financial facts, as I said earlier, demonstrate that the effects of the tax will be mildly progressive. A similar picture can be seen in the business sector, in that the tax will have a fairly even impact across industry. On average, insurance represents about 1 per cent. of business costs; the new tax will add about 0·03 per cent. to those costs.
      The tax will, of course, have the greatest impact on the insurance industry itself. Although it will be applied to insurance premiums rather than directly to the insurance companies, its introduction will coincide with the current upswing rather than with a downturn in the trading cycle of what is, after all, a very cyclical business.
      Naturally, the industry is also concerned about the workings of the tax. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central listed some technical matters, which we will no doubt discuss later; however, we have made it clear from the outset—in the consultations to which I have referred —that we wish to minimise the compliance costs incurred by the industry, and indeed by the Government and Customs and Excise.
      I am pleased to say that our dialogue with the industry has been extremely constructive. In response to the invitation extended by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central and to representations from a number of my hon. Friends, some of whom are present now, we are prepared to consider sympathetically the industry's case for being given the option of accounting for the tax on the so-called premium written basis, thus tying in more closely with many of the industry's current accounting arrangements. Such an option would, however, be subject to further examination of its implications with the industry. In my view, those implications include the use of gross premiums as the base of tax, rather than the net premiums that we contemplated originally. Customs and Excise is continuing to discuss the matter with the insurance industry, and we shall of course return to it later in the Committee stage; indeed, the details of all these matters will be discussed by the Standing Committee.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central raised the question of creditor insurance. I must give him the same answer that I gave in regard to private health insurance: we consider that the tax should apply to all general insurance, at a low rate. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the motoring organisations. Perhaps I should declare an

      831
      interest, in that I belong to the RAC. Subscriptions to the RAC, the AA, National Breakdown and other motoring organisations are divided up from the VAT point of view: they are partly exempt and partly zero rated, in recognition that part of the subscription is in the nature of insurance. It is to that part that the new tax will apply: it is insurance in any ordinary sense of the word, although its mechanics happen to be rather different.
      As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made clear in his Budget statement, we introduced the tax in an effort to raise revenue in a way that is fair to all concerned, with the least possible compliance costs. It is, however, a revenue-raising tax, and it deals with a sector that has hitherto paid little in the way of indirect tax, for reasons that I gave earlier. No doubt we shall return to the details in this and future debates.
      Mrs. Barbara Roche: This new tax proposal illustrates the Government's basic lack of principle. Last week, it was said that during the election the Conservative party promised to be the party of low crime; in fact, it is the party of high crime. It also promised to be the party of low taxation—but, as we have seen in recent weeks and will see again following the passage of the Bill, it is the party of high taxation.
      To my constituents, those two matters seem closely linked. London Members of Parliament look around them and see a city that has become the crime capital of Europe. There are 60·2 incidents of burglary and car crime per 1,000 members of London's population; there are 45 such incidents in Paris, 32 in Rome and 23 in Madrid. That demonstrates the difficulties experienced by the Metropolitan police. In a recent survey, the Association of London Authorities stated that crime was one of the major concerns of Londoners—and who can blame them, given the doubling in recorded crime in the capital since 1979?.
      How will the Government respond? My constituents —like those of every other hon. Member—will be hit by a tax on protecting themselves from crime: a tax on household insurance, as well as all the other types of insurance that the Bill will capture. Not only do my constituents have to suffer from the increase in recorded crime that we have seen in Britain and from all its economic consequences, but they will have to pay yet another tax when they insure themselves against crime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, insurance premiums are already sky high. The people who have been hit hardest are those who live in the less prosperous areas of the inner cities. They pay up to seven times more than those who live in more affluent areas. Yet the Chancellor indicated in his Budget speech that for the typical family that tax will cost about 35p a week. That figure belies the great differences resulting from the nature of the locations in which people live.
      As several of my hon. Friends have said, some people are lucky to get insurance at all. The Consumers Association reported recently that in some high-crime areas insurance companies will not provide cover at all. Researchers anonymously asked 16 insurers for cover for a three-bedroom London house with a record of two theft claims in the last year—by no means unusual, as my constituents and, I am sure, the constituents of other hon. Members could confirm. Only one of the 16 insurance companies would quote a figure. Yet the Paymaster
      832
      General has the nerve to describe this as a progressive tax—"mildly progressive" are the words that I think he used. Nothing could be further from reality.
      9 pm
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) showed last week, the average cost of household contents insurance rose from £66 in 1988 to £114 last year —an increase of more than 70 per cent. Last year insurance claims for home break-ins totalled £2 million a day, or £25 per second. And claims resulting from car crime have doubled in the past two years.
      A tax on insurance is an unfair levy on the victims of crime. It is they who are too often forgotten when we discuss this matter. This tax is also likely to mean that some people will simply be unable to afford to insure their homes and cars, even if they are lucky enough to find a company willing to take the risk. Last week one of my constituents wrote to me about the proposed new tax. She said:
      "Not only are premiums ever increasing but now the Government has added a tax surcharge, and twice this month I have received outrageous insurance bills. First, my contents insurance has cost me nearly £220 for £12,000 contents cover and I had to reject higher cover because I could not afford it. If I am now burgled, or my flat burns down, I will not financially be able to recover my possessions."
      Can the Paymaster-General tell me what I am supposed to say to that constituent—apart, of course, from
      "Don't ever vote Conservative again"?
      During the Chancellor's Budget speech he justified levying a tax on insurance by saying that it would broaden the tax base. Once again the Government are asking the people of this country to pay for the economic mistakes of the Chancellor and his predecessor. Not only that, but the amount that the Government will raise from this measure —estimated by the Chancellor at more than £750 million a year—is as high as that because of the high premiums resulting from the huge increase in crime that has occurred since the Government came to power. There has been a massive 124 per cent. rise in crime since 1979. The very Government who presided over this increase have the cheek now to tax people who take the precaution of insuring themselves against crime.
      The Labour party has consistently pressed the Government on crime prevention—urging them to implement the Morgan report and to abandon their policyof centralising police forces and undermining the very morale of the men and women who so bravely police ourstreets. We in this country still spend so little on crime prevention—the very thing that we need to stop crime.
      The RAC recently launched a poster campaign about car crime with the slogan
      "It isn't the car that's broken down, it's law and order."
      That slogan could very well be adopted by the many people in Britain who have had their cars vandalised and their homes violated by burglary after burglary.
      What is to be done about this problem? By imposing the levy, the Government are merely taxing the victims. As has been said often and recently, we are getting to the position of having to ask how one can insure oneself against insurance premiums. I should like to end with the words of my constituent when she considered rather despairingly what she and others would be able to do:
      "This is another example of how this Government has created an environment where those who can will, and those who can't won't"
      Mr. John Greenway: I begin by declaring an interest, with which hon. Members are familiar: I have worked for more than 20 years in the insurance industry.
      It is fair to say that the insurance industry is disappointed by the imposition of the insurance premium tax. I share its view. Anyone who has followed what is happening in the industry across the Community will observe that it is not entirely surprising that the Government have copied what virtually every Community Government have done, recognising that, under directives, VAT cannot be imposed on insurance premiums. The Government have therefore announced insurance premium taxes instead
      Mr. Darling: On a point or order, Mr. Lofthouse. I do not want to stop the hon. Member in mid-flow. He was good enough to declare his interest, having worked in the industry for some years. As I understand it, the rules of the House are more extensive. The hon. Member's entry in the Register is extensive. I understand that it is incumbent on hon. Members to declare all the companies of which they are a director, and those from which they have an employment or office or trade or profession and their clients.
      I know that it would take the hon. Member a long time to do so, but given his interest in the matter, the House and those who follow our proceedings should know what his interests are.
      The First Deputy Chairman: The House will be fully aware of the hon. Member's interests from the Register of Members' Interests. If the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) feels that he should enlighten the House
      Mr. Greenway: I shall enlighten the House further on one or two other points of interest that relate directly to what I shall say. I am sure that no hon. Member thinks that I would deliberately wish to mislead the House or hide my interests.
      I said that I have been involved in the insurance industry for more than 20 years. I am an elected member of one of the industry's regulators, and my comments hitherto, far from causing the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) to think that I am entirely in the pocket of the Government, were on the industry's response.
      It is a pity that, after 24 hours of hot air and piffle on this Committee stage, some of the serious, important issues on the future of the insurance industry arising from the application of this tax have not been addressed. We have heard the kind of speeches that we heard on Second Reading—and even before that, in the debate on the Budget.
      The Government have merely copied what other member states have done, by imposing an insurance premium tax. The idea is not new. I am aware from discussions that the Association of British Insurers was not entirely surprised by the Government's decision. That does not mean that it does not have concerns—as I shall show, it most certainly has—but the argument that taxation on insurance is a new concept in this country is nonsense, because insurance funds are taxed.
      If there is one matter on which I agree 100 per cent. with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, it is on the need for the Government to deliver on their promise in the Finance Bill last year that something should be done about the wicked way in which reserving is taxed in the United Kingdom compared with our competitors in the European
      834
      Community. If we are saying that, by introducing an IPT, we are merely putting ourselves on the same footing as other member states, the tax regime should be the same.
      I want to draw attention to one or two of the technical points that concern insurers before dealing with another important but rather different matter. First, I think that the Paymaster General's acknowledgment earlier in the debate of the possibility —I think that "option" was the word he used—of dealing with the tax on a written premium basis rather than a cash received basis will have come as some relief to United Kingdom insurers. Since he has made that announcement, perhaps for this evening we ought to let the matter rest there, except to urge him to pursue the discussions with all due urgency. October 1 sounds a long way off, but companies will have to put systems in place soon if they are to introduce the tax smoothly on 1 October.
      I shall not mention the subject of commission, as an insurance broker, except to say that I suspect that the only streamlined and simple way of dealing with the tax will probably be in the end to tax the whole premium, because there are grave difficulties throughout the industry in accounting for commission on a fair basis.
      A third problem, to which my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General did not refer but which is of grave concern to United Kingdom insurers, is the fact that the tax will apply only to premiums for a risk that is situated in the United Kingdom. Although, in the great majority of cases, that will not cause a problem, there are a significant number of insurances taken out by multinational groups for which the risk may be situate partly in the United Kingdom and partly elsewhere.
      Currently, no mechanism is used for other purposes which would distinguish between the proportion of premium that relates to United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom risks. The practical problems of making such a distinction are considerable, and it is important that they should be solved in a way which provides certainty and administrative simplicity.
      That argument leads to two others. First, it is crucial that the imposition of the tax does not drive business away from the London market. That could be possible if there is uncertainty about the basis on which the split between United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom risks will be made, or if there is a significant difference of approach to such a distinction between the United Kingdom and other European jurisdictions which also impose those premium taxes.
      Secondly—this worries me—any allocation of premiums between United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom risks that is not formula-based is likely to involve considerable judgment on the part of the insurer. If an element involving considerable subjectivity is to be introduced into the tax, the uncertainty involved is likely to cause considerable apprehension about the basis on which Customs and Excise will audit insurers accounting for the tax.
      That is a worry, because, given the proposed penalty arrangements in the Bill for incorrect accounting, there is a general view among insurers—which I share—that the proposed penalty regime could be unduly harsh and could be wholly inappropriate, given the uncertainties and complexities which are likely to be involved.
      It could be a mistake to apply such a regime on the introduction of the tax from day one, given those potential uncertainties, and we may need to consider some bedding-in period, during which there could be continuing

      835
      consultation between the industry and Customs and Excise —in which I am sure my right hon. Friend would want to take an interest—and there should be penalties only where there is clear evidence of an attempt to evade payment of the tax.
      I know that my right hon. Friend has encouraged Customs and Excise staff to discuss those matters with the industry, but, as I have said, time is pressing, and I think that the industry feels that those matters need to be concluded perhaps by as early as February, and certainly by Easter, if we are to introduce the tax in time for a starting date of 1 October.
      There is another point to be made about the transitional arrangements. The Bill contains provisions to prevent the avoidance of insurance premium tax by the use of insurance contracts commencing before 1 October but ending more than 12 months later. Clearly, that is a measure intended to prevent evasion.
      It is consistent with practice in the case of most insurances where the normal contract duration is 12 months but, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will realise, it is common for some types of insurance to last a number of years—mortgage indemnity insurance and extended warranty business are two clear examples. I suggest that extended warranty business should perhaps be exempt altogether, because such warranties are not conventional insurance but part of the overall contract of sale and the acquisition of stronger guarantees for the consumer.
      9.15 pm
      There are grave misgivings among the major United Kingdom companies and property investors about the intention to apply insurance premium tax to premiums collected by pool re for terrorism insurance. For more than a year, we have been fighting an uphill struggle to persuade more companies to avail themselves of terrorism insurance through the pool re facility. It seems extraordinary to some of us that, in those circumstances, we should want to add the 3 per cent. tax to an already heavy premium which, through the pool re scheme, will of course be substantially more than companies previously paid for terrorist cover.
      I declare a further interest in a different sphere. I am the honorary, which means unpaid, adviser to the British Health Care Association. I have written to my right hon. Friend many times in this regard. It would not be unreasonable to say that most of the association's member schemes are affiliated to the trade union movement, and they will not be especially pleased with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said when he urged my right hon. Friend not to extend the exemptions for medical insurance. The matter is catered for in the Bill, and the Chancellor said in his Budget speech that insurance premium tax would not apply to permanent health insurance.
      I think that it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central who mentioned company directors and said that they might insure themselves for when they are sick or in case of a major accident. Many people take out income insurance through permanent health policies, especially if they are self-employed.
      The insurance policies provided by the British Health Care Association do not strictly come into that category, as they are not permanent but cancellable, and contribution rates and benefits are varied, usually on a three or four-year
      836
      basis. The uprating of premiums every year to take account of IPT, especially if the rate varied in future, would cause considerable administrative difficulty.
      In general terms, a contributor to one of these schemes purchases units of cover which provide cash benefits during stays in hospital, or which specifically reimburse NHS dental and optical charges. Most contributors have their payments debited from their pay, with the gross amount paid to the member scheme by their employer. That is one reason why there is often trade union involvement in persuading members to take advantage of such facilities.
      The schemes aim to provide low-cost health benefits. Although not charitable in their formal structure, they are non-profit-making and return a high percentage of income to contributors during stays in hospital. Any surpluses are used to purchase medical equipment or to make donations to local NHS hospitals or medical charities. Hon. Members may recall that, a few months ago, a donation from one of the BHCA schemes, the Westfield contributory scheme, based in Sheffield, donated £5,000 for the purchase of a minibus for the relief effort in a Bosnian hospital.
      Having been associated with the BHCA for some years, it is clear to me that, if insurance premium tax was levied on members' contributions, it could deter contributors and would lead to less generous support of local hospitals by member schemes. Many of the contributors to those schemes are at the lower end of the income scale, and are not able to afford the cost of permanent health insurance. They do, nevertheless, recognise the prudence of having a cash benefit to help cover loss of earnings during a stay in hospital or during maternity. In that respect, while the technical nature of those policies is different to permanent health insurance and therefore cannot be said to be long term, the motivation, the benefit and the effect on the individual are largely the same.
      I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to think again to try to find a way of exempting such cash-benefit health insurance policies. I willingly admit that it does not help our argument that those schemes are not especially different from the sort of private insurance schemes that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central mentioned.
      Nevertheless, I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are some 3 million members of the BHCA schemes, who contribute about £158 million in premiums. Therefore, we are considering tax of about £4·7 million. If that money is taken in tax, apart from any potential deterrent effect to people belonging to the schemes or increasing members' benefits, the BHCA will have £4·7 million less to donate to the NHS and medical charities.
      Mrs. Diana Maddock: Like other hon. Members, I had hoped to speak yesterday, and I had hoped to speak to a Liberal Democrat amendment. In the time that I have been here, it has become obvious to me that nothing is certain in this place.
      We are happy to support the amendment, because at least it would stop the tax being implemented before it received heavy scrutiny. Each year, the Budget causes a great deal of speculation, and every Chancellor likes to bring a few surprises. Certainly, the Chancellor entered into that spirit with his first Budget. In recent years, the abolition of a tax has been part of that surprise. After years of rhetoric about the Conservatives being the Government of low taxation, it certainly was a surprise to hear the Chancellor proposing not one new tax, but two.

      837
      We have already dealt at some length with the Chancellor's new tax on airports. With the second tax, on insurance premiums, I fear that the Chancellor is set to go down in history as the man who really did make a drama out of a crisis. Having sprung IPT on us, he boldly claimed that it was nothing, a mere 3 per cent. He said that everywhere in Europe has such a tax and claimed that this country's was the only finance industry that was not taxed. He further claimed that the tax would mean a 35p increase only for the average household.
      Let us examine those claims. The tax will be 3 per cent. only, but, once it is in place, there is no knowing where that tax will be hiked. After all, it cannot be worth the cost of all that bureaucracy for a mere 3 per cent. The Chancellor's claim that our finance industry gets away with it compared to Europe does not entirely stand up either. Since he is such a disciple of indirect taxes, he cannot have missed the VAT paid by insurers and policyholders on costs incurred. That VAT is not recoverable by insurers, as they are VAT-exempt.
      As the Association of British Insurers readily points out, insurance companies already bear levies for the Policyholders Protection Board and the Motor Insurers Bureau. United Kingdom insurance companies are, as we have already heard, at a tax disadvantage generally when compared with their overseas competitors. They cannot set up tax-deductible equalisation reserves. As has already been said, although there has been a consultation document on that, there has been no commitment so far to meetings with the Department of Trade and Industry or with the Inland Revenue.
      The Chancellor claims that the cost will be only 35p a week on average for each household. The insurers do not agree with that figure. They point out that the Chancellor bases the average figure on the so-called "typical" family with motor, home contents and building cover. That neatly neglects the effects of the new tax on travel policies, warranties on electrical goods, personal liability, accident cover and even membership of motoring organisations.
      The greatest sleight of hand comes in referring to the average or the typical. I do not know whether the Conservative party in its heart still subscribes to the idea that there is no such thing as society. When it suits Conservatives, they seem to believe in the average. In reality, the effects will vary greatly depending on where one lives, and on individuals' personal and family circumstances. Other hon. Members have talked about their own constituents.
      A family taking out household and contents cover for a three-bedroomed, semi-detached house in Wolverhampton, for example, will pay about £10·50 more on that cover alone. A one-bedroomed flat in an apartment block in Hampstead could cost £18 more a year—the Chancellor's figure of 35p a week—just for the property cover. Whom will the electorate believe—the Government or the insurance companies? It is an indication of the regard in which the Government are held that it will be the insurance companies.
      Why are I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues so opposed to this tax? First, there is simply no justification for it at this time. In the 14 years in which the Government have been in power, crime has more than doubled. Directly linked to that, there has been a rapid rise in the cost of
      838
      insurance. Between 1987 and 1993, household contents insurance rose by more than 60 per cent. in real terms, and car insurance has more than doubled.
      The need for insurance has never been greater. In my county of Dorset, between 1979 and 1992, there was a 78 per cent. increase in the number of motor vehicle thefts notified to the police and an alarming 171 per cent. increase in the number of domestic burglaries. The tax will merely add to the misery of the victims of car theft and burglary.
      It rubs salt into the wounds of those who have already suffered enough from rising crime during 14 years of this Government. It is a tax on those who most need protection—people like the frightened woman living alone who wrote to me saying that she lives in fear of being the next victim.
      The Chancellor may try to pretend, as others have tonight, that the tax is nothing. I know that the electorate are not so easily fooled. To too many of them, it will be yet another increased bill. That is true particularly for those on fixed low and falling incomes.
      9.30 pm
      The tax will not come in isolation. Under the Government, water bills shot up after privatisation. The boom-bust economy has meant that those living on investment incomes have seen that income plummet as interest rates have fallen. State pensions have not kept up with average earnings, and the Government are now taxing invalidity benefit. Social housing rents have increased, particularly those of housing associations and, most cruelly, VAT is to be imposed on domestic heating and lighting.
      Our second big objection to the tax is that it is unfair. We have already heard from other hon. Members that it will affect those in high crime regions, which have the highest insurance premiums. They are often our inner cities. Indeed, parts of our inner cities are in postcode regions where it is impossible to obtain insurance. Our inner cities desperately need regeneration, which means investment in housing, infrastructure and, vitally, in new business. But how will those regions be regenerated if small businesses in particular are not attracted to them because the insurance is either prohibitively expensive or impossible to obtain?
      The Government are very fond of arguing that switching from direct to indirect taxation promotes consumer choice. Therein lies the fundamental problem with placing indirect taxes on those goods and services that are, at the very least, difficult, and often impossible, to do without. There is little choice when it comes to necessities.
      Why should people who have provided for themselves and paid taxes and national insurance all their lives now be penalised even further? That is what people outside the Chamber are asking. They cannot understand why the Government keep taking from them when those who better off continue to be rewarded. People want taxes to reflect their ability to pay, not their need to live—the tax does not do that.
      Our third objection to the tax is that it is inefficient. It is a new tax, and will lead to more paperwork and more bureaucracy for, as we have heard, very little extra revenue. There are 28 clauses in the Finance Bill. Some 40 pages deal with the tax and there will be more details in the secondary legislation that is to come.
      As with insurance forms, it is the small print that we need to study. The insurance companies say that millions

      839
      of pounds of hidden costs will be involved in setting up the system needed to administer the new levy. Norwich Union, which has about 2 million household and motor insurance policyholders, says that it will cost several millions pounds just to set up the new system to collect the tax, and a further £1 million to administer it.
      The premium tax could be the final straw for individuals and companies, forcing them to cut their outgoings and to insure themselves inadequately or not at all. In the long run, that will cost us more as a nation.
      This bureaucratic and unfair tax will bring in to Government coffers less than £300 million in 1994–95, £775 million in 1995–96 and up to £840 million in 1996–97. Will that really make a big inroad into the £50 billion deficit?
      That brings me to the Liberal Democrats' fourth objection to the proposed insurance tax: it is devious. It is simply a back-handed attempt to raise revenue in any way possible, so long as it is not through income tax—although tax thresholds have already been frozen, and that will bring 400,000 more people into tax. National insurance contributions have been raised, sick pay has been hived off from the state to the private sector, and now there is a new tax that the Chancellor tries to pretend is nothing. It is yet another tax that the Government will increase so as to avoid visibly increasing income tax rates.
      That does not wash with the electorate any more. I believe that the Government have been found out. If not the opinion polls, election results show that people will not be so easily fooled again. One of my constituents, who did not vote for me in the by-election—there were some of those —but who had watched the Government's behaviour since I was elected, declared,"It will be a cold day in hell before I ever vote Conservative again."
      Liberal Democrats wanted a Budget to give us an investment-led recovery. That should have been started long ago, and we have advocated it for some time. We wanted to see fair taxation, based above all on people's ability to pay, not another tax that falls most heavily on those in need and on the most vulnerable, those who have been so badly let down by the Government. Anyone who has been talking to people outside the House will know that the last thing they want is another new tax.
      My hon. Friends and I reject the tax. We support the amendment, because it would at least ensure that the measure was not enacted until it had been properly scrutinised. The proposed new tax is unjustifiable, inefficient and devious—but, above all, it is unfair.
      Mr. John Hutton: In the time left for the debate I shall make several general observations about the insurance premium tax. Like the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I want to comment on some of the complexities that might flow if we passed the measure.
      I shall start with the speech of the Paymaster General. I was mildly encouraged by the fact that he described the new tax as progressive. That is the first time since I entered the House that I have heard a Conservative Treasury Minister express support for the notion of progressive taxation. I hope that we can look forward to hearing Treasury Ministers espouse the virtues of progressive taxation on future occasions—but I am afraid that I expect to be disappointed.
      The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) talked about the sum that the proposed tax would raise. And
      840
      we must consider it specifically in those terms. The Government's clear aim in introducing an insurance premium tax is to broaden the tax base. It is simply a money-raising device, with no other merit whatever, and in 1996–97 it will be expected to raise nearly £1 billion—almost the entire budget of the Department of National Heritage. Unlike the hon. Lady, I look upon that as a considerable sum.
      Why do the Government propose to tax insurance? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, insurance is an inherently good thing, and I believe that it is the role of Government to encourage people to take out proper insurance, to insure themselves against the risk of illness and other eventualities, and especially to take out home contents insurance, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) referred.
      There is an ideological problem associated with the tax, because it is targeted at something that is positive and life enhancing. The Minister did not address that problem.
      We have been told, as we have been in a number of Budget statements and economic debates, about the Government's policy on indirect taxes. We have been told repeatedly that the Government favour indirect taxes. Indeed, they are such an advocate of indirect taxes that they have invented two totally new taxes. We have the insurance premium tax, which we are debating tonight, and the airport duty tax, which we debated last night. It is worth bearing in mind that these are the first two new indirect taxes in more than 20 years.
      Given the attendance certainly on the Tory Benches for most of this debate, it is not surprising that the introduction of this new tax has promoted rampant indifference on the part of the Conservative party. For example, there is no reference to the insurance premium tax in the Government's manifesto. Indeed, it could be argued that this tax goes against the grain of Tory tax policy since 1979.
      Insurance is not an optional item of expenditure in many households, so insurance premium tax will not work in the same way as value added tax. It cannot be argued that insurance premiums are an optional extra—that taxpayers can choose whether to spend money on insurance premiums in the same way as they do when they consume normal household goods. The issue is fundamentally different. The insurance premium tax will directly hit basic and essential items in household budgets. It is estimated —accurately, I believe—that 16·5 million households will pay insurance premium tax.
      I do not believe that it in any way reduces the strength of the argument that we have deployed against insurance premium tax to argue that the rate of IPT will be only 3 per cent. because we know what the Government have done to the rate of value added tax since 1979. It might start at 3 per cent., then it will be 5 per cent., then 10 per cent. and then 20 per cent. That is exactly the sort of policy approach that the Government have adopted over many years. The Chancellor estimates that the revenue to be raised by IPT will be equivalent to 35p a week. Given the accuracy of his predictons in other areas of the Government's fiscal policy, however, we are entitled to treat that prediction with some caution. The revenue raised is likely to be much higher.
      One of the problems—the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) did us all a service by drawing attention to this—is that IPT, and the way in which the tax has been constructed in the Bill, looks to be potentially a wide tax

      841.
      Clearly, it will cover insurance policies such as travel insurance, warranties on electrical goods, mortgage indemnities and certainly private medical insurance. The real figure that we can attach to IPT and its impact on household budgets is more likely to be £1 per week.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale drew attention to the views of the insurance industry. The best that we can say is that the insurance industry has given the tax a muted response. The Association of British Insurers and other groups have expressed concern that the net effect of IPT will almost certainly be that people will take out inadequate insurance or no insurance cover at all, and that is to be regretted.
      I have only one minute left. I prepared wider notes on IPT but clearly I shall not be able to make those remarks tonight. It might be reasonable, therefore, to conclude that IPT will be an unpopular tax. It has been conceived for the wrong reasons and it will impact most heavily on those who should not be asked to get the Government out of their deep financial mess. I am reminded, as I usually am on such occasions, of the comments of Sir Edmund Burke, who wrote in 1775:
      "To tax and to please … is not given to men"
      That is especially apposite in the context of the insurance premium tax.
      Mr. Darling: This has been a short and not altogether satisfactory debate because there has not been nearly enough time to examine some of the general problems of the tax, let alone the specfic ones.
      I shall start by making a preliminary point about the speech of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). The reason why I raised the point of order about declaration of interest is important. It is not a personal matter in relation to the hon. Gentleman because I know that, in many debates, he has made speeches about the insurance industry, about which he knows. Indeed, he has made one or two comments that have been helpful to arguments that I have made. Perhaps he made them inadvertently, but he did so.
      There is a point in principle here. It is our experience that, as the Bill goes into Committee, a large number of Tory Members raise matters because they are consultants to various people. It is a bad precedent, and it is bad for this Parliament, that industries should get into the habit of thinking that the way to raise matters in Parliament is by buying the services of a consultant. That is wholly inappropriate and it should be deplored. Having said that, the hon. Member for Ryedale raised a number of important matters. The technical matters in the Bill need to be discussed. There are about 28 clauses and there are regulations which we have not yet seen.
      I do not think that any hon. Member has said that, during the next few months, the Government will be coming up with hordes of regulations to make the tax work. We should not lose sight of the fact that the industry will have to change its accounting systems to make the tax work.
      9.45 pm
      In addition to all of the regulatory burdens, the insurance industry will now have to set people in place to administer and to collect the tax. The cost of the new systems and the new employees will add to the premium
      842
      costs and the public will not just be paying the insurance tax but will be paying the cost of its administration. The cost will not be met by the Government and it will not be defrayed against other expenditure. It will be met by ordinary people.
      The technical points made by the hon. Gentleman were important, as was his point concerning the United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom risks. The Government have done many things on which we have touched in other debates that may drive business away from the London market. They must have regard to the consequences of their actions. An insurance tax may be seen to be a light touch or an easy option, and the Government will pray in aid the fact that there are similar taxes on insurance in other parts of the European Union.
      However, the tax does not end with the 3 per cent. levy which is currently being imposed. The costs of administration and collection and the regulatory costs must be added to the cost of the insurance industry. Those costs must be paid for either directly by those who pay premiums, or through more redundancies in the industry. Anyone who has been involved in the insurance industry will know that it has had many redundancies, and I fear that there are more to come. I suspect that the tax will add to those redundancies.
      The second point of the hon. Member for Ryedale was on private health care. I agree with him that it is entirely to be encouraged that people take out insurance which provides cash cover in the event of illness. We have always sought to encourage that and the Government are right to exempt that type of long-term insurance. Where the distinction falls to be drawn is between that sort of insurance and private health care insurance, which is in effect providing private health care as an alternative to the NHS. That is a difficult distinction to draw in technical terms, but it is one which the Government must draw.
      I do not think that the Paymaster General was particularly clear about the distinction and I hope that he will make it clear that private health care insurance will not be exempt from the tax. If it is exempt, the people who must pay increased premiums for insuring their houses or their cars will not understand it.
      Let me turn to another important point. The Minister said—whether he likes it or not, I have a note of him saying this—that the costs of the tax are not important because other costs in the industry are going up. It beggars belief that a Treasury Minister would make such a statement, but the fact is that insurance costs are going up dramatically.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said that the crime rate in London and in our other major cities and towns is escalating. The cost of insurance is becoming prohibitive and many people cannot get insurance of any sort. For a person seeking car insurance, the criterion for having to meet a larger burden of insurance is not so much whether he has had his car damaged or stolen but that he lives in a particular area. That burden is becoming so prohibitive to some people that they will under-insure or not insure at all. It is not in society's interests to get into a situation in which people may be injured by somebody in a car and discover that that car is not insured. That sort of crime is prevalent enough as it is without encouraging it by adding to the costs—not just the insurance tax itself, but the added-on costs which are to be incurred by the industry in administering the tax.
      For the Minister to claim that the cost is not important is astounding. I hope that he will have reflected for the past

      843
      40 minutes or so on the ill-advised nature of that remark and perhaps he will withdraw it. The Minister also said that the tax is mildly progressive. Again, that is surprising. The Minister cited the example of poor people who are living in small houses. When we were discussing the abolition of domestic rates and the introduction of the poll tax—some Conservative Members may remember that fondly, some not so fondly—we were always being given the example of the poor widow who lived in the big house. Well, the poor widow who lives in a big house may have a larger insurance bill than someone living in a small house, yet the Paymaster General, who I do not remember being a rebel on the poll tax although I may be wrong and perhaps he will refresh our memory if he was—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was a Whip".] Indeed. He probably whipped his right hon. and hon. Friends into the Lobby to vote for the poll tax when those ridiculous arguments were being deployed.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) said, many people on low incomes are being hit by high insurance bills and there is nothing that they can do to avoid them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said, that is why it is important for us to return to the fundamental question—what is the Government's philosophy? They want people to be prudent and responsible, yet they are taxing people for that.
      I know that other Ministers on the Treasury Bench are much given to philosophy these days. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is one of the most precious Ministers in this Government, tells us many things, including the fact that people have become cynical about our great institutions—whether the Conservative party, Parliament or anything else. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is another candidate for the Cabinet, is also given to philosophical discussions, although he appears to be a more traditional, Disraeli Tory.
      Let us hear where the Paymaster General stands in this great moral debate and especially what he has to say about taxing responsibility and prudence. I am sure that he must have had something to say about it in his manifesto.
      I am sure that the House would like to hear what the Government's philosophy is. Many of us believe that they are not bothered about philosophy when it comes to a frantic scrabble to raise tax to make ends meet. At the last election the Government told us that they had a deficit of £28 billion and that the recovery would start the day after the election. No doubt Conservative Members remember that. Yet we now have a £50 billion deficit and people are being hit by income tax increases and value added tax on fuel and are finding that their mortgage tax relief is being steadily reduced. Depite the fact that the Government condemned us for allegedly intending to reduce mortgage tax relief to 25 per cent., they will reduce it to 15 per cent. during the next few years.
      Despite those tax increases the Government are coming back for more and more. People who cannot afford it are being hit by tax bills that they cannot avoid. That is why insurance is being taxed and why we debated the air tax yesterday. The Government are going for all the soft options, regardless of the consequences.
      Perhaps the Paymaster General will be honest and tell us that the Government are not going for those taxes because of any philosophical problems but because they are engaged in a frantic and desperate search for further tax.
      844
      Will the Government tell us whether they intend to extend the scope or rate of the insurance tax? The Prime Minister got into difficulty when he said that he would not extend the scope or rate of value added tax. He was absolutely categorical about it. "Oh no, we are not going to increase it", he said. What is the Paymaster General going to say about the insurance tax? Will rate be altered in the life of this Parliament? Perhaps we could hear his answer in clear and unambiguous terms.
      Sir John Cope: I must start by pointing out that the reason for the tax is that it will raise revenue from a sector which has relatively low indirect tax at the moment. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor concluded at the time and as other hon. Members have said since, such a tax was and is a sensible means of raising revenue—in the context of the Budget as a whole—by broadening the scope of indirect taxation. That is a direct remark of the sort that my right hon. and learned Friend is given to make. It was an honest remark and it explained the origin of the tax extremely clearly—it could not be clearer than that.
      The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) quoted one of my most distinguished predecessors as Paymaster General, although admittedly he held the post at a time when the job was rather different and much more profitable than it is now. My predecessor said something that was extremely true:
      "To tax and to pleas …e is not given to men"
      It was right and fair that the hon. Gentleman should quote that.
      The insurance sector is currently subject to little indirect tax. This tax represents a further contribution to the Government's long-term strategy of shifting the burden of taxation from direct to indirect taxation. It generates what the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) called "very little revenue". I do not see it that way. It generates a significant amount of revenue—approximately £775 million in a full year—and, in doing so, makes a valuable contribution to tackling the Budget deficit.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) asked about the future rate and scope of the tax. The current rate has been chosen after careful consideration of all the factors involved: the impact on taxpayers; the effect on the industry; the other matters that arise out of the amendment; and the yield to which I referred. We believe, and the Chancellor believes, that it is the right rate for this tax. I am not forecasting future Budgets. No Treasury Minister can do so at any stage, and I shall not do so this evening, but that is how we chose the right rate.
      At one point in the debate I was complimented on recommending the tax on the ground that it was mildly progressive. At other times I have been attacked for making remarks on a similar basis, as I was even in this short debate. The point that I was making was that, as the family expenditure survey shows, the poorest 20 per cent. of households will pay only about 7p a week. I recognise that that is an average. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), described individual cases where expenditure varied from that. That is true of every form of expenditure.
      However, the 7p a week for the poorest 20 per cent. of households contrasts with about 47p a week for the richest 20 per cent. of households. It seemed to come as a great insight to some hon. Members that high-income households pay more on insurance than low-income households. But that seems obvious. Indeed, high-income

      845
      households pay more on everything than low-income households, which is why taxes on expenditure tend to be progressive, as this tax is. That is an obvious fact of life.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Paymaster General taking account of the fact that a substantial number of low-income households will pay no tax at all simply because they cannot afford the premiums?
      Sir John Cope: Yes, but that is the case now, as the hon. Lady rightly says. In introducing the insurance premium tax, we had to take account of average figures. That is not a novel factor that is somehow being introduced as a result of the insurance premium tax, but is the current position.
      The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green spoke about the position in Greater London where, according to the family expenditure survey, people pay an average of some 18 per cent. more for vehicles, building and contents insurance than people elsewhere in the United Kingdom. When that is translated into the 35p a week which 44 per cent. of households pay, there is not a tremendous difference between the overall burden on people in Greater London and the burden on people who live elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I readily accept, and have made no attempt to disguise my acceptance, that those are averages and that some individuals will be in a different position.
      There has also been some discussion about the coverage of the tax, particularly in relation to medical health insurance and private health care. I made it clear that we consider it right to extend the tax to all general insurance. That includes private health care and credit insurance. By doing that, we can keep the rate to 3 per cent. and minimise the impact on everyone concerned.
      I was asked also by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central about equalisation reserves. I understand that the Association of British Insurers is still in discussion with the DTI and Inland Revenue about a possible scheme for calculating equalisation reserves. Clearly, the outcome will be announced when those discussions have been completed, but I have noted the interest expressed in these matters by hon. Gentlemen during the debate.
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 327.

      Division No. 98]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bayley, Hugh

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Ainger, Nick

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bell, Stuart

      Allen, Graham

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Alton, David

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Benton, Joe

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Ashton, Joe

      Betts, Clive

      Austin-Walker, John

      Blair, Tony

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Blunkett, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Boateng, Paul

      Barron, Kevin

      Boyes, Roland

      Battle, John

      Bradley, Keith

      846

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Burden, Richard

      Gunned, John

      Byers, Stephen

      Hain, Peter

      Caborn, Richard

      Hall, Mike

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hardy, Peter

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Harvey, Nick

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Canavan, Dennis

      Henderson, Doug

      Cann, Jamie

      Heppell, John

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Hoey, Kate

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Home Robertson, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clelland, David

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Coffey, Ann

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoyle, Doug

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hutton, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Illsley, Eric

      Cox, Tom

      Ingram, Adam

      Cryer, Bob

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Cummings, John

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Janner, Greville

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jowell, Tessa

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

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Denham, John

      Keen, Alan

      Dewar, Donald

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Dixon, Don

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dowd, Jim

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Leighton, Ron

      Eastham, Ken

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Enright, Derek

      Lewis, Terry

      Etherington, Bill

      Litherland, Robert

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Fatchett, Derek

      Loyden, Eddie

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McAllion, John

      Fisher, Mark

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Flynn, Paul

      McCartney, Ian

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McCrea, Rev William

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Foulkes, George

      McFall, John

      Fraser, John

      McKelvey, William

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Galbraith, Sam

      McLeish, Henry

      Galloway, George

      Maclennan, Robert

      Gapes, Mike

      McMaster, Gordon

      Garrett, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      George, Bruce

      Madden, Max

      Gerrard, Neil

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Mahon, Alice

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Mandelson, Peter

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marek, Dr John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Gould, Bryan

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Graham, Thomas

      Martlew, Eric

      847

      Maxtor, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Meale, Alan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Michael, Alun

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Short, Clare

      Milburn, Alan

      Simpson, Alan

      Miller, Andrew

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

      Morgan, Rhodri

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

      Morley, Elliot

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Snape, Peter

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Soley, Clive

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mudie, George

      Spellar, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Murphy, Paul

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Stevenson, George

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Stott, Roger

      O'Hara, Edward

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Olner, William

      Straw, Jack

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Parry, Robert

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pickthall, Colin

      Tyler, Paul

      Pike, Peter L.

      Vaz, Keith

      Pope, Greg

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wallace, James

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Walley, Joan

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Prescott, John

      Wareing, Robert N

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Watson, Mike

      Purchase, Ken

      Welsh, Andrew

      Radice, Giles

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Randall, Stuart

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Raynsford, Nick

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Redmond, Martin

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Reid, Dr John

      Wilson, Brian

      Rendel, David

      Winnick, David

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Wise, Audrey

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Worthington, Tony

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Wray, Jimmy

      Rogers, Allan

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Rooker, Jeff

      Young, David (Bolton SE-)

      Rooney, Terry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mr. Jack Thompson and

      Ruddock, Joan

      Mr. Dennis Turner.

      Salmond, Alex

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Alexander, Richard

      Booth, Hartley

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Boswell, Tim

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Amess, David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Ancram, Michael

      Bowden, Andrew

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bowis, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Ashby, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bright, Graham

      Atkins, Robert

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Burns, Simon

      Baldry, Tony

      Burt, Alistair

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Butcher, John

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Butler, Peter

      Bates, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Beggs, Roy

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carrington, Matthew

      Bendall, Vivian

      Carttiss, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cash, William

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Churchill, Mr

      848

      Clappison, James

      Hawkins, Nick

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Heald, Oliver

      Coe, Sebastian

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Congdon, David

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Hicks, Robert

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hogg, Fit Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Horam, John

      Couchman, James

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cran, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Howarth, Alan (Stratrd-on-A)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Day, Stephen

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Devlin, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jack, Michael

      Dicks, Terry

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jessel, Toby

      Dover, Den

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Duncan, Alan

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Dunn, Bob

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dykes, Hugh

      Key, Robert

      Eggar, Tim

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Elletson, Harold

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Knapman, Roger

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'stn)

      Evennett, David

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Faber, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Legg, Barry

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Leigh, Edward

      Forman, Nigel

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Lidington, David

      Forth, Eric

      Lightbown, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Lord, Michael

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Luff, Peter

      French, Douglas

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fry, Sir Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Gale, Roger

      MacKay, Andrew

      Gallie, Phil

      Maclean, David

      Gardiner, Sir George

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Garnier, Edward

      Madel, Sir David

      Gill, Christopher

      Maginnis, Ken

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Malone, Gerald

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mans, Keith

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marland, Paul

      Gorst, John

      Marlow, Tony

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mates, Michael

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Hague, William

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Merchant, Piers

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mills, Iain

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Harris, David

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Monro, Sir Hector

      849

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Sproat, Iain

      Moss, Malcolm

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Needham, Richard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Steen, Anthony

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Stephen, Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stem, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Stewart, Allan

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Streeter, Gary

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West,

      Sumberg, David

      Norris, Steve

      Sweeney, Walter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Sykes, John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Ottaway, Richard

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Paice, James

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thomason, Roy

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Pickles, Eric

      Thurnham, Peter

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

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

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Tracey, Richard

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Tredinnick, David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Trend, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Trimble, David

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Trotter, Neville

      Richards, Rod

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Riddick, Graham

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Viggers, Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Walden, George

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Waller, Gary

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Ward, John

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Watts, John

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Sackville, Tom

      Whitney, Ray

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Whittingdale, John

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wilkinson, John

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Willetts, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wilshire, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Sims, Roger

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wolfson, Mark

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wood, Timothy

      Soames, Nicholas

      Yeo, Tim

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mr. Michael Brown.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      The chairman then put forthwith the order questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at ten o'clock.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the bill.
      The committee divided:Ayes 322, Noes 285.

      Division No. 99]

      [10.16 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Atkins, Robert

      Alexander, Richard

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Amess, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Ancram, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Bates, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Batiste, Spencer

      850

      Beggs, Roy

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Forth, Eric

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      French, Douglas

      Booth, Hartley

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Boswell, Tim

      Gale, Roger

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Gallie, Phil

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bowden, Andrew

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Bowis, John

      Gamier, Edward

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gill, Christopher

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bright, Graham

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Gorst, John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Burns, Simon

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burt, Alistair

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Butcher, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Butler, Peter

      Hague, William

      Butterfill, John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hannam, Sir John

      Cash, William

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Harris, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Clappison, James

      Hawkins, Nick

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Heald, Oliver

      Coe, Sebastian

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Congdon, David

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Hicks, Robert

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Horam, John

      Couchman, James

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cran, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

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

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

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Day, Stephen

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Devlin, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jack, Michael

      Dicks, Terry

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jessel, Toby

      Dover, Den

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Duncan, Alan

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Dunn, Bob

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dykes, Hugh

      Key, Robert

      Eggar, Tim

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Elletson, Harold

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Knapman, Roger

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evennett, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Faber, David

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Legg, Barry

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Leigh, Edward

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Forman, Nigel

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      851

      Lidington, David

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lightbown, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lord, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Luff, Peter

      Shersby, Michael

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Sims, Roger

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      MacKay, Andrew

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Maclean, David

      Soames, Nicholas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Speed, Sir Keith

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Madel, Sir David

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Malone, Gerald

      Spring, Richard

      Mans, Keith

      Sproat, Iain

      Marland, Paul

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Marlow, Tony

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Stephen, Michael

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stern, Michael

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Stewart, Allan

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Streeter, Gary

      Merchant, Piers

      Sumberg, David

      Milligan, Stephen

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mills, Iain

      Sykes, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thomason, Roy

      Needham, Richard

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Thurnham, Peter

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Nicholls, Patrick

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

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tracey, Richard

      Norris, Steve

      Tredinnick, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Trend, Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Trimble, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Trotter, Neville

      Page, Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Paice, James

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Patnick, Irvine

      Viggers, Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Walden, George

      Pawsey, James

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Waller, Gary

      Pickles, Eric

      Ward, John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Watts, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wells, Bowen

      Rathbone, Tim

      Whitney, Ray

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Whittingdale, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Richards, Rod

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Riddick, Graham

      Wilkinson, John

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Willetts, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Wood, Timothy

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Yeo, Tim

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sackville, Tom

      Mr. Michael Brown, and

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Ainger, Nick

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Ashton, Joe

      Allen, Graham

      Austin-Walker, John

      Alton, David

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      852

      Barnes, Harry

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Barron, Kevin

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Battle, John

      Foulkes, George

      Bayley, Hugh

      Fraser, John

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fyfe, Maria

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Galbraith, Sam

      Bell, Stuart

      Galloway, George

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gapes, Mike

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Garrett, John

      Benton, Joe

      George, Bruce

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Gerrard, Neil

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Betts, Clive

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Blair, Tony

      Godsiff, Roger

      Blunkett, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Boateng, Paul

      Gordon, Mildred

      Boyes, Roland

      Gould, Bryan

      Bradley, Keith

      Graham, Thomas

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Burden, Richard

      Gunnell, John

      Byers, Stephen

      Hain, Peter

      Caborn, Richard

      Hall, Mike

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hardy, Peter

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Harvey, Nick

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Canavan, Dennis

      Henderson, Doug

      Cann, Jamie

      Heppell, John

      Cariile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Hoey, Kate

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Home Robertson, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clelland, David

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Coffey, Ann

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoyle, Doug

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hutton, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Illsley, Eric

      Cox, Tom

      Ingram, Adam

      Cryer, Bob

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Cummings, John

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Janner, Greville

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jowell, Tessa

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

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Denham, John

      Keen, Alan

      Dewar, Donald

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

      Dixon, Don

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Dononoe, Brian H.

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dowd, Jim

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Leighton, Ron

      Eastham, Ken

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Enright, Derek

      Lewis, Terry

      Etherington, Bill

      Litherland, Robert

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Fatchett, Derek

      Loyden, Eddie

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McAllion, John

      Fisher, Mark

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Flynn, Paul

      McCartney, Ian

      853

      McCrea, Rev William

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      McFall, John

      Rogers, Allan

      McKelvey, William

      Rooker, Jeff

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Rooney, Terry

      McLeish, Henry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      McMaster, Gordon

      Ruddock, Joan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Salmond, Alex

      Madden, Max

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mahon, Alice

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mandelson, Peter

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Marek, Dr John

      Short, Clare

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Simpson, Alan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Martlew, Eric

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

      Maxton, John

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

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Michael, Alun

      Snape, Peter

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Soley, Clive

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Milburn, Alan

      Spellar, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gf Grimsby)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Stevenson, George

      Morley, Elliot

      Stott, Roger

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Straw, Jack

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mudie, George

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mullin, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      Murphy, Paul

      Tyler, Paul

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Vaz, Keith

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Wallace, James

      O'Hara, Edward

      Walley, Joan

      Olner, William

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wareing, Robert N

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Watson, Mike

      Parry, Robert

      Welsh, Andrew

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pike, Peter L.

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Pope, Greg

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Wilson, Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Winnick, David

      Prescott, John

      Wise, Audrey

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Worthington, Tony

      Purchase, Ken

      Wray, Jimmy

      Radice, Giles

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Randall, Stuart

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Redmond, Martin

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Reid, Dr John

      Mr. Jack Thompson and

      Rendel, David

      Mr. Dennis Turner.

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

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

    Clause 72

      PERSONAL ALLOWANCE
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 321, Noes, 284.

      Division No. 100]

      [10.30 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Alexander, Richard

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Ashby, David

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Amess, David

      Atkins, Robert

      Ancram, Michael

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      854

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Evennett, David

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Faber, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bates, Michael

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Batiste, Spencer

      Forman, Nigel

      Beggs, Roy

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Forth, Eric

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      French, Douglas

      Booth, Hartley

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Boswell, Tim

      Gale, Roger

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Gallic, Phil

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bowis, John

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Garnier, Edward

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gill, Christopher

      Brazier, Julian

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Bright, Graham

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Gorst, John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Burns, Simon

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burt, Alistair

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Butcher, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Butler, Peter

      Hague, William

      Butterfill, John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hannam, Sir John

      Cash, William

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Harris, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Churchill, Mr

      Hawkins, Nick

      Clappison, James

      Hawksley, Warren

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Heald, Oliver

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hendry, Charles

      Colvin, Michael

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Congdon, David

      Hicks, Robert

      Conway, Derek

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Horam, John

      Couchman, James

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cran, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

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

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

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Day, Stephen

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Devlin, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jack, Michael

      Dicks, Terry

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jessel, Toby

      Dover, Den

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Duncan, Alan

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Dunn, Bob

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dykes, Hugh

      Key, Robert

      Eggar, Tim

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Elletson, Harold

      Knapman, Roger

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

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

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      855

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Sackville, Tom

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Legg, Barry

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Leigh, Edward

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lidington, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lightbown, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lord, Michael

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Luff, Peter

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Speed, Sir Keith

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Maclean, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spring, Richard

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Sproat, Iain

      Madel, Sir David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Malone, Gerald

      Steen, Anthony

      Mans, Keith

      Stephen, Michael

      Marland, Paul

      Stern, Michael

      Marlow, Tony

      Stewart, Allan

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Streeter, Gary

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Sumberg, David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mates, Michael

      Sykes, John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Merchant, Piers

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Mills, Iain

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Thomason, Roy

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thurnham, Peter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Moss, Malcolm

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

      Needham, Richard

      Tracey, Richard

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tredinnick, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Trimble, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Trotter, Neville

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Norris, Steve

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Viggers, Peter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Ottaway, Richard

      Walden, George

      Page, Richard

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Paice, James

      Waller, Gary

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Ward, John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Pawsey, James

      Waterson, Nigel

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Watts, John

      Pickles, Eric

      Wells, Bowen

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Whitney, Ray

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Whittingdale, John

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wilkinson, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Willetts, David

      Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wilshire, David

      Richards, Rod

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Riddick, Graham

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Wolfson, Mark

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wood, Timothy

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Yeo, Tim

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Mr. Irvine Patnick and

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Ainger, Nick

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      856

      Allen, Graham

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Alton, David

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E,)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Ashton, Joe

      Fisher, Mark

      Austin-Walker, John

      Flynn, Paul

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Barnes, Harry

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Barron, Kevin

      Foulkes, George

      Battle, John

      Fraser, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Fyfe, Maria

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Galbraith, Sam

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Galloway, George

      Bell, Stuart

      Gapes, Mike

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Garrett, John

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      George, Bruce

      Benton, Joe

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Betts, Clive

      Godsiff, Roger

      Blair, Tony

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Blunkett, David

      Gordon, Mildred

      Boateng, Paul

      Gould, Bryan

      Boyes, Roland

      Graham, Thomas

      Bradley, Keith

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gunnell, John

      Burden, Richard

      Hain, Peter

      Byers, Stephen

      Hall, Mike

      Caborn, Richard

      Hanson, David

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hardy, Peter

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Harvey, Nick

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Henderson, Doug

      Canavan, Dennis

      Heppell, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hoey, Kate

      Clapham, Michael

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Home Robertson, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clelland, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Coffey, Ann

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cohen, Harry

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hutton, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Illsley, Eric

      Cousins, Jim

      Ingram, Adam

      Cox, Tom

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Cryer, Bob

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cummings, John

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Janner, Greville

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jowell, Tessa

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

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Denham, John

      Keen, Alan

      Dewar, Donald

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

      Dixon, Don

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dowd, Jim

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Leighton, Ron

      Eastham, Ken

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Enright, Derek

      Lewis, Terry

      Etherington, Bill

      Litherland, Robert

      857

      Livingstone, Ken

      Redmond, Martin

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Reid, Dr John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rendel, David

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      McAllion, John

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      McCartney, Ian

      Rogers, Allan

      McCrea, Rev William

      Rooker, Jeff

      Macdonald, Calum

      Rooney, Terry

      McFall, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McKelvey, William

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Ruddock, Joan

      McLeish, Henry

      Salmond, Alex

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McMaster, Gordon

      Sheerman, Barry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Madden, Max

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Short, Clare

      Mahon, Alice

      Simpson, Alan

      Mandelson, Peter

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marek, Dr John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & Fsbury)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

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

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Martlew, Eric

      Snape, Peter

      Maxton, John

      Soley, Clive

      Meale, Alan

      Spearing, Nigel

      Michael, Alun

      Spellar, John

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Milburn, Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Miller, Andrew

      Stevenson, George

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Stott, Roger

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Straw, Jack

      Morley, Elliot

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Tyler, Paul

      Mudie, George

      Vaz, Keith

      Mullin, Chris

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Murphy, Paul

      Wallace, James

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Walley, Joan

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Wareing, Robert N

      O'Hara, Edward

      Watson, Mike

      Olner, William

      Welsh, Andrew

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Parry, Robert

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Wilson, Brian

      Pope, Greg

      Winnick, David

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wise, Audrey

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Worthington, Tony

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Prescott, John

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Purchase, Ken

      Radice, Giles

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Randall, Stuart

      Mr. Jack Thompson and

      Raynsford, Nick

      Mr. Dennis Turner.

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

    Clause 77

      MORTGAGE INTEREST RELIEF ETC.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 332, Noes 251.

      Division No. 101]

      [10.42 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Alton, David

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Amess, David

      Alexander, Richard

      Ancram, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      858

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Ashby, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Atkins, Robert

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Evennett, David

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Faber, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bates, Michael

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Batiste, Spencer

      Forman, Nigel

      Beggs, Roy

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forth, Eric

      Bendall, Vivian

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Booth, Hartley

      French, Douglas

      Boswell, Tim

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Gale, Roger

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gallie, Phil

      Bowis, John

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Garnier, Edward

      Brazier, Julian

      Gill, Christopher

      Bright, Graham

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gorst, John

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Burns, Simon

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Burt, Alistair

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Butcher, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Butler, Peter

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Butterfill, John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hannam, Sir John

      Cash, William

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Harris, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Harvey, Nick

      Churchill, Mr

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Clappison, James

      Hawkins, Nick

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Heald, Oliver

      Coe, Sebastian

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Congdon, David

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Hicks, Robert

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Couchman, James

      Horam, John

      Cran, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Day, Stephen

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Devlin, Tim

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Hunter, Andrew

      Dicks, Terry

      Jack, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Dover, Den

      Jessel, Toby

      Duncan, Alan

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dunn, Bob

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Eggar, Tim

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Elletson, Harold

      Key, Robert

      859

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Robathan, Andrew

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Knapman, Roger

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Brewash)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

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

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Sackville, Tom

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Legg, Barry

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Leigh, Edward

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lidington, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lightbown, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lord, Michael

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Luff, Peter

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Speed, Sir Keith

      McCrea, Rev William

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Maclean, David

      Spring, Richard

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Sproat, Iain

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Madel, Sir David

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Steen, Anthony

      Malone, Gerald

      Stephen, Michael

      Mans, Keith

      Stern, Michael

      Marland, Paul

      Stewart, Allan

      Marlow, Tony

      Streeter, Gary

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sumberg, David

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Sykes, John

      Mates, Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Merchant, Piers

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mills, Iain

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Thomason, Roy

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thurnham, Peter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Moss, Malcolm

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

      Needham, Richard

      Tracey, Richard

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tredinnick, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Trimble, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Trotter, Neville

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Norris, Steve

      Tyler, Paul

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Viggers, Peter

      Ottaway, Richard

      Walden, George

      Page, Richard

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Paice, James

      Wallace, James

      Patnick, Irvine

      Waller, Gary

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Ward, John

      Pawsey, James

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Waterson, Nigel

      Pickles, Eric

      Watts, John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Wells, Bowen

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Whitney, Ray

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Wilkinson, John

      Rendel, David

      Willetts, David

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wilshire, David

      Richards, Rod

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Riddick, Graham

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Wolfson, Mark

      860

      Wood, Timothy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. Michael Brown and

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Etherington, Bill

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Allen, Graham

      Fatchett, Derek

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Fisher, Mark

      Austin-Walker, John

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Foulkes, George

      Barnes, Harry

      Fraser, John

      Barron, Kevin

      Fyfe, Maria

      Battle, John

      Galbraith, Sam

      Bayley, Hugh

      Galloway, George

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Garrett, John

      Bell, Stuart

      George, Bruce

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Benton, Joe

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Godsiff, Roger

      Berts, Clive

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Blair, Tony

      Gordon, Mildred

      Blunkett, David

      Gould, Bryan

      Boateng, Paul

      Graham, Thomas

      Boyes, Roland

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Bradley, Keith

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Grocott, Bruce

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

      Gunnell, John

      Burden, Richard

      Hain, Peter

      Byers, Stephen

      Hall, Mike

      Caborn, Richard

      Hanson, David

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hardy, Peter

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Henderson, Doug

      Canavan, Dennis

      Heppell, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Hoey, Kate

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Home Robertson, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clelland, David

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Coffey, Ann

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoyle, Doug

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hutton, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Illsley, Eric

      Cousins, Jim

      Ingram, Adam

      Cox, Tom

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cryer, Bob

      Janner, Greville

      Cummings, John

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mdn)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jowell, Tessa

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Keen, Alan

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

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Denham, John

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Dewar, Donald

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dixon, Don

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Dowd, Jim

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Leighton, Ron

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Lewis, Terry

      Eastham, Ken

      Litherland, Robert

      Enright, Derek

      Livingstone, Ken

      861

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Loyden, Eddie

      Morley, Elliot

      McAllion, John

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      McCartney, Ian

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Mullin, Chris

      McFall, John

      Murphy, Paul

      McKelvey, William

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      McLeish, Henry

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Maclennan, Robert

      O'Hara, Edward

      McMaster, Gordon

      Olner, William

      McNamara, Kevin

      O'Neill, Martin

      Madden, Max

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Mahon, Alice

      Parry, Robert

      Mandelson, Peter

      Pickthall, Colin

      Marek, Dr John

      Pike, Peter L.

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Pope, Greg

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Maxton, John

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Meacher, Michael

      Purchase, Ken

      Meale, Alan

      Radice, Giles

      Michael, Alun

      Randall, Stuart

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Milburn, Alan

      Redmond, Martin

      Miller, Andrew

      Reid, Dr John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      862

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rogers, Allan

      Vaz, Keith

      Rooney, Terry

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Walley, Joan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Salmond, Alex

      Watson, Mike

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Welsh, Andrew

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Short, Clare

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Simpson, Alan

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilson, Brian

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Winnick, David

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

      Wise, Audrey

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

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Spellar, John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stevenson, George

      Mr. Jack Thompson and

      Stott, Roger

      Mr. Dennis Turner.

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill (Clauses 28, 46, 72 and 77) reported, without amendment.

      Gas Supplies (Wales)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Chapman.]
      10.54 pm
      Mr. Peter Hain: Although 84 per cent. of homes of Wales are within 100 yards of a gas supply, 173,000 households still have no access to gas. Those who lose out include part of my home village of Resolven known as the Site, which British Gas is refusing to supply despite the fact that the rest of the village has gas installed, and has had so for a number of years. The Dulais valley villages of Seven Sisters, Onllwyn and Banwen and the villages of Cwmllinfell, Rhifawr and lower Brynamman in the Swansea valley do not have a gas supply. Those villages are in my constituency. There are other surrounding villages in the same predicament.
      The question is why. First, it is a consequence of privatisation and the Government's failure to implement a regulatory regime to protect outlying areas, including valley villages. Many of these are former coal-mining areas where the cost and difficulty of obtaining coal because of the rundown of the coal industry is a major problem. It is also inconvenient for elderly citizens to rely on coal in the current circumstances.
      I cite the case of Mrs. Sally Pascoe, an 87-year-old widow in the village of Seven Sisters. She finds it very difficult to rely on coal, and would like the opportunity to have gas. She lives in the Dulais valley where gas has recently been extended to halfway up the valley as far as Crynant—a few miles away from the village of Seven Sisters, which is denied gas supply.
      There are 1,400 homes without gas supply in the Dulais valley in Seven Sisters, Banwen and Onllwyn. In response to a request from me, British Gas has asked for a sum of £910 from each home in the villages to fund the £1 million cost of supplying and installing the pipeline. Such an amount is impossible for residents of those villages who are, by and large, on extremely low incomes.
      Among these homes are 400 properties owned by Neath borough council. Recently, the council installed central heating systems at considerable cost. It is impossible for the council to fund £910 for each property under its responsibility. British Gas does not think that customers will take up the opportunity of gas supply at such a high installation charge, which is the only one that it is prepared to make.
      In the upper Swansea valley, the villagers of Cwmllinfell are in a similar predicament. Recently they presented me with a petition, which I sent to the Welsh Office and to British Gas. British Gas told me that it would cost some £2 million to lay piping to the residents, and that they would each be charged more than £500. It is impossible for them be bear that cost, given the income and demographic population in the village, which comprises many elderly residents. British Gas also claims that it would need to upgrade the existing network in the surrounding area to cope with the extra volume of supplying villages such as Cwmllinfell, and such upgrading would not be completed for at least two years.
      There is an additional. problem. A number of the villages were promised natural gas supply and installed liquefied petroleum gasoline systems some seven years ago on the understanding that natural gas would be available in a few years, but privatisation has completed scotched that
      864
      opportunity and the villages have been saddled with LPG, which costs twice as much as natural gas. I cite the case of Mrs. Laverne West and her husband Brian, who have a bill of £1,600. When value added tax is imposed from April, it will go up a further £2·50 per week, and when the full VAT increase comes in it will be an extra £5·50 a week. That is an incredible heating cost to bear for such a couple.
      Then there is the case of Mrs. Margaret Thomas, who has chronic asthma and arthritis. She is paying £25 per week in gas charges because of this expensive LPG scheme, which she expected to be replaced by a natural gas scheme until privatisation came along and killed that hope.
      Gas is supplied near to those families to the villages of Gwaun-cae-Gurwen and up to the Gurnos roundabout at Ystalyfera. We are not talking about a major pipeline installation project, but about the demand for gas which is supplied only a few miles away. Yet British Gas says that it is far too expensive. It also claims that, under the Gas (Connection Charges) Regulations 1986, it is not allowed to subsidise access for new customers.
      That undermines the principle of essential service, which means universal access for every customer who requires it. Again, that is a direct consequence of the privatisation of British Gas, where the public interest has been relegated below the interests of private shareholders and the imperatives of competition which drive the regulatory regime.
      One result of that is direct discrimination in, for example, Lampeter where 800 customers were supplied by British Gas on a spur pipeline. British Gas had to invest £1 million in 1992 to upgrade that spur, or at least a section of it. British Gas told me that it would expect to invest a further £1·5 million in 1995 to upgrade and maintain the remaining section of the pipeline to Lampeter.
      British Gas has also stated that it will never recover the capital investment in commercial terms, and that it is doing it only because it has a statutory obligation to supply existing customers. Yet there are similar amounts needed to supply new customers; for example, £1 million in the case of Dulais valley or up to £2 million in the case of the upper Swansea valley. The regulatory system is being pursued by the Government and implemented by British Gas and it is directly discriminating against new customers. Old customers, on the other hand, can be effectively subsidised on commercial criteria in the case of Lampeter. That discrimination is completely indefensible and against the public interest.
      It is also, in my view, short sighted. Extending supply could make it more attractive for new industry to come into areas of high unemployment and deprivation, such as the upper Swansea valley and the upper Dulais valley. That could increase the wealth of the community and increase the standards of living of local residents. They would be encouraged to consume more, which would open up new markets. That would be a complete antidote to the short-termism which drives British Gas's policy under the regime put in place by the Government.
      The regulatory regime results in cherry picking and social dumping. The cherry picking is a result of British Gas being driven by competitive forces, with new competitors encouraged by the regulator yapping at its heels. Those forces have driven British Gas to supply highly profitable customers—large houses, industrial units, city centres and urban concentrations—rather than outlying areas where it is difficult to make a profit. Those areas thus become the victims of social dumping.

      865
      From British Gas's standpoint, the recent changes which followed the Monopoly and Mergers Commission report mean that there is extra competition. An argument which has been put to me and which is hard to dispute is that British Gas could invest in a new pipeline and then find that a competitor comes in and creams off the market and all the customers. While British Gas would have invested all of the money up front, the benefits would be denied to it.
      The villages are being penalised and discriminated against because of the regime that the Government have put in place governing British Gas. From December 1992, British Gas has made sure that consumer contribution to pipeline or outfill projects has gone up by 80 per cent. Every new customer has been required to pay much more to have gas brought to them than has been the case in the past.
      That brings me to an alternative solution, given that British Gas seems unable to provide one because of the regulatory regime bearing down on it continuously in a way which makes it difficult to meet the demands. What about the possibility of grant aid? I have taken up that matter with the Welsh Office, and I have had correspondence with the Under-Secretary of State and with the Secretary of State. I am informed that such projects for installing pipelines up the valleys are not eligible for urban aid because they are residential rather than industrial projects.
      The alternative is to consider the possibility of a European grant. Again, I am informed that such projects would not be eligible because of privatisation and I cannot dispute that fact. Prior to privatisation, British Gas Wales was eligible to apply for European regional development funding for 30 per cent. of key infrastructure improvements. Indeed, in the seven years prior to privatisation British Gas received more than £15 million from European grants to assist with pipeline improvements, but it has not been eligible since. That is a direct and discriminatory consequence of the Government's policy of privatising British Gas. It is ridiculous because other countries have benefited from European money. For instance, Portugal was given a grant of £78 million to develop a natural gas terminal at Setubal and a pipeline northwards. In correspondence with British Gas, the Secretary of State said that such an option would be denied to Wales because of privatisation and also because Wales and the rest of Britain is not, like Portugal, an objective 1 region in European Community terms, although it should be because Wales is the poorest part of mainland Britain and thus should be eligible for such grants.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Wales pointed out in a letter to me today—I am grateful to him for supplying it before this debate—that
      "privatised bodies are required to comply with the 'Solima' criteria"
      under European grant terms, which means that domestic customers would be denied such grant aid because it is applicable only to so-called economic and industrial developments in the region. I argue that that is a narrow definition of eligibility. If one upgrades a residential community, industry will be able to invest in those villages, which are industrial as they are former mining villages. Industry would be much more likely to invest if the villages had gas and it had the opportunity to use it.
      866
      The Under-Secretary should give us an assurance that the Government will seek a reform of the European development fund criteria. I hope that he can give me that promise so that villages such as mine are not in future denied grant aid from Europe.
      The Welsh Office must put considerable pressure on the European Union to assist outlying areas throughout Wales, where so many tens of thousands of villagers are denied gas, which is the cheapest form of energy. It must also put pressure on the Union to ensure that the regulations are reformed, so that grant aid is provided to assist with such installations and British Gas can have a detailed programme, which provides everyone in Wales, and certainly everyone in the valleys, with the gas that they want.
      The European question has another dimension. In a recent letter to Mr. David Morris, a Member of the European Parliament, the Regional Commissioner, Mr. Bruce Millan, said:
      "Under the current Community Support Frameworks for the United Kingdom there is no provision for funding gas supply networks. Only on-site infrastructure for industrial and business premises is eligible for funding."
      He goes on to say that that could
      "be a matter for discussion"
      within the European Community and that if the British Government made any proposals they would be considered. He does not prejudge the outcome, but invites the British Government to propose changes in the European grant criteria, which would enable British Gas to benefit.
      I am making a direct request across the Chamber to the Under-Secretary of State and through him to the Government to lobby the European Commission and meet with Mr. Millan and other Commissioners to change the criteria, so that villagers in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom can benefit from European grant aid for such infrastructure investment. British Gas recognises that there is a strong case for the provision of natural gas to deprived communities—not least because it is comparatively cheaper than other fuels.
      In conclusion, as a local Member of Parliament I have become extremely frustrated at the buck-passing between the Welsh Office, the European Community and British Gas. I have been corresponding on the matter for over a year. I do not quarrel about the energy with which the Welsh Office has responded to my pressure and requests, but I complain about the frustration of a local Member of Parliament who finds that everybody is passing the buck up and down the line.
      I call on the Government, together with British Gas, to resolve this matter as soon as possible and supply gas up the Dulais and upper Swansea valleys. The sums involved are relatively trivial. Compared with the profits made by British Gas, they are petty cash—a million here and a million there. The Welsh Office should immediately lobby the European Community to change the criteria by which European grant aid is provided. If that is not done, valley villagers and tens of thousands of others throughout Wales and no doubt elsewhere in Britain must conclude that they are the victims of privatisation and Government indifference.
      11.10 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on securing this important debate, especially at such a civilised hour.
      It may be helpful if I begin by outlining the changes that have occurred within the European structural fund arena, which I hope will clarify the position with regard to utilities and the hon. Gentleman's specific concerns in respect of domestic users.
      Current European structural fund support in Wales is implemented through European Commission-approved community support frameworks. These focus on the conversion of regions seriously affected by industrial decline within objective 2 areas, such as industrial south Wales and Clwyd, and the promotion of the development of rural aeas within objective 5b, as in the case of Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys.
      Prior to 1989, not since privatisation as the hon. Gentleman suggested, when community support frameworks were first introduced, the European Commission was responsible for approving numerous single projects to aid the economic development of Wales. These included support for various gas projects to aid industry. However, after a review of the structural funds, which was completed in 1988, the European Council approved Commission proposals for co-ordinating and targeting structural funds on areas most in need. The principles of the review were to concentrate on five priority objectives: to encourage partnership; to introduce consistency, particularly with the member state's economic policies; to improve administration of the funds; a switch from a project-based to a programme-based approach; and, finally, to simplify monitoring. The five priority objectives were agreed for the funds, each of which was allocated a block of resources but with a large proportion of the funds targeted at objective 1 areas, such as Spain, Portugal, Greece and the Republic of Ireland.
      Objective 1 designated areas were allocated funds appropriate to promoting the development and structural adjustment of the regions whose development is lagging behind. Their community support frameworks allow for the introduction of natural gas infrastructure. It is important to recognise that both the ethos and the quantum of funds available require different approaches to the problems of different areas, and in particular require a different emphasis in preparing and implementing programmes. In Wales, the community support frameworks approved for objectives 2 and 5b involve promoting the synergy of varying measures to maximise the economic development of the areas concerned with the funds available.
      The introduction of more focused structural funds programmes has an important reference for privatised utilities in the United Kingdom. The Commission insisted that applications for investment in infrastructure by privatised bodies should be subject to a strict set of conditions known as the Solima criteria. First, there must be statutory or similar control of the body concerned; secondly, the aid must result in investment to the benefit of consumers or users of the infrastructure; thirdly, aid will be pitched at a level reflecting the extent to which a subsidy is necessary to ensure the investment is undertaken; and, fourthly, retention of infrastructure in public use during its economic life will normally be required.
      868
      These criteria address the Commission's concern that European regional development fund grant should not benefit non-eligible users, and that the grant should take into account the probable return on the investment and thus be pitched at a level that is strictly necessary to allow the project to proceed.
      Any applications from privatised bodies entail very careful analysis of project proposals and a clear explanation of how any project proposed by a privatised body could meet the Solima criteria.
      The ERDF grant is, if necessary, reduced to ensure that no grant is paid to any proportion of the investment estimated not to be for direct benefit to industry, commerce or tourism, and that no grant is paid for any proportion of the investment which could be financed out of future revenue from charges to the user of the infrastructure.
      To qualify for ERDF assistance, projects must show a clear link between the project and the industrial and/or economic development of the area concerned and show that it will lead to a genuine improvement of facilities. They must be located within an area covered by an approved community support framework, be acceptable in terms of the relevant CSF, contribute to the objectives and targets of the relevant CSF and be undertaken by a body satisfying the eligibility criteria.
      Against that background, I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about the cost to his constituents of the possible extension of the gas mains system to Seven Sisters in the upper Dulais valley. I have considerable sympathy for his constituents and others he has described this evening. As such, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is well aware before tonight's debate that ERDF resources cannot be devoted to the provision of gas supplies that are either exclusively or primarily for domestic use. That is also the case for support from the strategic development scheme.
      Gas supply schemes are eligible for SDS support if they fall as part of local authority sponsored infrastructure projects that will create or safeguard jobs—not if the scheme solely or primarily benefits domestic users.
      British Gas is required by law under the Gas (Connection Charges) Regulations 1986 to secure a contribution from potential new customers towards the cost of making natural gas available. The formula takes into account the benefit to British Gas of gas sales which would follow the commissioning of the project, but is also designed to ensure that existing customers do not subsidise new customers.
      British Gas maintains that its approach to providing mains extension is consistent throughout the country, and was in existence before privatisation. It is not a consequence of privatisation as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
      Mr. Hain: I cited the example of Lampeter where it was not a commercial investment; it is an existing customer base. Therefore, British Gas is required to provide a service and we would all expect that. Effectively, places like Seven Sisters are being discriminated against. Will the Minister concede that British Gas was eligible for European funding to the tune of £15 million before privatisation?
      Mr. Jones: I have already covered the latter point. That was the position until 1989, after privatisation, but the regulatory regime under which British Gas has to operate now is the Gas (Connection Charges) Regulations 1986

      869
      which require it to treat all customers alike throughout the country and to ensure that existing customers must not subsidise new customers. That has been the practice not just since 1986 but was the practice before. The decision to proceed with such a scheme must therefore be a matter for the commercial judgment of British Gas.
      Negotiations with the European Commission have determined the future shape and content of the structural fund. In Wales there will be two programme areas: objective 2 industrial south Wales and objective 5b rural Wales. Structural fund working groups are developing strategies for their respective areas.
      Arising from the strategies are the specific future priorities that the partnership—those who are involved in putting together the objectives and applications—feels should receive support under the structural funds from January 1994 onwards. Those plans will have to be submitted to the Commission by the end of April 1994.
      The European Commission will draw from those plans when establishing the community support framework for each eligible area and those frameworks will define the activities eligible for support in each area.
      Utilities are mentioned in both strategies, although gas is not mentioned in particular. The plans recognise that improvements in the utilities would contribute to making industrial, commercial and tourism development more attractive. However, the fact that limited funds are available will necessitate rigorous selection procedures, and it is likely that any utility seeking funds for projects will be required to demonstrate clearly the benefits to economic development—notwithstanding the need to satisfy the Solima criteria.
      Even if such activities are included in the community support frameworks, there is no guarantee that any particular area or project will benefit. Applications for European regional development fund assistance must accord with the priorities for regional economic
      870
      development included in the community support frameworks, and must undergo appraisal of their economic benefits to ensure that they are in keeping with the ERDF resources that would be deployed.
      Although there is a need to ensure that safeguards are in place to avoid the possible distortion of competition through direct state aid—and to ensure that benefits accrue to the community rather than to private individuals—private-sector involvement in structural funds is to be welcomed. In response to what the hon. Gentleman said, I stress that the Government are keen for the private sector to be more involved in the structural funds programmes. The introduction of the new programmes will allow a continuation—indeed, an expansion—of the partnership between the public and private sectors for jointly funded projects, which is encouraging.
      Mr. Hain: The Minister has not answered one question. Is he prepared, on behalf of the Government, to take up Commissioner Millan's invitation to look afresh at the funding criteria? Will he promise that that will be done as a direct result of tonight's debate?
      Mr. Jones: I have tried to describe the way in which the new plans applications are proceeding, which will involve community support frameworks. The partnership must deposit the plans with the Commission by April this year. It would, however, be wrong for me to promise too much to the hon. Gentleman: the utilities will be included, but not specifically gas. I envisage a continuation of the present arrangements. When we can indentify particular economic benefits in industrial, commercial or tourism categories, there may well be opportunities for utility applications. However, I think that the concepts are now well established, and I can foresee no direct application in, say, industrial south Wales for applications serving only domestic users. I am afraid that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman that consolation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 the number of employees convicted of fraud was, respectively, two, one, none, three and three. Of these, six were dismissed by the Department, and three resigned before any internal disciplinary proceedings were taken.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Employees of the Lord Chancellor's Department who are convicted of fraud will be subject to internal disciplinary proceedings. Although each case will be treated on its own merits, serious fraud is regarded as gross misconduct, and will usually lead to dismissal at the conclusion of the internal disciplinary proceedings.

HEALTH

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the cost of implementing the regional health authority changes proposed from 1 April 1994.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The proposals announced in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement on "Managing the New NHS" on 21 October 1993 will streamline national health service central management. It is not possible to estimate the cost of implementing the propoals at this stage. However, the changes will result in substantial savings which will be reinvested in patient care.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all the occasions since 1990 on which an external public relations company or consultant was employed by her Department with the name of the company or consultant involved; and what was the cost of each transaction.

  Mr. Sackville
  The functions that are identified as public relations are normally carried out by the Department's information division.
  596
  No public relations company or consultant has been directly employed since 1990. During European Drug Prevention Week the organisers sub-contracted a public relations consultant to help produce a video news release. Costs for this cannot be separately identified.

  Paintings and Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to buy or borrow photographs; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) how many (a) paintings and (b) photographs there are on the walls of her rooms.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to acquire any photographs. Four paintings and 11 prints loaned by the Government art collection adorn the walls of her office.

  Overseas Adoption Helpline
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls have been received by the overseas adoption helpline in each quarter since it was set up; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The table lists the number of recorded inquiries received by the overseas adoption helpline since its inception on 11 May 1992.

  Year and quarter

  Number of recorded inquiries

  1992

  May to June

  1124

  July to September

  492

  October to December

  399

  1993

  January to March

  936

  April to June

  598

  July to September

  528

  October to December

  566

  1 This figure covers a seven week period only.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in the northern region have been born mentally handicapped in each year since 1989; and what was the name of the village or town of each child.

  Mr. Bowis
  Severe learning disability is not always detectable at birth. The overall prevalence in the United Kingdom of severe learning disability is estimated to be between three and four per 1,000 population.

  Paediatric Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paediatric consultants there were in England in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table.
  597

  Hospital paediatric consultants in England as at 30 September each year, in whole-time equivalents

  Paediatrics

  Paediatric neurology

  Paediatric surgery

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  Total

  1988

  597·2

  11·8

  34·2

  316·9

  960·1

  1989

  678·8

  11·2

  39·5

  310·3

  1,039·8

  1990

  699·1

  9·7

  36·3

  333·3

  1,078·4

  1991

  723·0

  14·7

  47·3

  325·9

  1,110·9

  1992

  768·6

  13·5

  44·4

  304·4

  1,130·9

  Notes: Information is taken from the Hospital Medical and Dental Census for each year. Information about the number of consultants in the community is not available by specialty.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants have sought early retirement in each of the last five years in each region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Data collected do not distinguish between consultants and associate specialists and it is not maintained in regional form.

  The total numbers of consultants and associate specialists who retired early under provisions to allow for replacement of senior consultant posts are:

  Number

  1989–90

  75

  1990–91

  45

  1991–92

  38

  1992–93

  35

  11993–94

  48

  1 To 31 December 1993.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of officers employed on programmes dealing with drug abuse in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Bowis
  Government guidelines state that drug misusers should have access to a range of services, including advice and counselling, in-patient and community detoxification, residential rehabilitation and follow up support, where needed. These services are provided by both the statutory and non-statutory sectors. Services employ a range of staff which may include specialist doctors, drug workers, general practitioners, community psychiatric nurses, social and youth workers. Information on the total of these is not held centrally.

  Mr. Richard Marsh
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 1003, what are the particular qualifications, expertise or experience relating to health and social services of her special adviser, Mr. Richard Marsh.

  Mr. Sackville
  I do not intend to comment on the qualifications, expertise or experience of the special adviser to my right hon. Friend.

  International Peto Institute
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress there has been in the construction of an International Peto Institute in Budapest; when she 598
  expects building work to begin; when Her Majesty's Government's obligation to help fund this project will expire; and what assessment she has made of whether the funding pledged by Her Majesty's Government to this project could be more effectively spent in creating an equivalent facility in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Bowis
  Under the agreement between the United Kingdom and Hungarian Governments, further payments are dependent upon the commencement of construction of the International Peto Institute, for which no date has yet been set by the International Peto Foundation. Under this agreement, the institute has to be operational by February 1996 to avoid repayment of all or part of the payments made. Facilities for conductive education are already developing in the United Kingdom.

  Diabetics
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policy she has for targeting care towards insulin-dependent diabetics who are lone parents.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has no plans to adopt such a policy.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the(a) total budget for diabetic care and (b) the budget for education work among diabetics.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for the total budget for diabetic care are not available nor are figures for the budget for education work among diabetics.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the numbers of insulin-dependent diabetics in the United Kingdom; and how many of them live alone.

  Mr. SackviHe
  The number of insulin-dependent diabetics in the United Kingdom is not recorded; neither is it recorded how many live alone.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she plans to encourage diabetics to be open about their condition to ensure community support.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has no plans to seek to influence personal decisions of this nature.

  Hypnosis
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on hypnotism for entertainment; and what research she has sponsored into hypnosis and its consequences for health.

  Mr. Sackville
  The use of hypnotism on stage is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
  599
  National Heritage and, on television, for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Within the national health service, hospital medical staff and general practitioners can arrange for their patients to receive complementary and alternative therapies, including hypnosis, where they are satisfied that a clinical need for the treatment exists and if the resources can be made available locally, subject to the patient's consent to the treatment. It is widely accepted that hypnosis has a valuable role as an adjunct to medical and psychological treatments and is legitimately practised by a range of reputable therapists. Health professionals are bound by the ethical codes of conduct of their individual professions and, when practising in the NHS, by the terms of their contracts with NHS bodies. The Department has commissioned no research into hypnosis.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all chairs and non-executive directors of NHS trust hospitals who hold a chair or non-executive post at more than one NHS trust; and if she will list the trusts concerned.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under the National Health Service Trusts (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 1990—SI 2024 Regulation 11(1)(e)—serving chairmen or non-executive directors of national health service trusts may not serve concurrently on the board of another NHS authority or trust.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of hospital admissions in the East Anglia region are(a) immediate, (b) within six weeks, (c) within three months and (d) longer than a year; and what the figures were in May 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The latest year for which figures are available is 1991–92, in that year, 56 per cent. of hospital admissions were immediate. Of those admitted from waiting lists, 52·1 per cent. were admitted within six weeks, 69·1 per cent. within three months and 7 per cent.had to wait longer than a year.

  In May 1990, 57 per cent. of admissions were immediate. Of those admitted from waiting lists, 40·7 per cent. were admitted within six weeks, 67·1 per cent. within three months and 4·6 per cent. had to wait longer than a year.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in(a) the East Anglian region and (b) the Great Yarmouth and Waveney district had been waiting more than one year for hospital admission in (i) April 1991 and (ii) the latest available month.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There were 10,175 patients waiting more than 12 months for in-patient or day case treatment in East Anglian regional health authority at 31 March 1991. This included 3,502 patients who had been waiting more than two years. By 30 September 1993, the number waiting more than a year had decreased by 66 per cent. to 3,503 and no one was waiting more than two years.
  600
  The area covered by Great Yarmouth and Waveney district health authority in March 1991 is now covered by Anglian Harbours and James Paget hospital national health service trusts. At 31 March 1991, in the district health authority 1,420 patients had waited more than a year for treatment and 586 of these had waited more than two years. By 30 September 1993 in the trusts, the number waiting over a year had fallen by 68 per cent. to 450 and no one was waiting more than two years.

  Skin Disorders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which statistics her Department keeps about the prevalence of skin disorders in the United Kingdom(a) by region, (b) by district health authority and (c) by family health services authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department holds data for England and Wales on the incidence of skin cancer, on death rates, on numbers of deaths and on the average annual years of life lost per 10,000 of the resident population by region, district health authoriy and family health services authority. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys keeps a register of newly diagnosed cases of skin cancer by regional health authority, district health authority and FHSA. It also records the number of deaths by sex and age from diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue by region, district health authority and FHSA. In addition, the Department keeps central statistics by district and regions on leprosy, which is a notifiable disease.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent per head of population in(a) Great Yarmouth and Waveney health district and (b) the East Anglia region in (i) May 1979 and (ii) May 1991; and what is the expected level in April 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available shows that Great Yarmouth and Waveney health authority's revenue outturn increased from £40,349,819 in 1988–89—1988–89 cash—to £73,181,520 in 1992–1993—1992–1993 cash. Over the same period, East Anglia region's revenue outturn increased from £474,430,697 to £717,980,886. Thepopulation of East Anglia region was 2,034,439 in 1988 and 2,089,398 in 1992, that of Great Yarmouth and Waveney in the same years was 200,091 and 202,255. This represents a spend per head of population in 1988–89 of over £201 in Great Yarmouth and Waveney and £233 in East Anglia as a whole. In 1992–93, the corresponding figures are over £361 for Great Yarmouth and £343 for East Anglia.

  Consultant Referrals
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of consultant referrals in the East Anglia region are(a) immediate, (b) within six weeks, (c) within three months and (d) longer than a year; and what the figures were in May 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Summaries of waiting times for in-patient and day case treatment are given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England" published twice yearly. The latest published figures for September 1993 are available in the Library. Under the patients charter,
  601
  regional health authorities are required to set local charter standards for waiting times for first out-patient appointments. These are published locally.

  Hospital Treatment
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients from the Great Yarmouth and Waveney health district were treated in hospitals outside the district in the last year in which figures are available; and how many out-of-district patients were treated within the Anglian Harbours hospital trust and the James Paget hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  My hon. Friend may wish to Contact Dr. Ronald Duncan, Mrs. Kath Currie and Mr. John Wells, chairmen of the Great Yarmouth and Waveney health

  Patient transport services Emergency calls response times 1992–93: England

  Ambulance authority

  Total number of emergency calls resulting in ambulance arriving at scene of incidents (Thousands)

  Response within 8 minutes Per cent.

  Response within 19 minutes (rural) 14 minutes (urban) Per cent.

  Rural authorities

  Cumbria

  15·3

  55·6

  91·2

  Durham

  30·3

  51·6

  97·1

  Humberside

  43·0

  72·8

  99·2

  Northumbria (NHS Trust)

  77·6

  67·8

  99·0

  North Yorkshire

  23·1

  58·8

  95·4

  Derbyshire

  35·2

  46·6

  95·7

  Leicestershire

  32·6

  54·4

  97·0

  Lincolnshire (NHS Trust)

  17·8

  62·2

  95·3

  Nottinghamshire

  54·7

  57·9

  97·7

  Cambridgeshire

  19·1

  40·9

  94·2

  Norfolk (NHS Trust)

  27·5

  57·5

  96·7

  Suffolk

  11·9

  53·2

  92·1

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  59·6

  54·3

  96·9

  Essex (NHS Trust)

  66·1

  57·8

  98·6

  East Sussex

  36·9

  67·7

  97·7

  Kent

  57·8

  55·2

  96·4

  West Sussex

  26·8

  65·6

  97·3

  Dorset

  27·8

  54·6

  96·1

  Hampshire

  46·7

  55·9

  97·4

  Wiltshire

  15·1

  60·7

  95·9

  Isle of Wight

  4·3

  59·5

  97·9

  Berkshire

  28·4

  58·9

  99·0

  Buckinghamshire

  22·1

  62·0

  97·0

  Northamptonshire

  17·8

  68·0

  98·2

  Oxfordshire

  16·1

  51·8

  94·2

  Cornwall (NHS Trust)

  16·5

  41·2

  90·0

  Devon (NHS Trust)

  38·4

  60·2

  98·5

  Gloucestershire (NHS Trust)

  13·5

  57·8

  96·8

  Somerset

  11·8

  58·9

  94·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  21·3

  61·9

  97·1

  Shropshire

  12·7

  51·1

  96·0

  Staffordshire (NHS Trust)

  39·6

  53·4

  95·3

  Warwickshire

  14·4

  49·4

  95·3

  Lancashire

  69·8

  65·9

  98·7

  Urban authorities

  Cleveland (NHS Trust)

  24·2

  73·0

  97·0

  West Yorkshire

  108·2

  55·0

  94·0

  South Yorkshire (NHS Trust)

  56·4

  46·6

  89·9

  Surrey

  44·0

  55·1

  94·8

  London Ambulance Service

  474·5

  11·3

  58·5

  Avon (NHS Trust)

  37·0

  55·5

  90·0

  West Midlands

  140·7

  45·2

  91·1

  Mersey (NHS Trust)

  147·7

  68·1

  95·4

  Greater Manchester

  165·4

  60·5

  97·4

  602
  authority, Anglian Harbours national health service trust and the James Paget hospital trust respectively, for this information.

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for response times by ambulances to 999 calls for each of the trust and health authority areas in East Anglia; and what is the average for England as a whole.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on ambulance emergency response times is not collected centrally on an individual health authority or trust basis. The latest available information by ambulance authority is shown in the table.
  603

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines have been issued by her Department regarding the need for hospital accident and emergency departments to make staffing provision for possible increased workload caused by occasional, exceptionally high levels of emergency treatment required.

  Mr. Sackville
  Every health authority is required to have contingency plans for dealing with major incidents. However, it is for individual hospitals to determine local staffing levels in accident and emergency departments which, so far as possible, match expected workloads and take account of busy periods.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in her Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Mr. Sackville
  Prior to March 1991, the Department of Social Security was responsible for action on staff discipline for the Department of Health. It will be providing information for 1989 to March 1991.

  The following information gives the number of Department of Health staff judged to be guilty of obtaining money by making false representations since March 1991:
  In 1991, three staff were judged guilty of fraud and two were dismissed. The third was given a severe reprimand.
  In 1992, one member of staff was given an oral warning and another was downgraded.
  In 1993, four staff were dismissed.
  In 1991 and 1992, those not dismissed were guilty of minor offences.

  The penalty imposed depends on the severity of the offence, the member of staff's length of service and previous conduct. In cases of fraud involving significant amounts of money, dismissal is automatic.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Mr. Sackville
  All civil servants are subject to strict rules of conduct and are expected at all times to maintain high levels of integrity. Any member of the Department of Health's staff found guilty of obtaining money or goods by making false representations would be subject to disciplinary penalties which range from a written warning to dismissal. All cases of fraud involving significant amounts of money would result in dismissal.

  Patient Care
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all those services for patient care in East Anglian regional hospitals, Anglian Harbours hospitals trust and the James Paget hospital Gorleston, which have been expanded since May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of patients treated in East Anglian region continues to rise. Since 1982, in-patient activity is up by more than 40 per cent. and day cases up by more than 135 per cent. In the Great Yarmouth and Waveney health authority area the increases were over 40 per cent. and 300 per cent. respectively.
  604
  Since 1979, the number of hospital doctors in the region has risen by more than 50 per cent. and there have been more than 40 major capital projects in the region costing over £130 million.

  My hon. Friend may wish to contact Sir Colin Walker and Dr. Ronald Currie, chairmen of East Anglian regional health authority and the Great Yarmouth and Waveney health authority respectively, for more details.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision has been made in the NHS budget for 1994–95 for the implementation of the recommendations of the pay review bodies.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said at the time of the Chancellor's autumn statement, the national health service has been given additional resources of some £1·6 billion for 1994–95. If pay rises are earned through increased efficiency, as the Government urged in their evidence to the review bodies, these resources will make possible an increase in activity of around 4 per cent.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  St. Helena
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visitors and work permits have been applied for by residents of St. Helena; and how many have been granted in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  St. Helenians do not require prior entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom as visitors and the number actually entering the United Kingdom is not separately recorded.

  The number of work permits granted to St. Helenians from 1989 to 1993 is as follows:

  Year

  Work permit

  1989

  51

  1990

  53

  1991

  30

  1992

  34

  1993

  20

  Figures for the total number of applications are not available.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements exist for St. Helenians to be treated for serious injury or disease which cannot be carried out on the island.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The services on St. Helena provide medical attention in the first instance. Patients requiring longer-term treatment are referred to Cape Town or the United Kingdom under arrangements which work well. These referrals travel by the Royal Mail Ship St. Helena.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many St. Helenians have been working(a) on Ascension island and (b) in the Falklands in each year since 1989.
  605
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of St. Helenians working on Ascension island and the Falkland islands in the years 1989 to 1993 was as follows:

  Ascension Island

  Falkland Islands

  1989

  459

  132

  1990

  470

  209

  1991

  501

  262

  1992

  488

  274

  1993

  534

  214

  Kashmir
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Indian high commission on the issuing of visas to allow(a) hon. Members and (b) Amnesty International access to that part of Kashmir which is under Indian jurisdiction.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have frequently urged the Indian Government to allow visits by independent observers and human rights groups, including Amnesty International, to Kashmir.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy toward the decision of the International Court of Justice to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our position is that the use of nuclear weapons would have to be judged as lawful or not in the light of the particular circumstances in which they were used, and that it is inappropriate to burden the International Court of Justice with hypothetical questions of this nature.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he will undertake in deciding whether to make submissions to the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We will be making a submission to the International Court of Justice on the question of the legality of nuclear weapons. Submissions are due to be made by 10 June.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to make a submission to the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We will be making a submission.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is prepared to submit from British organisations on the legality of nuclear weapons to the International Court of Justice.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. Our submission to the International Court of Justice will set out the position of the Government on this question.
  606

  India
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Indian high commissioner about the continued detention of Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Abdul Gani Lone and Shabir Shah.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Her Majesty's high commission in New Delhi has been following the cases of Syed Ali Shah Gilani, Shabir Shah and Abdul Gani Lone and has provided us with regular reports. We have repeatedly raised our concerns about human rights with the Indian Government, and shall continue to do so when we believe such representations are helpful and appropriate.

  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the working methods and constitution of the Indian National Human Rights Commission(a) in general and (b) in relation to its investigation of the Bijbehara massacre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Indian Human Rights Commission is due to publish its first quarterly report at the end of January. We have not sought to prejudge the operation of the commission before it has established itself. We shall look carefully at its first report which we understand will include an account of the incident at Bijbehara in October.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government is proposing following the Biro report on human rights issues in Sudan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Dr. Biro is finalising his report, which he will submit shortly to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We will work to secure the continuation of his mandate. We will continue to press the Government of Sudan both bilaterally and in international forums over its human rights performance.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's latest estimate of the state of the SPLA factions in the southern Sudan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Discussions involving the leaders of the SPLA "mainstream" and "united" factions are continuing under the auspices of the IGADD initiative. On 6 January, the faction leaders signed a joint declaration outlining their position on an agenda for peace talks. Together with our European Union partners, we will continue to urge the faction leaders to settle their differences by peaceful means, and to respond constructively to the IGADD initiative.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest information available to the United Kingdom Government about what has happened to the people in the Nuba mountains area of Sudan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our information is limited, given the restrictions on access to the area. We remain profoundly concerned, however. We note the assessment in the interim report of the UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Sudan that the
  607
  "violations committed by the Sudanese Army and the paramilitary forces under its control … seem to be of such a grave nature that the fate of the Nuba communities in the area may be questioned".

  We strongly support the rapporteur's recommendation that the Sudanese Government give human rights organisations free access to the Nuba mountains.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No member of this Department has been judged to have been guilty of fraud since 1989.

  One officer in the diplomatic wing was, however, found guilty in 1992 of false accounting, served nine months' imprisonment and was dismissed from the Department. One other officer was found guilty in 1993 of false overtime claims and was also dismissed.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Possible cases of fraud are investigated fully. All cases, other than minor offences, are referred to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider police investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution. Individuals found guilty of fraud would be subject to internal disciplinary proceedings, which would generally lead to dismissal, independently of any action taken by the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Malaysian Arms Deal
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many files marked "Not for NAO eyes" relating to the Malaysian arms deal are held in his Department or in the high commission in Kuala Lumpur.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  North Sea Oil
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the total amount of revenue which has accrued to the Exchequer for each year since 1979 from North sea oil, breaking this down into each aspect of the relevant tax regulations.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Revenues raised from North sea oil and gas production by category of tax since 1979–80 have been as follows:

  £ million

  Corporation Tax

  Year

  Petroleum revenue tax

  Supplementary petroleum duty

  ACT setoff

  Main-stream CT

  Royalty

  Total

  1979–80

  1,435

  —

  78

  172

  628

  2,313

  1980–81

  2,410

  —

  97

  244

  992

  3,743

  1981–82

  2,390

  2,025

  270

  411

  1,396

  6,492

  608

  Corporation Tax

  Year

  Petroleum revenue tax

  Supplementary petroleum duty

  ACT setoff

  Main-stream CT

  Royalty

  Total

  1982–83

  3,274

  2,395

  202

  319

  1,632

  7,822

  1983–84

  6,017

  —

  430

  447

  1,904

  8,798

  1984–85

  7,177

  —

  1,244

  1,188

  2,426

  12,035

  1985–86

  6,375

  —

  1,085

  1,831

  2,057

  11,348

  1986–87

  1,188

  —

  1,130

  1,546

  919

  4,783

  1987–88

  2,296

  —

  681

  617

  1,024

  4,618

  1988–89

  1,371

  —

  685

  510

  602

  3,168

  1989–90

  1,050

  —

  495

  248

  575

  2,368

  1990–91

  860

  —

  363

  484

  605

  2,312

  1991–92

  -216

  —

  370

  268

  557

  979

  1992–93

  69

  —

  480

  202

  554

  1,305

  11993–94

  500

  —

  300

  —

  600

  1,400

  1 1994–95 Financial Statement and Budget Report estimate.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 20 December on VAT on domestic fuel reference 0595/29.

  Sir John Cope
  I replied to this letter on 27 January 1994.

  Maintenance Orders
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what part of a maintenance order imposed by the Child Support Agency is allowable against personal taxation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Payments made under a Child Support Agency assessment, like those made under a court order or legally enforceable written agreement, may qualify for tax relief up to a limit equal to the married couple's allowance, currently £1,720. Where an assessment replaces arrangements first made before March 1988, tax relief may be available up to a limit equal to the payments for which the payer was entitled to relief in 1988–89.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, columns 974–75, if he will outline the particular qualifications, expertise or experience in the economic and financial area of (a) Mrs. Tessa Keswich and (b) Mr. David Ruffley.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is not my practice to comment on the qualifications, expertise or experience of my special advisers.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current gross domestic product per head by constituency.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is not available at this level of detail. The most detailed available estimates of GDP are at the county level. The most recent information available by county is for 1991, which was published in the December 1993 issue of "Economic Trends", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.
  609

  Community Care Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the figure for community care expenditure agreed for each of the next three financial years under(a) the Department of Health and (b) other departmental programmes in (i) cash and (ii) real terms.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 27 January 1994]: The level of spending on community care will be determined by individual local authorities, and will reflect their views about local needs and relative spending priorities. The Department of Health programme makes provision for a special transitional grant to local authorities, in recognition of their new responsibilities for community care, amounting to £735·9 million in 1994–95 and £647·6 million in 1995–96, including funding in respect of the arrangements to succeed the independent living fund. A decision on the special transitional grant for 1996–97 has not yet been taken.

  The total of the Department of Health special transitional grant and the transfer from Department of Social Security announced last year, is shown in the table. It should be noted that, apart from the special transitional grant, local authorities are not obliged to spend these amounts on community care; nor need they be confined to these amounts.

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Cash plans

  1,274·5

  1,838·0

  22,56·0

  1993–94 prices

  1,225·5

  1,703·4

  2,039·8

  Comparable figures for the Scottish Office, made up of the DSS transfer and the special grant for implementation and ILF successor arrangements, are as follows:

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Cash plans

  147·3

  158·0

  —

  1993–94 prices

  137·1

  142·2

  —

  The figures for the Welsh Office were provided by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales on 25 January, Official Report, column 229.

  In Northern Ireland, the DSS transfer will be £65·3 million in 1994–95 and £100·3 million in 1995–96—£60·8 million and £90·2 million in 1993–94 prices.

  In addition, the Department of Social Security plans to spend £120 million on successor arrangements to the independent living fund in 1994–95, and approximately £1,830 million on benefits for those in residential or nursing home care prior to 1 April 1993. Figures for later years are not available.

  Nora Heeren
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what instructions were given to Customs and Excise officers regarding the inspection of the Nora Heeren;

  (2) if the Customs and Excise conducted a full inspection of the cargo of the Nora Heeren.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: Customs officers were asked to inspect the cargo on board ship, and to inspect the ship's papers relating to it.
  610
  A visual inspection of the cargo, stowed on deck, was carried out. Inspection of the ship's holds was also made so far as it was possible without offloading the cargo ashore.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the reduction in mortgage interest relief will be in 1994–95 and 1995–96 for a taxpayer on the average income for households with a mortgage, and with an average mortgage, as a result of measures announced in the March and November 1993 Budgets; and whether this information can be broken down to produce figures for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions;

  (2) what the reduction in mortgage interest relief will be in 1994–95 and 1995–96 for a taxpayer on average earnings with an average mortgage as a result of measures announced in the March and November 1993 Budgets; and whether this information can be broken down to produce figures for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: Assuming current levels of mortgage interest rates, the reduction in relief on the average mortgage of £30,000 will be £115·50 a year in 1994–95 and a further £115·50 in 1995–96. For those mortgagors who have mortgages of less than £30,000—about half of all mortgagors—the reduction in relief will be lower. A person with an average mortgage is benefiting by £1,920 a year as a result of the reduction in interest rates since 1990. Forecasts of the average size of mortgages in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions are not available.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at his forthcoming meeting with President Clinton the proliferation risks posed by the international trade in nuclear materials.

  The Prime Minister
  The agenda for my meeting with President Clinton has not yet been fixed.

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will commission a report on the estimated costs of(a) heating, (b) lighting and (c) non-catering staff arising from the use 10 Downing street by private organisations.

  The Prime Minister
  No. When charitable or other non-official events are held at 10 Downing street, the organisers are responsible for all catering and staff costs as well as other miscellaneous direct costs.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 33, if he will now list the titles of papers his office has made available to the Scott inquiry.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to him on 5 March 1993,Official Report, column 306.
  611

  Oceanographic Laboratory
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Cabinet Office has for an investigation by the efficiency unit of the work of the Proudman oceanographic laboratory.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 16 June 1993,Official Report, column 611.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister which non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible have been(a) abolished or (b) created since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  A full list of non-departmental public bodies, in existence for each year since 1979, is available in the following publications: "Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies" (Pliatzky Report, Cm 7797, January 1980), "Non-Departmental Public Bodies: Facts and Figures 1980", "Non-Departmental Public Bodies: Facts and Figures 1981", and "Public Bodies", published annually from 1982. Copies of these publications are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  For each year since 1986, lists have been prepared centrally of public bodies which have been created and abolished. Copies will be sent to the Libraries of both Houses. Such summary data for the years 1979 to 1985 were not prepared and could be reconstructed only at disproportionate cost.

  Meetings
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his practice to give substantive details of his meetings showing when he has met and plans to meet in replying to hon. Members' questions on his engagements; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  United Kingdom exports to Malaysia

  £ million, current prices

  Section

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  19931

  Total

  0

  Food and live animals

  8·0

  10·9

  9·5

  7·6

  6·1

  6·9

  6·8

  9·0

  7·7

  12·5

  11·1

  16·2

  112·1

  1

  Beverages and tobacco

  2·3

  3·3

  3·2

  3·4

  3·4

  4·4

  4·2

  5·3

  7·6

  10·9

  10·0

  11·2

  69·2

  2

  Crude materials, inedible, except fuels

  1·9

  1·5

  1·4

  1·8

  1·4

  3·2

  11·9

  14·9

  21·2

  25·8

  24·3

  38·0

  147·1

  3

  Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials

  1·6

  1·9

  1·8

  1·9

  1·5

  1·3

  1·3

  1·4

  5·5

  2·7

  2·3

  2·4

  25·5

  4

  Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes

  0·5

  0·2

  0·4

  0·4

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·4

  0·4

  0·4

  0·3

  0·5

  4·6

  5

  Chemicals and related products

  33·9

  41·8

  48·3

  56·4

  49·2

  45·6

  51·6

  56·4

  58·6

  58·3

  64·3

  65·3

  629·7

  6

  Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material

  26·0

  35·9

  45·0

  41·1

  26·7

  54·7

  56·8

  66·9

  75·0

  74·7

  79·0

  92·3

  674·1

  7

  Machinery and transport equipment

  109·8

  107·9

  133·3

  128·9

  96·8

  108·2

  145·7

  226·1

  335·4

  356·2

  361·5

  566·7

  2,676·5

  8

  Miscellaneous manufactured articles

  20·7

  24·2

  31·5

  31·6

  29·3

  25·9

  27·7

  35·1

  35·0

  37·2

  77·2

  56·5

  431·8

  9

  Other commodities and transactions

  6·0

  20·7

  8·9

  8·6

  12·3

  7·5

  4·0

  26·1

  4·2

  3·7

  5·8

  12·8

  120·5

  Total

  210·6

  248·3

  283·1

  281·7

  226·9

  258·0

  310·4

  441·5

  550·7

  582·3

  635·9

  861·9

  4,891·2

  1 January to November 1993.

  Notes: Trade categoriesed by Sections of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  Source: Business Monitors MA20 and MM20, Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.
  612

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the companies of individuals which made the representations regarding the sale of machine tools to Iraq referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) of 24 November 1992,Official Report, column 580.

  The Prime Minister
  It would be inappropriate to comment on matters which are the subject of Lord Justice Scott's inquiry while it is in progress.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.

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

  Malaysia
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister how many files marked "Not for NAO Eyes" relating to the Malaysian arms deal are held by(a) his secretariat and (b) the Cabinet Office.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 704, what were the major categories of trade, with amounts and dates, that he included in his export figures to Malaysia of £5 billion.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: Information of the value of United Kingdom exports to Malaysia since 1982 is given in the table:
  613

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Paintings and Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to buy or borrow photographs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have no plans to buy or borrow any photographs.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) paintings and (b) photographs there are on the walls of his rooms.

  Mr. Heseltine
  There are five paintings and no photographs on the walls of my office at the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Tobacco
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what Government grants or subsidies have been made to the tobacco industry in the United Kingdom or abroad in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The following regional selective assistance grants have been paid by the Government to the tobacco industry in the United Kingdom over the last five years. No other assistance has been made available, nor any abroad.

  Financial year

  Amount paid £

  1989–90

  357,285

  1990–91

  78,128

  1991–92

  19,505

  1992–93

  521,502

  1993–94

  232,768

  Newsprint and Timber (Imports)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the annual tonnage and the annual value of imports into the United Kingdom of(a) newsprint and (b) timber for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is given in the table.

  Annual tonnage and value of United Kingdom imports

  Timber

  Newsprint

  Year

  Weight (thousand tonnes

  Value (£ millions)

  Weight (thousand tonnes)

  Value (£ millions)

  1980

  4,247

  680

  1,074

  283

  1981

  3,763

  600

  1,306

  360

  1982

  4,260

  669

  1,246

  377

  1983

  5,068

  933

  1,244

  383

  1984

  4,792

  1,001

  1,255

  398

  1985

  4,362

  886

  1,217

  414

  1986

  4,870

  994

  1,135

  391

  1987

  5,570

  1,190

  n/a

  n/a

  1988

  6,161

  1,347

  1,459

  600

  1989

  5,787

  1,415

  1,577

  660

  1990

  5,340

  1,397

  1,308

  541

  1991

  4,119

  1,033

  1,334

  574

  1992

  4,254

  1,013

  1,333

  486

  Notes:

  The 1987 figures for newsprint are not separately available from writing and printing paper due to commercial confidentiality.
  614
  Timber is classified under headings 245.01, 246, 247 and 248 of the International Trade Classification. Newsprint is classified under heading 641.1.

  Source: Business Monitor MA20, Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Oil and Gas Reserves
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the proportion of United Kingdom oil and gas reserves which have so far been taken from offshore fields.

  Mr. Eggar
  Cumulative oil and gas production to the end of 1992 has been 1,560 million tonnes and 855 billion cu m respectively. The range of estimated reserves on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf—UKCS—that is, onshore and offshore, is as follows:

  United Kingdom initially recoverable reserves (31 December 1992)

  Range of estimates

  Oil (million tonnes)

  Gas (billion cubic metres)

  Lower

  Upper

  Lower

  Upper

  Discovered

  2,170

  3,635

  1,465

  2,720

  Potential additional reserves

  160

  500

  140

  325

  Undiscovered

  530

  3,370

  270

  1,277

  Total

  2,860

  7,505

  1,875

  4,322

  The data are published in table 7 on page 20 of my Department's "Development of the Oil and Gas Reserves of the United Kingdom", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Part 2 of the publication provides more detail of the reserves and explains how they are estimated. The limits of the ranges should not be regarded as maxima and minima.

  The figures do not provide an indication of the longevity of UKCS reserves. In recent years, the annual increment to estimates of reserves has often been larger than the amount produced in the year. At the end of 1992, for example, estimated remaining proven plus probable reserves of oil were about 135 million tonnes higher than the equivalent at the end of 1991; that is, the reserves increased by 230 million tonnes whilst production in 1992 was 94 million tonnes.

  Exporters (Support)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase support for British exporters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government are more than ever committed to helping United Kingdom companies win in overseas markets. To achieve this, we are developing a long-term export strategy, involving a partnership between Government and industry.

  A particularly good example of the partnership being developed is the export promoter scheme. My Department is recruiting people with private sector experience, on secondment, to act as export promoters. Some 65 are already on board and actively helping business. These secondees bring to government a business oriented way of tackling problems and promoting export opportunities.

  To guide the overall strategy for export promotion, market plans are being drawn up for each of the United Kingdom's top 80 overseas markets. This will help ensure

  615
  that resources are focused to best effect. We are building on the strengths of the United Kingdom capital goods industry; and targeting the overseas markets which offer the best prospects for those strengths.

  Over the past two years the Export Credits Guarantee Department—ECGD—premium rates have been cut by more than a quarter. And in the last Budget the Government announced a further round of reductions—some as high as 20 per cent.—for business with important emerging markets such as Argentina, India, Mexico, Poland, Slovakia and Turkey. By 1996–97, ECGD cover for key markets, where the risks are subject to special controls, will be virtually double the level available in 1991–92.

  Over the next three years, the cover available for important markets like China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa will exceed £9 billion. This is in addition to an allocation of US$1 billion already set aside for business with the former Soviet Union.

  These initiatives will build substantially on the current matrix of support available to help our exporters. This will ensure that ever greater numbers of United Kingdom exporters get the first-class support they deserve to help them win in world markets.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many bankruptcy and company case administrations were completed in each of the last five years(a) by the Insolvency Service and (b) by insolvency practitioners.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  (a) Official Receivers completed their administration, including handing over cases to insolvency practitioners where they have been appointed trustee or liquidator in place of the Official Receiver, of the following numbers of compulsory insolvencies:

  Bankruptcy

  Company

  1989–90

  7,980

  3,861

  1990–91

  10,799

  4,982

  1991–92

  15,516

  5,900

  1992–93

  16,169

  4,957

  1993–94 (9 months)

  16,751

  4,711

  (b) Insolvency practitioners completed the administration in the following number of compulsory insolvencies:

  Bankruptcy

  Company

  1989–90

  N/A

  N/A

  1990–91

  N/A

  N/A

  1991–92

  2,844

  857

  1992–93

  3,024

  1,030

  1993–94 (9 months)

  2,452

  861

  The Insolvency Service does not maintain data on the number of voluntary liquidations completed in any year.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many successful fraudulent trading prosecutions there were in each of the last five years arising from investigations by(a) the Insolvency Service, (b) insolvency practitioners and (c) other bodies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Prosecutions by my Department for fraudulent trading resulted in 17 convictions in 616
  1989–90, 22 convictions in 1990–91, 11 convictions in 1991–92, 24 convictions in 1992–93 and 26 convictions so far in 1993–94. Records are not kept in such a form that information about the origin of all these cases is readily available, but I can say that 19 of the convictions in 1992–93 arose from investigations by the Insolvency Service, and that 24 of the convictions in 1993–94 arose from such investigations.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many disqualification reports were received by the Insolvency Service in each of the last five years from(a) the Official Receiver and (b) insolvency practitioners.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The number of disqualification reports received was as follows:

  Practitioners

  Official Receivers

  Insolvency

  1988–89

  1,204

  3,005

  1989–90

  1,358

  2,086

  1990–91

  1,617

  2,891

  1991–92

  2,402

  3,769

  1992–93

  2,657

  4,053

  9 months to 31 December 1993

  2,487

  2,841

  A report is received where at least some element of unfit conduct on the part of the director(s) has been identified. Unfit conduct may vary from, for example, an isolated delay in complying with requirements relating to the production and filing of accounts and returns at Companies House to a failure to safeguard deposit monies received from members of the public. It would not therefore be appropriate to institute disqualification proceedings in every case in which a report is submitted.

  Phoenix Companies
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions his Department has instigated criminal prosecutions in each of the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 in relation to possible offences involving the use of phoenix companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In 1990–91, 11 prosecutions were carried out by my Department for offences under section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The figure for 1991–92 was nine and, for 1992–93, five. So far in this financial year, there have been eight such prosecutions.

  Electricity Franchises
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further representations he has received from individuals and organisations expressing concern about the postponement of electricity franchises in the 1 Mw to 100 Kw bracket since his answer of 18 February 1993,Official Report, column 318.

  Mr. Eggar
  I received a number of representations during the coal review on this issue. In the White Paper "The Prospects for Coal", Cm 2235, published in March 1993, the Government confirmed that they did not intend to postpone the reduction of the electricity franchise to 100 Kw.
  617

  Nuclear Material
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, columns 184–85, how many of the (a) temporary and (b) permanent withdrawals from safeguards involved plutonium.

  Mr. Eggar
  There have been 70 notifications of withdrawal of plutonium from safeguards since May 1979. These were all either small amounts withdrawn as samples for analytical or research purposes or part of transactions, involving the temporary transfer of plutonium to or from the civil cycle, which did not involve the net transfer of any plutonium from safeguards.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has made available to the Scott inquiry a copy of a letter by L. F. Byrne of Allivane International Ltd. to the export licensing branch of his Department dated 6 April 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department has no record of this document.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the implications of THORP's beginning operations on 17 January for the delivery of spent fuel from Japan after 1 January under the terms of planning condition No. 9 of the amended planning permission of 6 April 1988 for receipt of spent nuclear fuel granted by Copeland borough council under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for Copeland borough council as planning authority and British Nuclear Fuels plc as operator of the Sellafield site.

  Export Control Compliance
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many copies of his Department's code of practice on export control compliance have been distributed since 21 May 1993.

  Mr. Needham
  Some 3,500 copies have been distributed since 21 May 1993, making a total of 9,500 distributed since publication.

  Departmental Directory
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the DTI "Functional Directory".
  618
  Mr. Eggar
  A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Electricity Pricing
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will undertake a review of the powers of the regulator in respect of electricity pricing.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have no plans for such a review. The Director General of Electricity Supply is free to seek a review of his powers in respect of electricity pricing if he is not satisfied that his existing powers are adequate.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Mr. Eggar
  Dismissal.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1989–93

  Nil

  1994

  1

  The employee concerned was dismissed.

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps he is taking to ensure maximum information on the effect of seismic activity on cetaceans is collected during offshore oil exploration;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to require holders of offshore oil exploration licences to invite independent researchers to carry out surveys of the behaviour of cetaceans during seismic operations.

  Mr. Eggar
  My officials encourage companies to offer facilities to environmental bodies to observe cetaceans. I understand that a number of seismic surveys conducted in blocks licensed during the 14th round have been accompanied by observers from such bodies.

  It is not always possible to do this: adverse weather conditions can force changes to the dates of surveys at short notice, while the small size of some survey vessels means accommodation space is sometimes strictly limited.
  619
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to require operators to carry out preliminary surveys of the distribution and behaviour of cetaceans before carrying out offshore seismic operations or any source testing; and if he will make these surveys publicly available before operations or testing begin.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the 14th round, applicants for blocks in areas frequented by cetaceans were asked to carry out a preliminary environmental survey of all local sensitivities including cetaceans. Before carrying out seismic operations in sensitive areas, licensees are, in any event, expected to consult with the sea mammals research unit. In addition, during the survey, the lowest possible energy settings should be used.

  By seeking such environmental surveys prior to licensing, I have the opportunity to ensure environmental concerns are taken into account when deciding licence awards. Similar arrangements will apply in future. Such surveys are the property of the companies commissioning them.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all occasions when hon. Members have sought assistance in obtaining export licences during the past five years to import items from overseas.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: My Department is only one of a number of Departments which operate import controls by issuing import licences. Before an import licence can be issued, it is often a pre-requisite that an export licence is provided by the competent authorities of the exporting country. My Department would not expect to know whether assistance had been sought to secure the provision of such an export licence; and no instance are know of.

  The other Departments operating similar licensing controls are the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—agriculutral products—the Home Office—drugs —the Department of the Environment—wildlife—and the Health and Safety Executive—explosives and fireworks.

  Human Genes (Patenting)
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines his office has produced on the patenting of human genes; what discussions he has had on this subject with his European counterparts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: In accordance with current practice, patents may be granted for inventions relating to human genes of identified function and outside the body if they comply with the usual requirements of patentability—that is, novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability.

  Agreement has now been reached within the framework of the European Council on a draft EC directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, which sets out to harmonise what is patentable in this area along the lines mentioned above. Council is expected to adopt a formal common position shortly.

  I understand that the Office of Science and Technology supports the policy of the Medical Research Council in not filing any futher patent applications for DNA sequences of
  620
  unknown function. The Office of Science and Technology has not, however, produced any guidelines on when patents on human genes should be sought.

  Late Payment
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's consultation on late payment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: On 30 November 1993, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a consultation paper "Late Payment of Commercial Debt". The consultation paper seeks views from interested parties on possible options to address late payment, including a statutory right to interest and a British standard for prompt payment. Responses have been requested by 31 March 1994.

  Nora Heeren
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department obtained a full cargo manifest of the Nora Heeren.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 24 January, Official Report, column 12.

  European Plug and Socket System
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the safety implications of adopting a harmonised European plug and socket system; what representations he has had from(a) trade and (b) consumer representatives about a harmonised European plug and socket system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: CENELEC, the relevant standards-making body, has not published a standard for a harmonised European plug and socket system against which an accurate assessment could be made. In considering whether any change to our present standards might be desirable at some future date full account will be taken of consumer safety issues and the many representations which we have received.

  My Department is in frequent contact with the principal trade associations covering electrical appliances and fittings, and also with such bodies as the British Standards Institution, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Consumers Association. We have also commissioned an independent analysis of the possible costs and benefits for the United Kingdom. Work is continuing on the final report from the consultants and we expect to publish the full report in the spring to form the basis for a wider consultation.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Grants (Remission of Debt)
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidelines are used for the remission of debt on grants issued by his Department.

  Mr. Sproat
  The guidelines used by my Department, and the bodies we sponsor, to determine whether or not to
  621
  write off a particular grant are set out in "Government Accounting". These are that losses are to be written off only after a most careful appraisal of the facts; that Departments satisfy themselves that there is no feasible alternative; and that all reasonable action has been taken to effect recovery. I am satisfied that the control systems for authorising the write off of grants are working effectively in my Department.

  For grants made by sponsored bodies, the decision to write off is, in the first instance, taken by the body, subject to delegated limits. For amounts above those limits, approval by my Department and the Treasury will be required, depending on the sums involved.

  Theatres
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what support his Department intends to give to signed performances in theatres.

  Mr. Brooke
  Each building-based theatre company supported by the Arts Council aims to provide at least one signed performance of each production. Touring companies are also being encouraged to do at least one signed performance at each venue. According to a recent report by the Royal National Theatre, approximately 40 theatres currently provide signed performances. One of the problems in this area has been the shortage of trained personnel. The Arts Council has now provided two training courses for signed theatre interpreters.

  Regional Orchestras
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will estimate the minimum staffing of regional orchestras; and if he will make a statement on the financial situation of those in receipt of public funds.

  Mr. Brooke
  According to the Arts Council, the minimum number of players in each of the major regional orchestras is as follows:

  Number

  Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra

  79

  Bournemouth Sinfonietta

  29

  City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra

  103

  Halle Orchestra

  98

  Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra

  91

  Northern Sinfonia

  37

  Depending on programmes, these numbers can be augmented through the employment of contract musicians. The numbers of administrative staff vary because of the differing situations of the orchestras. For example, the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society is responsible for Philharmonic hall as well as the orchestra; and the two Bournemouth orchestras are jointly administered.

  The Arts Council carefully monitors the financial situation of all its clients and, in consultation with the orchestras themselves, would be able to provide the additional information requested.

  Concessionary Television Licence Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will consider further expanding the concessionary television licence scheme to include those 622
  people who previously lived in sheltered accommodation or institutional care, but who now live at home in consequence of the community care policy.

  Mr. Sproat
  No. The Government have no plans to extend the regulations governing the concessionary television licence scheme.

  Royal Palaces (Accommodation)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 652, what accommodation consists of for the private secretaries and officials of the Queen's households and other households in the grace and favour accommodation at the occupied royal palaces.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 27 January 1994]: The accommodation that is provided to serving members of the royal household and for which either rent is charged or the benefit of which is taken into account in determining wage and salary levels is as follows:

  St. James's Palace
  17 apartments in total of which 5 have 1 reception room with 1, 2 or 3 bedrooms. 4 have 2 reception rooms with between 2 and 4 bedrooms and 5 have 3 reception rooms with generally 4 bedrooms. The remaining 3 apartments have 4 reception rooms and 4 bedrooms.

  Marlborough House Mews
  5 apartments of which 4 have 1 reception room and 1 to 3 bedrooms and 1 is a bedsit.

  Kensington Palace
  9 apartments of which 1 has 1 reception room and 2 bedrooms, 6 have 2 reception rooms and 2 or 3 bedrooms and 2 have 3 reception rooms with 3 or 4 bedrooms.

  Windsor Castle
  8 apartments within the curtilage of which 2 have 1 reception room with 1 bedroom, 1 has 1 reception room plus 3 bedrooms, 1 has 2 reception rooms with 4 bedrooms, 1 has 3 reception rooms with 4 bedrooms, 1 has 3 reception rooms and 5 bedrooms and 2 have 4 reception rooms with 5 bedrooms.

  Windsor Castle Grounds
  8 apartments, comprising 5 with 1 reception room each and 1 to 3 bedrooms. 2 have 2 reception tooms and 3 bedrooms and 1 has 4 reception rooms and 4 bedrooms.

  Buckingham Palace Mews
  4 apartments, 1 with 1 reception room and 1 bedroom. 2 have 2 reception rooms and 3 bedrooms and 1 has 3 reception rooms and 6 bedrooms.

  Hampton Court Mews
  1 apartment with 1 reception room and 1 bedroom.

  Bushy Park
  2 houses, 1 with 3 reception rooms and 5 bedrooms and 1 with 2 reception rooms and 4 bedrooms.

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics" policy for his Department during 1994.

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 January,Official Report, column 849.
  623
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what working definition of "back to basics" is used by his Department; and what his Department has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 21 January, Official Report, column 849.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will provide a figure for the number of staff in his Department covered by statutory sick pay.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: The number of staff within the Department of National Heritage excluding its agencies, the Historic Royal Palaces and the Royal Parks, on 31 December 1993 who were eligible to receive statutory sick pay was 333.

  Tower of London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total cost of constructing the new jewel house at the Tower of London.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Historic Royal Palaces under its chief executive, Mr. David Beeton. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Beeton to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 27 January 1994:
  The Secretary of State for National Heritage has asked me to reply to your Written Parliamentary Question on what is the total cost of constructing the new Jewel House at the Tower of London.
  The detailed estimate, which I approved before work started on site in October 1992 was £10,007,000. The latest estimate of that total cost is £9,753,819. Work will be completed on the original timetable and the Jewel House opened on the 24 March 1994.
  This total cost has been funded from increased business income, generated by my Agency in the last three years, during which period the annual call on the taxpayer has fallen from £10·26 million (1991–92) to £7·6 million (1993–94). The scheme is forecast to increase the business income of the Tower by £4 million a year.

ENVIRONMENT

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many representations he has received on the subject of the THORP project; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many representations he has received in support of the THORP project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  A total of 42,500 responses to the public consultation were received. About 15,000 respondents supported THORP. A detailed breakdown of responses is in the BNFL Sellafield further public consultation summary of responses document which is in the House Library.
  624

  Environmental Approach (Launch Meeting)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria were used in choosing to launch Her Majesty's Government's strategy documents on sustainable development, climate change, biodiversity and sustainable forestry, at the Banqueting house on 25 January; and which hon. Members were given advance notice of the date and venue of the launch.

  Mr. Atkins
  The launch in the Banqueting house was primarily a press conference, although in the presence of individuals, or representatives of organisations, who had been associated with preparation of the documents. My right hon. Friend informed the House on 20 January, in answer to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs),Official Report column 844, that publication would be on 25 January.

  Hotels (Change of Use)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce an outcome to his review of the change of use of hotels and guest houses to hostels for social security claimants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Shortly.

  Environmental Conference
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost of the environmental conference on Rio two years on held at the Mansion house on 25 January.

  Mr. Atkins
  The conference was held in the Banqueting house, Whitehall, not the Mansion house, and cost approximately £20,000.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the present policy on high-level waste management is covered by Her Majesty's Government's commitment to meet the responsibility of nuclear waste management by the present generation.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's policy is that high-level radioactive wastes should be stored for at least 50 years to allow them to cool. As this is the most appropriate technical means of dealing with the wastes, it is the strategy which best meets our responsibilities to future generations.

  Radioactive Waste Inventory
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial contribution is made by his Department to the radioactive waste inventory.

  Mr. Atkins
  The cost of the radioactive waste inventory is shared between the Department of the Environment and UK Nirex Ltd. The cost to the Department of the 1994 inventory, for which contracts have recently been let, is expected to be £163,871 spread over two and a half years.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to strengthen part 1 of the Building Regulations relating to energy conservation.
  625
  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 19 January,Official Report, columns 671–72.

  Market Franchises
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number and nature of the representations he has received(a) in favour of the proposal to abolish market franchises and (b) against it.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) on 18 January,Official Report, column 564.

TRANSPORT

  Airports (Night Flying)
  Mr. Mellor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for revised night flying restrictions for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted for summer 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  On 10 November 1993 the Secretary of State for Transport published proposals for revised night flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted for the 1994 summer season and for the arrangements to apply from winter 1994–95 until the end of the summer 1998 season. Comments on the summer 1994 proposals were invited by 31 December 1993 and on those applying for the longer term by 11 February 1994. As indicated in the consultation paper, airlines normally expect to finalise their timetables for the summer season during January. We acknowledged their need for an early decision by separating the proposals in the consultation paper to enable us to announce conclusions for the 1994 summer season in advance of those for the following years. The conclusions that I have reached relate to the 1994 summer season only and in no way prejudge the conclusions that I may reach in respect of the following four years.

  On 6 July 1993, following an extensive period of consultation, the Government announced a new five-year policy for night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted whereby quotas, based on the noise rating of aircraft, would provide the basis of control. A quota was announced for each airport which would enable a greater number of movements at night to take place if the quieter types of aircraft were used or fewer movements if noisier types were used. Many people welcomed this approach. However, following judicial review proceedings the court ruled that section 78(3)(b) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 requires specification of "the maximum number of occasions" on which aircraft may be permitted to take off or land in a specified period.

  The proposals put out to consultation in November were that there should be a movements limit for each airport with the quota system also applying as a supplementary control. An alternative approach was also set out which would dispense with the need for quotas but impose subsidiary limits on movements by the noisier types of aircraft. The responses to the consultation have shown that there is very little support for this alternative approach. I have therefore concluded that the night restrictions for summer 1994 should be in the form of movements limits supplemented by quotas. The movements limits and quotas for each airport for the summer 1994 season will be:
  626

  Movements limits

  Quota

  Heathrow

  3,250

  7,000

  Gatwick

  7,000

  9,550

  Stansted

  6,500

  4,200

  The figures for Heathrow and Gatwick are as proposed in the consultation paper; the movements limit for Stansted is lower.

  I also confirm that the provision in place for the current winter season for end-of-season flexibility up to 10 per cent.—and with penalty for excess thereafter—should apply, as proposed, to the movements limits as well as to the quotas for the summer season.

  I have given careful consideration to the responses from airlines and aviation bodies asking to be allowed more movements, particularly at Heathrow and Gatwick. I have also given careful consideration to the responses from people living around the three airports, the local authorities and other local organisations, that the proposed movements limits and quotas were too high. My aim remains, as previously, to maintain the policy of continuing to protect local communities from excessive exposure to aircraft noise while not unduly restricting those who wish to go about their business at night. I have concluded that the movements limits and quotas which I have confirmed today for all three airports should achieve this.

  At Stansted it remains difficult to predict the likely pattern of traffic wishing to operate at night even only a few months ahead. Although traffic is still growing, operations have not developed quite as fast as they might have and this is reflected in the lower movements limit confirmed today. The movements limit for Stansted is still higher in relation to the quota than that for other airports. This underlines our commitment to quieter aircraft. Services at Stansted are expected to expand. The numbers which I am confirming today should provide an incentive to those who operate those services to use only the quietest types of aircraft at night.

  While the arrangements for reporting on movements and usage of the quota were generally welcomed, some responses raised doubts as to whether they would provide sufficient assurance that the system was being administered properly. It was suggested that the reporting arrangements should embrace "a full audit trail" to provide this assurance. I do not doubt the integrity of those operating the system at present, but it is undoubtedly complex. It is right that people should be assured that it is being operated properly. I therefore welcome the suggestion—and the fact that it has come out of the present consultation—that the reporting arrangements should cover the full audit trail. I am therefore asking the Aircraft Noise Monitoring Advisory Committee to consider how best to achieve this.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions have been made to facilitate the introduction of international rail passenger services through the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  Major infrastructure improvements have been undertaken on United Kingdom lines to the channel tunnel. Regular services to Paris and Brussels from
  627
  the new dedicated international passenger terminal at Waterloo will begin this year. Day and night time services will also run from regions north and west of London to Paris and Brussels. These services should begin in 1995.

  BR/SNCF and SNCB have on order from a consortium led by GEC-Alsthom a fleet of high-speed trains for use on inter-capital services. BR is responsible for 11 of these Eurostar trainsets. BR is also purchasing from the consortium seven modified versions of these same trainsets to provide daytime services from north of London to Paris and Brussels.

  The board has been considering the financing options for these trainsets and has concluded that leasing arrangements can give commercial and financing benefits. A number of leases have been finalised in 1993–94, through the board's subsidiary, European Passenger Services, to which I have given my approval, and more leases are expected. The Government intend to give a non-statutory guarantee to BRB in respect of its liability under the leases. The guarantee will be notified to Parliament in the usual way.

  A new joint venture company, European Night Services Ltd., has also been set up by BR, SNCF, German and Dutch railways to provide sleeper services through the channel tunnel. European Night Services has entered into a leasing arrangement in respect of the rolling stock which will be used for these services.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the forecasts of the number of commuters expected(a) to use the channel tunnel rail link and (b) to leave the channel tunnel rail link at St. Pancras.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is too early to say. The number of commuters using the line and the St. Pancras terminus will depend, among other factors, upon the general level of commuting from Kent into London and upon the precise service pattern adopted.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for a direct link between the channel tunnel rail link and crossrail.

  Mr. Freeman
  The proposed connection via Forest Gate and Ripple Lane was ruled out because it would have been expensive, environmentally damaging and possibly impractical.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will define the relationship which now exists between his Department and Union Railways following the final announcement of the channel tunnel rail link route.

  Mr. Freeman
  Union Railways continues to have operational responsibility for all aspects of the channel tunnel rail link project. Union Railways is responsible, under the overall direction of the Department of Transport, for the private aspects of the proposed hybrid Bill; and acts, together with European Passenger Services, as project manager to the Department for the competition to transfer UR and EPS to the private sector.

  Vehicle Insurance
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the introduction of insurance discs, similar to the tax discs already required, as an additional way of identifying those drivers who fail to insure their vehicles.
  628
  Mr. Key
  As explained in the answer I gave on 23 June 1993 to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), there would be some practical problems associated with a windscreen insurance disc system. However, we continue to take the problem of uninsured driving very seriously and would be willing to look again at any proposal for overcoming these drawbacks.

  Transport Policy
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the main points of his programme for a sustainable transport policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The main points for a sustainable transport policy are set out in "Sustainable Development —The UK Strategy", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Ports
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out for each port the number of ports state control inspectors in 1993 flag by flag.

  Mr. Norris
  The following are provisional figures for port state control inspections conducted in 1993 by port and by flag:

  By port

  Number

  Aberdeen

  209

  Avonmouth

  27

  Ayr

  1

  Barry

  8

  Belfast

  82

  Blyth

  6

  Brightlingsea

  1

  Cardiff

  239

  Dundee

  1

  Falmouth

  20

  Felixstowe

  1

  Fowey

  7

  Garston

  1

  Glasgow

  95

  Goole

  16

  Great Yarmouth

  16

  Grimsby

  9

  Gunness

  5

  Harwich

  3

  Heysham

  3

  Hull

  248

  Immingham

  22

  Ipswich

  6

  Killingholme

  2

  King's Lynn

  1

  Leith

  47

  Lerwick

  9

  Liverpool

  227

  London

  332

  Lowestoft

  1

  Manchester

  3

  Medway Ports

  1

  Middlesbrough

  130

  Milford Haven

  36

  Montrose

  4

  Mostyn

  1

  Newcastle

  131

  Newhaven

  1

  Newport (IOW)

  2

  Newport (Wales)

  14

  Par

  2

  Peterhead

  1

  Plymouth

  27

  Poole

  9

  Portsmouth

  4

  629

  By port

  Number

  Ramsgate

  5

  Seaham

  4

  Selby

  1

  Sharpness

  3

  Southampton

  219

  Stranraer

  1

  Sullom Voe

  7

  Sunderland

  3

  Swansea

  10

  Tees

  1

  Teignmouth

  4

  Weymouth

  1

  Whitstable

  1

  2. By Flag

  Number

  Algeria

  1

  Antilles (Netherlands)

  27

  Antigua and Barbuda

  123

  Austria

  5

  Azerbaijan

  1

  Bahamas

  216

  Bahrain

  2

  Bangladesh

  3

  Belgium

  8

  Belize

  2

  Bolivia

  2

  Bulgaria

  13

  Canada

  1

  China

  9

  Colombia

  1

  Croatia

  1

  Cyprus

  168

  Czechoslovakia

  4

  Denmark

  120

  Egypt

  6

  Estonia

  10

  Ethiopia

  2

  Faeroe Islands

  2

  Finland

  22

  France

  25

  Germany

  137

  Ghana

  3

  Greece

  107

  Honduras

  23

  Iceland

  1

  India

  16

  Iran

  7

  Ireland

  77

  Italy

  31

  Ivory Coast

  2

  Japan

  7

  Latvia

  15

  Lebanon

  1

  Liberia

  79

  Libya

  3

  Lithuania

  13

  Luxembourg

  12

  Malaysia

  2

  Malta

  90

  Marshall Islands

  1

  Mexico

  2

  Morocco

  7

  Myanmar

  3

  Netherlands

  147

  Nigeria

  11

  Norway

  167

  Pakistan

  6

  Panama

  118

  Philippines

  10

  Poland

  38

  Portugal

  8

  Quatar

  2

  Romania

  6

  Russia

  135

  630

  Number

  St. Vincent and Grenadines

  73

  Saudi Arabia

  1

  Singapore

  12

  Spain

  8

  Sir Lanka

  3

  Sudan

  2

  Sweden

  48

  Switzerland

  3

  Syria

  3

  Taiwan

  1

  Thailand

  2

  Turkey

  9

  Tuvalu

  2

  Ukraine

  18

  C.E.I

  11

  United Arab Emirates

  1

  U.S.A.

  10

  Vanuatu

  3

  A19
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the installation of the hard shoulder on the A19 will be carried out.

  Mr. Key
  There are no proposals to provide a hard shoulder on the A19.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many serious accidents and deaths have occurred on the section of the A19 running through the Easington district in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Key
  The number of personal injury accidents that have occurred on the A19 in Easington district each year since 1991 is:

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  1991

  2

  6

  45

  1992

  1

  7

  31

  11993

  3

  3

  35

  1 To November.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the section of the A 19 which runs adjacent to Peterlee to be illuminated.

  Mr. Key
  A scheme to provide highway lighting between Passfield way, Peterlee and Sheraton is currently being assessed.

  There are no current proposals to provide highway lighting north of Passfield way.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects emergency telephones to be installed on the A19; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Work is expected to commence shortly on a scheme to provide emergency telephones on the A19–A168 between Dishforth and Stockton on Tees. A further scheme on the Al9 between Stockton on Tees and the Tyne tunnel is planned.

  The telephones will be provided in existing lay-bys at approximately one-mile intervals where possible with a direct link to the local police control room.
  631

  MV Nora Heeren
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for an immediate port state control inspection of MV Nora Heeren.

  Mr. Norris
  No; the Nora Heeren is understood to have left United Kingdom waters on 21 January. A port state control inspection of the vessel was conducted at Middlesbrough last September and the Department has no reason to doubt the seaworthiness of the vessel.

  M40
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give figures for traffic flows on the M40 between junctions 4 and 5 during October 1993.

  Mr. Key
  The average daily flows over the month of October 1993 were

  39,310 vehicles Eastbound.

  38,977 vehicles Westbound.

  Flows on weekdays are generally higher than those at weekends.

  Coaches (Weight)
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department takes to prevent coaches registered in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) elsewhere in Europe of more than 17 tonnes gross weight from using United Kingdom roads.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: Coaches using Britain's roads which are subject to a maximum permitted weight of 17 tonnes are liable to be check weighed by vehicles inspectorate examiners. Those found to be more than 17 tonnes can be prohibited from continuing their journey. Drivers and operators of overweight coaches are also subject to prosecution. If the vehicle is registered elsewhere in Europe they are also reported to their Government for appropriate action.

  Driving Standards Agency Regional staff in post as at 31 December 1993

  Grade

  North East

  North West

  West Midlands

  1East Nottingham

  1East Cambridge

  Wales

  West

  South East

  Scotland

  Metropolitan

  SEO

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  HEO

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1·5

  EO

  4

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  5

  AO

  13·5

  6

  5

  3·5

  3

  5·4

  4

  8

  5

  18

  AA

  28·5

  18

  13

  10

  6·5

  11·2

  6·25

  15·5

  11

  39·5

  Typist

  1

  0

  0

  0·5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1·5

  Support

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  P/keeper

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Telephonist

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  51

  28

  21

  17

  11·5

  19·6

  12·25

  27·5

  19

  69·5

  1 A further 22 staff located in the Headquarters office in Nottingham are partially engaged in providing finance services for the Driver Test Booking Services in Nottingham and Cambridge.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Paintings and Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to buy or borrow photographs; and if he will make a statement.
  632

  London to Warsaw Air Services
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about current air services from London to Warsaw; what was the position a year ago; and what are the reasons for the changes that have been made.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: There are currently no direct air services between London and Warsaw. I refer my right hon. Friend to the letter I wrote to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 16 November 1993 which was deposited in the Library of the House and which explains the background to the current situation. During the winter season 1992–93 British Airways and LOT each operated a daily return service between London and Warsaw.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the numbers and grades and salary costs of staff at each Driving Standards Agency office affected by the proposed marketing test of the booking of driving tests and the processing of driving test fees.

  Mr. Key
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Driving Standards Agency under its chief executive, Dr. Ford. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Dr. S. J. Ford to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 27 January 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the Market Testing of DSA's driver test booking service.
  First you asked about the numbers and grades of the staff at each office affected. The staff-in-post information is in the attached schedule.
  Secondly, you asked for salary costs at the Agency offices. In our 1993–94 Business Plan, which was deposited in the Library of the House in May 1993, DSA estimated its total payroll costs for 1993–94 to be £3·6 million for all regional offices and £1·8 million for the headquarters office (although not all of these staff will be affected by the market test).

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Office Ministers have no plans at present to buy or loan any photographs.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) paintings and (b) photographs there are on the walls of his rooms.
  633
  Sir John Wheeler
  There are 49 paintings and three photographs in the Northern Ireland Office Ministers' rooms.

  Prisoners (Christmas Leave)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will name the prisoners who were granted Christmas leave in 1993.

  Sir John Wheeler
  No. It would not be appropriate to name the 446 individual prisoners who were granted Christmas leave in 1993.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the public appointments for which he is responsible require advance notice to and consultation with the Chief Whip's office; and which appointments made since 1979 have been so ratified and consulted upon.

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointments.

  Arable Area Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was(a) the maximum, (b) the minimum and (c) the average amount paid out under the arable area payments scheme in Northern Ireland in the latest available year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: Final statistics for the 1993 scheme year are not yet complete. As at 31 December 1993, 96 per cent. of claims had been paid of which: (a) the maximum amount paid out was £33,394; (b) the minimum amount paid was £48·03; and (c) the average amount paid out was £1,241 per applicant.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The figures are:—

  Number of employees

  Number dismissed

  1989

  —

  —

  1990

  —

  —

  1991

  1

  1

  1992

  3

  2

  1993

  2

  2

  Note: One employee resigned in 1992 at the time of disclosure.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The procedures in respect of disciplinary offences are described in the "Departmental Terms and Conditions of Service" which apply to all civil servants. The attention of all staff is drawn to these 634
  conditions. The procedures are invoked following allegations of misconduct, including fraud. A range of penalties, including dismissal, are available to the Department.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will extend current grant aid for mandatory safety equipment to fishing vessels under 12m.

  Mr. Jack
  Grant aid is available, in respect of vessels which are required by the Fishing Vessel (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975 to have a United Kingdom fishing vessel (safety) certificate, to meet the relevant safety requirements. Certification applies only to vessels of 12m or more in length. The Department of Transport is considering a House of Lords Select Committee recommendation that a more stringent statutory safety regime should be applied to vessels under 12m. Once a final decision is taken on this, Fisheries Ministers will consider what are the implications for the safety grants scheme.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in her Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Mr. Jack
  Since 1989, there have been 12 cases of what can be considered fraud, mainly petty theft or incorrect expenses claims, of which five resulted in dismissal.

  GATT
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what matters in regard to the recently completed general agreement on tariffs and trade for EU agriculture policy were discussed at the Agriculture Council of 24–25 January.

  Mr. Jack
  The Agriculture Council met and concluded its agenda on Monday 24 January. It took forward the business following from the decisions at the preceding December Council. Although the GATT Uruguay round on agriculture was not itself on the agenda, its implications for future reform of the fruit and vegetable regime were noted.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the implications for(a) low-input agriculture and (b) continued protection of countryside habitats of wildlife populations of the GATT completed in December 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  Non-trade-distorting payments, including incentives for environmentally beneficial farming practices such as those that entail habitat protection and reduced use of fertilisers and pesticides, are classed as "green box". As a result, they are exempt from the limitations elsewhere in the agreement, including those on domestic support.

  Bovine Embryo Transfers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines the Government have laid down on bovine embryo transfers.
  635
  Mr. Soames
  The Bovine Embryo Collection and Transfer Regulations 1993 require that embryo transfer is carried out by either a veterinary surgeon on the register of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons—RCVS—or a member of an approved embryo transfer team which is under the control of a veterinary surgeon on the register. The RCVS has produced a code of practice for embryo collection and transfer in cattle. The code is published in the 1993 edition of the "Guide to Professional Conduct" which is sent to all those listed on the register. I have arranged for a copy of the code of practice to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Paintings and Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to buy or loan any photographs; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government art collection has a number of photographs in its collection from which the Minister may borrow as she wishes. She has no plans to buy photographs.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) paintings and (b) photographs there are on the walls of her rooms.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend has four paintings and one photograph on the walls of her office at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give(a) the maximum, (b) the minimum and (c) the average amount paid out under the arable area payments scheme in England in the latest available year; and if she will make a statement.

  Milk production and consumption in the EC and the United Kingdom 1987–19914

  '000s tonnes

  19871

  19881

  19891

  1990

  1991

  Dairy Cows milk production2:

  EC

  112,179

  109,800

  198,248

  117,500

  114,865

  of which, United Kingdom:

  15,506

  15,140

  14,943

  15,251

  14,762

  Drinking milk consumption3:

  EC:

  28,978

  28,868

  28,781

  28,542

  28,488

  of which, United Kingdom:

  7,064

  7,077

  7,081

  7,043

  7,039

  1 Excludes the former GDR.

  2 Gross production from the dairy herd, including milk fed to stock and wastage.

  3 Consumption of whole milk, semi-skimmed milk, skimmed milk and buttermilk in product weight. Consumption is derived as production plus imports, less exports, less stock change and less wastage.

  4 EC data are not available for 1992. For the United Kingdom, 1992 production was 14,702,000 tonnes and consumption was 7,072,000 tonnes.

  Salmon
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the effect of the decision of the European Court of Justice in joined cases CZ67/8 (Keck), 24 November 1988, on measures by European Community member states to restrict the importation of farmed salmon and other fishery-products from Norway; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: I have been asked to reply.
  636
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: Under the integrated administration and control system, a single application for arable area payments must be submitted in respect of all the land farmed by the same individual or organisation and some applications cover a significant number of separate holdings, which may be located in different parts of the United Kingdom. The maximum total payment made to date to an applicant under the 1992–93 arable area payments scheme has been of the order of £1·25 million. Claims under the simplified arrangements for small producers in 1992–93 can range from about £50 up to just over £2,000 for land situated in England. The total amounts paid to date averaged over the total number of applications submitted in England for 1992–93, would give an average payment of slightly less than £13,400. This does not include the final instalment of the area payment for oilseeds, which is due to be made early in 1994.

  Milk
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much milk was produced and consumed in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Community as a whole in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: The quantity of milk produced by dairy cows and the quantity of liquid milk consumed in both the EC as a whole and in the United Kingdom are given in the table.

  Production and consumption in the former GDR is excluded from the EC total for the years 1987 to 1989 inclusive. Production includes deliveries to dairies, sales direct from farms, milk consumed on farm, milk fed to stock and wastage. The drinking milk consumption figure includes whole milk, semi-skimmed milk, skimmed milk and buttermilk. It is derived as production plus imports less exports, less stock change and less wastage.

  The decision of the European Court of Justice on joined cases C267 and C268/91—Keck and Mithouard—of 24 November 1993 is very recent, and its full implications for intra-Community trade are still being considered. The cases relate to national measures which prohibit the reselling of products at prices less than their actual purchase price. In concluding that the purpose of the national measures under consideration was not to regulate trade in goods between member states, the European Court of Justice held that the measures were permissible provided that they had the same effect, in law and in fact, upon all products, domestic or imported, of the same kind, and were not used expressly to prohibit or restrict imports or to inhibit free trade.
  637
  I have no reason to believe that there is any similarity between the situation addressed by the European Court in the cases referred to, and the current situation of over-supply of salmon to the European market.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Liberian Trust Fund
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Britain has made to the Liberian trust fund; and what are the limitations placed upon the use of those funds.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have contributed $1 million to
  the United Nations Trust Fund for Liberia. The contribution is for humanitarian relief purposes only.

  Humanitarian Aid
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the United Nations agencies in delivering humanitarian aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Each of the operational humanitarian agencies of the United Nations has a role in delivering humanitarian aid, according to its individual mandate. Co-ordination of the delivery of such aid is the responsibility of the United Nations department of humanitarian affairs.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the distribution of aid funds to the eastern European countries and the former Soviet Union.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The main objective of the know-how fund, Britain's programme of bilateral technical assistance to central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, is to help these countries move towards democracy and a free market economy by providing advice and expertise. Total expenditure for 1992–93 was £47·1 million. The public expenditure provision for 1993–94 is £53 million. A list of projects and the latest annual report are in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Aid Programme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the consequences of the United Kingdom's efforts for developing countries; and what proposals he has to improve the United Kingdom's aid programme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The effectiveness of the United Kingdom aid programme has been recognised by the development assistance committee of the OECD. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development's speech at Chatham house on 18 October 1993 described future directions for the aid programme. Copies of the speech are in the Libraries of the House.

  World Bank
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the accountability to Parliament of the United Kingdom board member of the World bank.
  638
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom executive director of the World bank is appointed by, and accountable to, Her Majesty's Government. The Government are accountable to Parliament for payments made to these institutions.

  South Africa
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the remaining European Union restrictive measures in force against South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: The remaining measures are an embargo on exports of arms and para-military equipment to South Africa; an embargo on imports of arms and para-military equipment from South Africa; a refusal to co-operate in the military sphere—that is, a continuing ban on joint military exercises.

  On 4 October 1993, the Foreign Affairs Council lifted the separate ban on accreditation of defence attaches and on official contacts and agreements in the security sphere.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much humanitarian aid is currently supplied by the United Kingdom to the former Yugoslavia; and what information he has on aid supplied by other countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: We have committed over £157 million, including our share of EC aid, for victims of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. We were the largest bilateral contributor to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees' programmes there in 1993. Other major bilateral donors include the United States, France, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands. We also contribute substantially to the Sarajevo airlift; through our contribution of 2,300 troops to UNPROFOR and through our approximately 140 ODA staff in the field.

  I pay tribute to the courage and dedication of the former ODA driver Paul Goodall who was so brutally murdered on 27 January. Following a review of security procedures with the UN, the ODA resumed convoy operations, on a phased basis, on 31 January. Despite the appalling atrocity committed against our drivers, their colleagues are determined that the aid effort should continue and are keen to resume full operations.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Voter Registration
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the percentage of voter non-registration in each of the age groups(a) from 17 to 24 years, (b) from 25 to 29 years, (c) from 30 to 49 years and (d) over 50 years; if he will publish a breakdown of the estimated number of non-registered voters in each of those age groups by sex and ethnic origin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Peter Lloyd
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys carried out research on behalf of the Home Office and the Scottish Office Home and Health Department after the 1991 census to assess the coverage
  639
  and quality of the electoral register in Great Britain in 1991. The proportions of eligible people in the survey who were not included in the register, for different groups of people, are set out in the table. Copies of the survey, "Electoral registration in 1991", are in the Library.

  Non-registration by age and sex

  Men Per cent.

  Women Per cent.

  All Per cent.

  Aged 17 (attainers)

  20·3

  24·4

  21·9

  18–19

  10·4

  13·6

  12·1

  20

  21·1

  18·5

  19·5

  21–24

  22·5

  19·3

  20·6

  25–29

  16·6

  12·3

  14·9

  30–49

  7·2

  4·3

  5·8

  50 and over

  2·6

  1·8

  2·1

  Non-registration by ethnic groups

  Per cent.

  White

  6·5

  Black

  24·0

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  15·1

  Other groups

  23·5

  Secure Training Centres
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which sites are under consideration as locations for the proposed secure training centres for persistent juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Maclean
  A notice was placed in the Official Journal of the European Communities—OJEC—on 5 January inviting expressions of interest from companies to finance, design, build/refurbish, operate and maintain secure training centres either on Home Office land or on alternative sites which they themselves would propose. The deadline for receipt of applications is 11 February 1994. Before then, I cannot say which sites will be considered.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations have been invited to consider the establishment and running of secure training centres for persistent juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Maclean
  Potential providers of secure training centres will be identified through responses to the OJEC notice issued on 5 January 1994. Invitations to tender will be issued following an assessment of the responses received.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, columns 475–76, if he will list all those who have been convicted of scheduled, terrorist-related offences held in custody in England and Wales, giving in each case the nature of their conviction, the sentence given and the date on which their sentence began.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  640
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 1 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prisoners in custody in England and Wales convicted of terrorist related offences.
  Readily available information on prisonerss serving sentences in England and Wales for serious offences related to terrorism is limited to those classified as Category A.
  As at 28 January 1994 there were 44 such prisoners. Details of year of conviction, sentence and offence are set out in the attached table.

  Year

  Sentence

  Offence

  1976

  Life

  Attempted murder and possession of explosives

  1976

  Life

  Attempted murder and possession of explosives

  1976

  Life

  Attempted murder

  1976

  Life

  Attempted murder and conspiracy to cause explosions

  1976

  Life

  Murder

  1977

  Life

  Murder

  1977

  Life

  Murder

  1977

  Life

  Murder

  1977

  Life

  Murder

  1977

  Life

  Murder

  1980

  Life

  Murder

  1980

  Life

  Murder

  1980

  Life

  Murder

  1981

  Life

  Attempted murder

  1983

  30 years

  Attempted murder

  1983

  35 years

  Attempted murder

  1985

  Life

  Murder

  1985

  Life

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1985

  15 years

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1985

  Life

  Murder

  1986

  25 years

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1986

  45 years

  Planting explosives to endanger life

  1986

  Life

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1986

  Life

  Murder and conspiracy to cause explosions

  1986

  Life

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1986

  Life

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1986

  Life

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1986

  Life

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1987

  25 years

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1988

  Life

  Murder

  1988

  17 years

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1988

  20 years

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1990

  30 years

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1990

  30 years

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1990

  30 years

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1993

  30 years

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1993

  Life

  Murder and attempted murder

  1993

  18 years

  Attempted murder

  1993

  22 years

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1993

  20 years

  Arson

  1993

  15 years

  Arson

  1993

  25 years

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1993

  25 years

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  1993

  23 years

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  Sharon Tabarn
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has investigated the death after hypnosis of Sharon Tabarn of Hesketh Bank, Lancashire.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There was a police investigation into the circumstances surrounding Ms Tabarn's death. Such matters are entirely the responsibility of the chief officer of the police force concerned. I understand that an inquest subsequently found that Ms Tabarn died from natural causes.
  641

  Mohammed Riaz and Abdul Raja
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 December,Official Report, column 414, when he expects to tell Mohammed Riaz and Abdul Qayyum Raja the life sentences they are to serve; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The decision as to the period to be served for retribution and deterrence was sent to each prisoner individually on 20 December 1993.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many life sentences have been referred to him since he became Home Secretary; what was the racial origin of each prisoner; in how many cases he has(a) increased the sentence recommended, (b) reduced the sentence recommended and (c) not varied the sentence; by what date he expects all those serving life sentences will have been informed of the sentence they are to serve; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since he took office, my right hon. and learned Friend has received 151 reports from the judiciary in respect of prisoners sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment. Details of their ethnic origin would be available only at disproportionate cost. The cases are being processed in accordance with the arrangements set out in my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) of 4 November 1993, at columns 376–78. The gist of the relevant judicial recommendations has been disclosed to 128 of these prisoners, and representations have been received from 26 of them. The period for retribution and deterrence—the tariff—has not been set in any of these cases.

  Also, in accordance with the arrangements referred to above, retrospective disclosure is being given to those prisoners whose tariffs have already been set. To date, 91 such disclosures have been made. Representations have been received from six prisoners, four of whom have received decisions.

  We aim to complete the process of tariff setting and retrospective disclosure for all prisoners currently in custody, by the end of this year.

  Prison Dog Service
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on plans to market test the prison dog service section; and how much the exercise has cost.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 1 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about progress with plans to market test the Prison Dog Service; and how much the exercise has cost.
  This market test has been suspended, as under present law contractors in directly managed prisons would be unable to
  642
  exercise powers to stop and search inmates. Provision is included in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to change this situation and plans for market testing will be re-considered when it becomes law.
  Work on the project is estimated to have cost approximately £10,500, mainly for two staff members temporarily allocated to it.

  Fire Service College
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the Fire Service college annual report and accounts for the year ended March 1993 will be published;

  (2) what was the financial target set for the Fire Service college on being given trading fund status; and if it has been achieved.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Fire Service college under its commandant chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from B. L Fuller to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 31 January 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked The Fire Service College to write to you directly in reply to two of your Parliamentary Questions about the College.
  The Fire Service College Annual Report and Accounts for the year ended March 1993 were laid before both Houses on 4 November 1993 as part of Votes and Proceedings on that day. Printed copies of the Report should be available shortly but have been delayed due to my negotiating what the cost to the College would be of providing a limited number of copies.
  On being given trading fund status, The Fire Service College was set two financial targets:

  (i) "to manage the funded operations so that the revenue of the fund consists principally of receipts in respect of goods or services provided in the course of the funded operations and is not less than sufficient, taking one year with another, to meet outgoings which are properly chargeable to revenue account."

  (ii) "a further financial objective desirable of achievement by the Fire Service College for the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1995 shall be to achieve a minimum return, average over the period as a whole, of 6·5 per cent. in the form of an operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets employed at current values."

  The first was not met in 1992–93, the second cannot be finally assessed until 1995 but the first year showed a return of 0·65 per cent.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Fire Service college has made a loss since achieving trading fund status; and who will make good such a loss.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Fire Service college became an agency operating as a trading fund on 1 April 1992. In the year 1992–93, it made a small operating surplus, but, after allowing for interest on the capital debt, it recorded a deficit of £1·152 million. The college is a Home Office establishment and the situation is being kept under review.

  Prisons (Code of Standards)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be publishing the Prison Service code of standards referred in para 7.22 of the Prison Service corporate plan published in April 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is hoped to publish a code of standards early in 1994.
  643

  Prison Service Headquarters
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what payment has been paid to Hyperion Properties in respect of the cancellation of the move of the Prison Service headquarters to Derby; and on what basis the payment was made;

  (2) what payment has been made to any company other than Hyperion Properties in respect of the cancellation of the move of the Prison Service headquarters to Derby; and on what basis such payment was made;

  (3) what has been the cost of negotiations between the Prison Service and/or his Department and companies seeking compensation in respect of the cancellation of the move of the Prison Service headquarters to Derby.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 1 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the cancellation of the move of Prison Service Headquarters to Derby.
  A payment of a little under £9 million has been paid to Hyperion Properties plc in settlement of their claim for damages for breach of contract following the cancellation of relocation. This payment represents full and final settlement of all claims from Hyperion, their contractor and sub-contractors.
  In addition, £20,000 was paid to Barcol-Air (UK) Ltd in respect of design work for the air conditioning system which would have been installed in the headquarters in Derby.
  The Prison Service's costs in negotiating this settlement amounted to around £128,000.

  Obscene Publications
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the adequacy of the enforcement of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

  Mr. Maclean
  The enforcement of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 is a matter for the police, and it is for the chief officers concerned to allocate resources to particular police activities. The Government are, however, most concerned to ensure that the law on obscenity is enforced as effectively as possible, and we take special account of the views of those who actually enforce the legislation, particularly when they identify gaps in the law which should be closed. That is why we have come forward in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill with a number of measures designed to improve matters in this area. These were described in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 7 December 1993, at column 163.

  The most recent statistics we have for prosecutions under the Obscene Publications Act are for 1992. In that year, there were 213 prosecutions and 171 convictions under section 2 of the Act. Figures for seizures and forfeitures under section 3 of the Act are not collected centrally. However, from inquiries we have made of the two largest forces in England and Wales—the Metropolitan police and Greater Manchester—both of which have specialised obscene publications squads, I understand that a total of 234,386 items were seized by them in 1992.
  644

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Buckley Hall prison will be market tested; if an in-house bid has yet been received; and when the prison will open.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 1 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Buckley Hall prison.
  No in-house bid has yet been received. The process of market testing has started and expressions of interest in tendering were received on 21 January. It is expected that invitations to tender will be issued in early February. The opening of the prison is dependent on the rebuilding programme. It is planned to open the prison in phases and the earliest possible date for the opening of the first phase would be October 1994.

  Asylum
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a breakdown of the number of asylum seekers held in detention on 1 January,(a) by nationality, (b) by length of detention and (c) by immigration status at the time of application.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information shows that 622 asylum seekers were held in detention on 21 January; information relating to 1 January is not available.

  The breakdown by nationality is as follows:

  Number

  Afghanistan

  1

  Algeria

  44

  Angola

  17

  Bangladesh

  7

  Benin

  1

  Bermuda

  1

  Brazil

  2

  Bulgaria

  1

  Burma

  1

  Cameroon

  2

  China

  9

  Columbia

  5

  Congo

  2

  Cyprus

  8

  Djibouti

  1

  Egypt

  3

  Ethiopia

  14

  Eritrea

  2

  Ghana

  74

  Guinea-Bissau

  2

  Haiti

  1

  India

  106

  Iran

  2

  Ivory Coast

  12

  Jamaica

  1

  Kenya

  20

  Lebanon

  1

  Liberia

  4

  Libya

  2

  Lithuania

  1

  Malawi

  1

  Morocco

  1

  Niger

  4

  Nigeria

  67

  Pakistan

  20

  Peru

  1

  645

  Number

  Poland

  1

  Romania

  7

  Sierra Leone

  7

  Singapore

  1

  Somalia

  16

  South Africa

  2

  Sri Lanka

  22

  Sudan

  5

  Tanzania

  3

  Tongo

  1

  Tunisia

  2

  Turkey

  53

  Uganda

  2

  Ex-USSR

  4

  Ex-Yugoslavia

  9

  Zaire

  34

  Zambia

  1

  Zimbabwe

  1

  Nationality Doubtful

  1

  Unrecorded

  9

  Total

  622

  The breakdown by length of detention is as follows:

  Length of detention

  Number

  Less than 1 month

  193

  1–2 months

  216

  2–6 months

  133

  6–12 months

  64

  12 months +

  16

  Total

  622

  Of the 622 asylum seekers held in detention, 341 had been detained at the port of entry and 228 were discovered to thave entered unlawfully. They would not, therefore, have had current leave at the time of their application. The remaining 53 detainees are the subjects of deportation action. Of these, 42 are known to have been overstayers at the time of their asylum applications. The status of the remaining 11, who are to be deported on conducive grounds, or on the recommendation of a court, is not recorded.

  Mr. Glens Tarimo
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons Glens Tarimo, being deported to Nairobi on 27 December, was placed on a plane to Khartoum.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Mr. Tarimo was removed to Nairobi via Khartoum, the same route by which he had arrived, in accordance with normal practice.

  Prisons (Market Testing)
  Ms Roddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria will be used to select the next two operational prisons for market testing.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 1 February 1994:
  646
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about market testing of further operational prisons.
  The approach to the selection of operational prisons for market testing will be to select those where there is the greatest scope for improving performance. The Prisons Board will look at factors such as the extent and quality of regime activities and the cost per place in determining whether good value for money is currently being provided.
  Consideration will also be given to factors which may affect performance, such as the nature of the prisoner population and any limitations of the buildings.

  Crime Victims
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce provisions, in respect of compensating victims of violent crime, for individual assessment of loss of earnings and other financial loss.

  Mr. Maclean
  The recent White Paper, "Compensating Victims of Violent Crime: Changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme", Cm 2434, explained the Government's intention to establish a new tariff scheme, which will come into force on 1 April 1994. Under that scheme, compensation payments to blameless victims of violent crime will be made from a tariff of awards for injuries of comparable severity. The tariff levels have been set by reference to awards made in the recent past by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which, because they are based on common law damages, include elements for loss of earnings and the other heads of damage. To that extent, the awards will contain an element of loss of earnings, but there will be no separate assessment.

  The new scheme will be more straightforward and claimants should get their compensation more quickly and with less fuss. When the tariff scheme is introduced, the majority of claimants should get as much as or more than they could have expected under the current arrangements.

  Detainees (Escorts)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 21 January,Official Report column 927, what was the total amount paid to private security firms for escorting detainees and their dependants overseas in 1993, including ticketing costs;

  (2) what was the total amount paid to Airline Securities Consultants Ltd. for escorting detainees and their dependants overseas in 1993; and what has been the total paid to ASC ever for this purpose.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The total amount paid to private security firms for escorting detainees and their dependants overseas in 1993, including ticketing costs, was £615,035. Information about payments to Airline Security Consultants Ltd. is commercially confidential.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 January,Official Report, column 927, who provided the 7 per cent. of in-flight escorts for people being removed at public expense, including deportees, which were not provided by the private sector.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Provincial police forces.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportees, and how many of their dependants, were escorted by private security firms in 1993.
  647
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Between April and December 1993, 167 people removed under powers in the Immigration Act 1971, including deportees and their dependants, were escorted overseas by private security firms. Statistics for January to March 1993 are not available.

  Deportees (Drugs Administration)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what percentage of deportations in 1993 drugs were administered to the deportee or their dependants;

  (2) in what percentage of cases where drugs were administered to deportees or their dependants in 1993 their medical records were checked first.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is not normal practice for drugs to be administered to deportees or their dependants. Where medical records are available, they would be consulted as necessary before the administration of any medication.

  New Prisons
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the estimated timetable for the financing, designing, building and opening of the new prisons announced in October 1993;

  (2) when he will be inviting private sector proposals for financing, designing, building and managing the six new prisons which were announced in October last year.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 1 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your two recent Questions about the timing of plans for the design, construction, management and finance by the private sector of the six new prisons which were announced in October last year.
  Expressions of interest for the first two of these, in South Wales and on Merseyside, have been invited. Private sector companies interested in bidding for these contracts have been asked to let the Prison Service have their initial responses by 11 February 1994. By 31 March 1994 the Prison Service plans to issue invitations to tender for the two projects. The timetable for the award of contracts and completion of the prisons will depend on the initial responses, but it is intended that the two prisons should be brought into use as speedily as possible.
  Work is currently in progress to identify suitable sites for the other four prisons.

  Dog Attacks
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the most recent figures for dog attacks on humans in the metropolitan areas for(a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c)

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available in all the metropolitan areas.
  648

  Ethnic Minorities (Grants)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what total amount of funds have been made available over the last year under(a) the safer cities scheme, (b) section 11 grants, (c) ethnic minority grants and (d) ethnic minority business grant.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During the 1992–93 financial year funds were made available under these schemes as follows:

  £ million

  Safer cities

  7·7

  Section 11

  129·7

  EMG

  4·0

  EMBI

  0·4

  Safer Cities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of safer cities, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses(a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Since the safer cities programme was launched in 1988, the following expenditure has been incurred on the programme's administration:

  £ thousand

  1988–93

  1993–941

  Totals

  Publicity

  533

  90

  623

  Evaluation

  188

  47

  235

  Administration

  1,619

  309

  1,928

  Salaries

  3,617

  1,013

  4,630

  Surveys

  1,060

  62

  1,122

  Capital

  307

  3

  310

  1 1993–94 figures represent expenditure up to, and including, the third quarter.

  The above mentioned budgets comprise the following categories of expenditure:
  Publicity—producing action plans, annual reports, local brochures-organising seminars and conferences-publicising crime prevention schemes and activities.
  Evaluation—data collection, census statistics, analysis software, analysis consultancies and census boundary data in order to evaluate the Programme.
  Administration—project running costs, including stationery, staff travel and subsistence expenses-office rent and rates-minor office works-recruitment of staff-staff training-workshops and a national conference-equipment maintenance costs
  Salaries—salaries of project staff
  Surveys—local surveys and research work to identify crime problems and solutions, and to evaluate grant-aided schemes-centrally commissioned surveys to assist the evaluation of the Programme
  Capital—project furniture and equipment

  A further breakdown of the programme's expenditure could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

  Fire and Emergency Calls
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing(a) the number of fire and emergency calls per 1,000 population in each fire authority area, (b) the number of fire officers per 1,000 population and (c) the number of fire and emergency calls per officer, for each fire authority are in (a) 1989, (b) 1990 and (c)
  649
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is being collated. I will send a table to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

  Airline Securities Consultants Ltd.
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the outcome of his Department's investigations into the two other cases apart from Dorothy Nirokedi and Meya Mangeta regarding complaints alleging excessive force by Airline Securities Consultants Ltd.; whether his Department will continue to use Airline Securities Consultants Ltd.; and if he will publish in full the complaints against this company, and his Department's investigations of them;

  (2) what were the names of the deportees involved in the four complaints alleging excessive force in individual cases in which Airline Securities Consultants Ltd. has been employed by his Department to escort deportees; and where they were deported from.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The complaints about the alleged use of excessive force in escorting Mrs. Dorothy Nwokedi and Mr. Meya Mangete have been thoroughly investigated and were found to be unsubstantiated. Two further complaints about the conduct of Airline Security Consultants Ltd. in escorting two people being removed from the United Kingdom are still being investigated. These people have not sought any publicity for their cases and it would not be appropriate to disclose their names. Nor would it be appropriate to publish the complaints made against Airline Security Consultants or the reports of these investigations. I will, however, write to the hon. Member advising her of the outcome when they have been completed. I do not consider there are grounds for suspending the use of Airline Security Consultants Ltd. to escort deportees.

  Research Projects
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those research projects(a) undertaken internally by his Department and (b) commissioned by his Department from external contractors, within the last five years, which have gathered data on the employment status (i) of persons convicted of crimes and (ii) of persons given custodial sentences.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not routinely collected, and special research exercises are required to do so. The national prison survey, carried out in 1991, provides the information for a representative sample for persons given custodial sentences. Results are published in "Home Office Research Studies" No. 128. The research and planning unit has recently commissioned a similar survey on offenders on probation "People On Probation", results of which will be available around the end of the year.

  Many of the projects in the research and planning unit's programme include reference of some sort to employment status. The main projects are listed in the table, including publication details of those completed.

  Internal projects

  1. The National Prison Survey 1991: main findings, (HORS No. 128).

  2. Developments in the use of compensation orders magistrates' courts since 1988, (HORS No. 126).

  3. Deductions from benefit for fine default, (RPU Paper No. 60).

  650

  4. Unit fines: experiments in four courts, (RPU Paper No. 59).

  5. Day Centre reconviction rates, British Journal of Criminology 32(3) 1992.

  6. People on probation.

  7. Implementation and use of the combination order.

  8. Predicting sexual reconviction.

  9. Reconviction Prediction score.

  External projects

  10. Custodial and post-custodial work and employment.

  11. Managing the needs of women prisoners.

  12. Imprisonment and family ties.

  13. The dynamics of recidivism.

  Criminology Researchers
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the granting of permission to criminology researchers to interview prisoners.

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

  Letter from Mr. Derek Lewis to Mr. John McFall, dated 1 February 1994.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about the policy on granting permission to criminology researchers interview prisoners.
  Requests to interview inmates in prison establishments in England and Wales are considered on the basis of the practicability and likely benefit of the research, the demands of the research project on Prison Service resources, the qualifications of the researcher, and the consent of the prisoner.

  Deportation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 January,Official Report, column 927, what plans he has to ensure that his Department makes appropriate checks on private security firms employed by carriers required by the Immigration Service to effect the removal of a passenger refused leave to enter.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  As I explained in the answer to which the hon. Member refers, carriers are responsible for all the arrangements necessary to comply with directions to remove people refused leave to enter. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Hoax Fire Calls
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hoax fire calls per 1,000 population were made in each fire authority area in(a) 1989, (b) 1990 and (c)

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on malicious false alarm incidents attended by local authority fire brigades is shown in the table.

  Malicious false alarm incidents per 1,000 population by brigade area, 1989–91

  Brigade area

  1989

  1990

  1991

  United Kingdom

  2·3

  2·4

  2·6

  England and Wales

  2·2

  2·3

  2·5

  England

  2·2

  2·3

  2·5

  651

  Brigade area

  1989

  1990

  1991

  England, non-Metropolitan

  1·4

  1·5

  1·6

  Avon

  1·4

  1·4

  1·7

  Bedfordshire

  1·3

  1·3

  1·1

  Berkshire

  1·1

  1·2

  1·6

  Buckinghamshire

  1·3

  1·4

  1·3

  Cambridgeshire

  1·3

  1·3

  1·6

  Cheshire

  1·4

  1·7

  1·6

  Cleveland

  6·8

  6·4

  7·9

  Cornwall

  0·5

  0·5

  0·6

  Cumbria

  1·3

  1·3

  1·6

  Derbyshire

  1·6

  1·6

  1·6

  Devon

  1·2

  1·4

  1·7

  Dorset

  0·6

  0·9

  1·2

  Durham

  3·1

  3·8

  4·0

  East Sussex

  1·0

  0·9

  1·1

  Essex

  1·4

  1·4

  1·6

  Gloucestershire

  1·1

  1·5

  1·5

  Hampshire

  0·5

  0·6

  0·6

  Hereford and Worcester

  1·3

  1·5

  1·4

  Hertfordshire

  0·9

  1·0

  1·0

  Humberside

  2·7

  3·4

  3·4

  Isle of Wight

  0·5

  0·5

  0·7

  Kent

  1·6

  1·3

  1·6

  Lancashire

  2·3

  2·5

  3·1

  Leicestershire

  1·8

  1·9

  1·9

  Lincolnshire

  1·4

  1·5

  1·5

  Norfolk

  0·9

  0·9

  0·9

  North Yorkshire

  0·8

  0·9

  0·8

  Northamptonshire

  1·0

  1·0

  1·1

  Northumberland

  1·2

  1·5

  1·8

  Nottinghamshire

  1·6

  1·6

  1·5

  Oxfordshire

  1·1

  1·4

  1·4

  Shropshire

  0·8

  1·5

  1·9

  Somerset

  0·5

  0·6

  1·2

  Staffordshire

  1·3

  1·4

  1·7

  Suffolk

  0·5

  0·5

  0·6

  Surrey

  1·1

  1·3

  1·2

  Warwickshire

  1·0

  1·3

  1·0

  West Sussex

  1·0

  1·0

  0·9

  Wiltshire

  0·8

  0·8

  1·1

  England, Metropolitan

  3·6

  3·7

  3·8

  Greater Manchester

  4·3

  4·5

  5·1

  Merseyside

  4·7

  4·3

  4·6

  South Yorkshire

  2·7

  2·8

  3·0

  Tyne and Wear

  5·1

  5·4

  6·1

  West Midlands

  3·4

  3·4

  3·6

  West Yorkshire

  3·8

  3·6

  3·5

  Greater London

  3·0

  3·2

  3·2

  Wales

  2·5

  2·7

  2·6

  Clwyd

  1·5

  2·0

  1·8

  Dyfed

  1·6

  1·5

  1·6

  Gwent

  2·6

  3·1

  3·2

  Gwynedd

  1·5

  1·2

  1·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  3·4

  3·5

  3·4

  Powys

  0·7

  0·5

  0·8

  South Glamorgan

  3·7

  3·3

  3·2

  West Glamorgan

  3·1

  3·8

  3·3

  Northern Ireland

  2·5

  2·7

  2·4

  Scotland

  2·7

  3·0

  3·6

  Strathclyde

  3·4

  3·5

  5·0

  Highland and Islands

  0·7

  0·9

  1·4

  Grampian

  0·9

  1·0

  1·2

  Tayside

  2·0

  2·4

  2·3

  Lothian

  3·2

  4·4

  3·8

  Fife

  2·6

  2·0

  2·9

  Central

  2·5

  2·3

  2·2

  Dumfries

  1·6

  1·7

  1·9

  652

  Immigration (Children)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children, and from which countries, have entered the United Kingdom for adoption in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Statistics of children entering the United Kingdom with a view to adoption are not collected centrally.

  Prisoners (Press Interviews)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what rules exist to prevent payment to convicted prisoners or their agents or relatives, as a way of capitalising on their notoriety and crime by granting press interviews;

  (2) if he will consider taking powers to prevent all payments to convicted prisoners who agree to sell their stories to the media.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: Prison Service standing orders prohibit sentenced prisoners from engaging in correspondence, or in communicating by telephone about matters, which includes material intended for publication in return for payment. Visits to inmates by journalists or authors in their professional capacity are generally not allowed. In addition, the newspaper industry's code of practice specifically provides that people involved in crime or their associates should not be paid for their stories. It would not be feasible to devise legal restraints sufficiently broad to prevent criminals profiting from published accounts of their criminal activities, while at the same time avoiding unjustifiable restrictions on media reporting of matters of legitimate public interest. Enforcement could be particularly difficult since payment could be made indirectly, covertly or outside the jurisdiction.

  Young Prisoners
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) 18-year-olds, (b) 19-year-olds, (c) 20-year-olds and (d) 21-year-olds were held in Prison Service establishments, both on remand and sentenced, on the last day of each month from 31 January 1992 to the present; and in which establishments they were held;

  (2) how many (a) 15-year-olds, and (b) 16-year-olds, (c) 17-year-olds were held in Prison Service establishments, both on remand and sentenced, on the last day of each month from 31 January 1992 to the present; and in which establishments they were held.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 27 January 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 1 February 1994.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions asking how many (a) 15-year-olds, (b) 16-year-olds, (c) 17-year-olds, (d) 18-year-olds, (e) 19-year-olds, (f) 20-year-olds and (g) 21-year-olds were held in Prison Service

  653
  establishments, both on remand and sentenced, on the last day of each month from 31 January 1992 to the present; and in which establishments they were held.

  Population1 aged 15 to 21, by type of custody in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales 1992–93

  Age

  Custody type

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  20

  21

  All ages

  September 1993

  Male

  Remand

  34

  100

  387

  734

  832

  741

  802

  3,630

  Sent2

  70

  169

  427

  875

  1,446

  1,632

  1,809

  6,428

  Female

  Remand

  —

  —

  9

  16

  18

  23

  25

  91

  Sent2

  4

  9

  9

  21

  40

  45

  48

  176

  TOTAL

  108

  278

  832

  1,646

  2,336

  2,441

  2,684

  10,325

  June 1993

  Male

  Remand

  35

  87

  399

  723

  764

  717

  735

  3,460

  Sent2

  94

  204

  494

  904

  1,385

  1,440

  1,621

  6,142

  Female

  Remand

  —

  1

  13

  17

  19

  20

  23

  93

  Sent2

  2

  6

  7

  31

  53

  39

  42

  180

  TOTAL

  131

  298

  913

  1,675

  2,221

  2,216

  2,421

  9,875

  June 1992

  Male

  Remand

  29

  71

  493

  646

  721

  701

  621

  3,282

  Sent2

  76

  178

  463

  1,004

  1,404

  1,686

  1,905

  6,716

  Female

  Remand

  —

  —

  9

  11

  20

  23

  21

  84

  Sent2

  1

  7

  11

  32

  41

  32

  44

  168

  TOTAL

  106

  256

  976

  1,693

  2,186

  2,442

  2,591

  10,250

  March 1992

  Male

  Remand

  19

  62

  470

  664

  724

  709

  632

  3,280

  Sent2

  74

  188

  470

  1,027

  1,451

  1,626

  1,870

  6,706

  Female

  Remand

  —

  —

  9

  15

  23

  26

  26

  99

  Sent2

  1

  5

  7

  28

  46

  38

  48

  173

  TOTAL

  94

  255

  956

  1,734

  2,244

  2,399

  2,576

  10,258

  1 Provisional figures

  2 Includes non-criminal prisoners and those sentenced for non-payment of a fine.

  Population1 in prison service establishments, England and Wales aged under 21, by establishment and type of custody on 30 September 1993

  Age

  Establishment

  Custody type

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  20

  Male

  Aylesbury

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  4

  27

  74

  95

  Bedford

  Remand

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Birmingham

  Remand

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Brinsford

  Remand

  2

  13

  41

  63

  69

  59

  Sentenced2

  7

  26

  44

  41

  41

  42

  Brixton

  Remand

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Bullingdon

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Camp Hill

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Cardiff

  Remand

  1

  1

  11

  16

  30

  17

  Sentenced2

  —

  2

  2

  4

  3

  4

  Castington

  Sentenced2

  —

  1

  5

  46

  79

  107

  Chelmsford

  Remand

  —

  —

  6

  12

  17

  18

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  2

  654
  The available provisional information is given in the attached tables.
  655

  Age

  Establishment

  Custody type

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  20

  Deerbolt

  Remand

  1

  1

  3

  5

  3

  1

  Sentenced2

  24

  34

  56

  54

  75

  85

  Dorchester

  Remand

  —

  —

  2

  6

  8

  11

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  6

  Dover

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  5

  34

  63

  72

  Elmley

  Remand

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Exeter

  Remand

  —

  —

  4

  10

  13

  10

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  4

  Feltham

  Remand

  1

  22

  40

  79

  105

  80

  Sentenced2

  11

  40

  101

  83

  70

  101

  Finnamore Wood

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  12

  29

  32

  Full Sutton

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Garth

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Glen Parva

  Remand

  6

  14

  50

  84

  81

  70

  Sentenced2

  1

  3

  16

  82

  146

  148

  Gloucester

  Remand

  —

  4

  9

  20

  28

  17

  Sentenced2

  —

  1

  2

  6

  1

  5

  Guy Marsh

  Sentenced2

  7

  14

  53

  24

  32

  27

  Hatfield

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  2

  36

  63

  67

  Haslar

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Hindley

  Remand

  4

  3

  32

  51

  79

  62

  Sentenced2

  —

  2

  2

  17

  17

  23

  Hollesley Bay

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  3

  36

  61

  72

  Holme House

  Remand

  3

  7

  8

  24

  91

  17

  Sentenced2

  1

  1

  4

  10

  18

  21

  Huntercombe

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  1

  22

  69

  55

  Lancaster Farms

  Remand

  —

  8

  26

  52

  57

  62

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  4

  27

  40

  55

  Lewes

  Remand

  —

  —

  3

  2

  9

  9

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Lincoln

  Remand

  —

  —

  10

  20

  25

  21

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  5

  10

  14

  Liverpool

  Remand

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Low Newton

  Remand

  8

  6

  23

  52

  48

  43

  Sentenced2

  —

  2

  1

  9

  11

  13

  Moorland

  Remand

  8

  18

  53

  120

  91

  95

  Sentenced2

  —

  6

  18

  46

  65

  84

  Northallerton

  Sentenced2

  —

  1

  1

  9

  15

  14

  Norwich

  Remand

  —

  3

  4

  5

  13

  16

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  2

  Onley

  Sentenced2

  16

  25

  45

  69

  123

  125

  Pentonville

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Portland

  Sentenced2

  —

  1

  11

  52

  120

  115

  Reading

  Remand

  —

  —

  21

  39

  35

  43

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  8

  15

  7

  Rochester

  Remand

  —

  —

  10

  24

  42

  29

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Stoke Heath

  Remand

  —

  —

  8

  22

  17

  23

  Sentenced2

  —

  2

  16

  38

  57

  67

  Swansea

  Remand

  —

  —

  12

  13

  22

  21

  Sentenced2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Swinfen Hall

  Sentenced2

  —

  1

  10

  21

  38

  62

  Thorn Cross

  Sentenced2

  1

  7

  20

  36

  64

  63

  Usk

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  10

  23

  21

  Woodhill

  Remand

  —

  —

  9

  13

  17

  10

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  2

  Total

  104

  269

  814

  1,609

  2,278

  2,373

  Remand

  34

  100

  387

  734

  832

  741

  Sentenced2

  70

  169

  427

  875

  1,446

  1,632

  656 657

  Age

  Establishment

  Custody type

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  20

  Female

  Askham Grange

  Sentenced2

  1

  3

  —

  1

  5

  7

  Bullwood Hall

  Sentenced2

  —

  2

  —

  2

  7

  7

  Drake Hall

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  4

  2

  6

  7

  Durham

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  East Sutton Park

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Holloway

  Remand

  —

  —

  3

  7

  6

  8

  Sentenced2

  1

  —

  —

  6

  5

  2

  Low Newton

  Remand

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  New Hall

  Remand

  —

  —

  5

  4

  2

  5

  Sentenced2

  2

  2

  1

  3

  5

  5

  Pucklechurch

  Remand

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  Sentenced2

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  3

  Risley

  Remand

  —

  —

  1

  4

  8

  5

  Styal

  Remand

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Sentenced2

  —

  2

  —

  5

  11

  11

  Total

  4

  9

  18

  37

  58

  68

  Remand

  —

  —

  9

  16

  18

  23

  Sentenced2

  4

  9

  9

  21

  40

  45

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Includes non—criminal prisoners and those sentenced for non-payment of a fine.

WALES

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the amount of housing revenue account subsidy for 1993–94 and 1994–95 for each district council in Wales, and for Wales as a whole, showing the percentage increase or decrease in each case.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The amount of housing revenue account subsidy claimed by each authority in Wales as a whole in 1993–94 is given in the following table. Comparable information for 1994–95 is not yet available as first subsidy claims for that year are not due until April.

  Housing revenue account subsidy entitlement

  Local authority

  Aberconwy BC

  1,613,843

  Alyn and Deeside DC

  2,566,612

  Arfon BC

  2,860,306

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  10,967,070

  Brecknock BC

  759,755

  Cardiff CC

  23,291,119

  Carmarthen DC

  2,348,352

  Ceredigion DC

  1,932,664

  Colwyn BC

  2,194,617

  Cynon Valley BC

  4,914,395

  Delyn BC

  2,957,483

  Dinefwr BC

  1,486,992

  Dwyfor DC

  958,012

  Glyndwr DC

  803,215

  Islwyn BC

  5,242,264

  Llanelli BC

  7,501,220

  Lliw Valley BC

  4,157,709

  Meirionnydd DC

  1,238,429

  Merthyr Tydfil BC

  7,588,053

  Monmouth BC

  3,815,493

  Montgomeryshire DC

  496,002

  Neath BC

  4,921,454

  Newport BC

  10,363,902

  Ogwr BC

  7,702,537

  Port Talbot BC

  4,668,643

  658

  Local authority

  Preseli Pembs DC

  2,848,229

  Radnorshire DC

  525,905

  Rhondda BC

  8,301,654

  Rhuddlan BC

  1,276,569

  Rhymney Valley DC

  11,347,929

  South Pembs DC

  1,427,901

  Swansea CC

  17,353,927

  Taff Ely BC

  6,816,221

  Torfaen BC

  13,076,949

  Vale of Glamorgan BC

  3,612,705

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  7,839,056

  Ynys Mon BC

  4,438,990

  Wales

  196,216,176

  Children (Benefits)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children there were in families receiving supplementary benefit in Wales in 1979; and how many children there were in families receiving supplementary benefit/income support in Wales at the latest available date.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is shown in the following table. The latest available information relates to February 1993.

  Children of supplementary benefit/income support recipients in Wales

  Year

  Number of children1

  1979

  57,000

  1993

  165,000

  Sources:

  Supplementary benefit statistics annual enquiries, November 1979.

  Income support statistics quarterly enquiry, February 1993.

  1 All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand. Children are defined as being under 16 years of age.

  659

  Vehicle Registration Mark
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales further to the Minister of State's letter to the hon. Member for Newport, West of 19 November 1993, when his Department expects to conclude consideration of the possible amendment of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1987 to allow the use of the "D" —Dysgwr—symbol in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This matter is currently receiving consideration and I will make an announcement when all the implications have been addressed fully. In the meantime, the hon. Member will wish to note that there exists no bar on learner drivers using a D plate in conjunction with an L plate.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1991, one officer was found in breach of departmental regulations and dismissed. A criminal conviction for fraud followed.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Mr. Redwood
  All cases of misconduct are investigated and considered on their merits.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency provided a reference for the former chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency to the Further Education Funding Council.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have arranged for the chairman's office to reply to the hon. Member and for a copy of that letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when a senior official of the Welsh Office provided a reference to the Further Education Funding Council for the former chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  On 29 November 1993.

  Council Housing Receipts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the amount of cash(a) in Wales and (b) in each of the accounts of the local authority housing authorities from the sales of council houses.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest local authority estimates of usable capital receipts from the sales of council houses held at 31 March 1993 are given in the following table:

  Usable capital receipts from the sales of council houses, at 31 March 1993

  £'000

  Alyn and Deeside

  0

  Colwyn

  384

  Delyn

  0

  660

  £'000

  Glyndwr

  285

  Rhuddlan

  627

  Wrexham Maelor

  106

  Carmarthen

  353

  Ceredigion

  197

  Dinefwr

  0

  Llanelli

  0

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  1,468

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,322

  Blaenau Gwent

  901

  Islwyn

  458

  Monmouth

  1,566

  Newport

  0

  Torfaen

  1,615

  Aberconwy

  672

  Arfon

  141

  Dwyfor

  144

  Meirionnydd

  0

  Ynys Mon

  71

  Cynon Valley

  0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  602

  Ogwr

  702

  Rhondda

  0

  Rhymney Valley

  570

  Taff Ely

  91

  Brecknock

  791

  Montgomeryshire

  694

  Radnorshire

  125

  Cardiff

  1,450

  Vale of Glamorgan

  5,659

  Port Talbot

  1,138

  Lliw Valley

  1,432

  Neath

  77

  Swansea

  95

  Total Wales

  23,736

  Source: Local Authority returns 1994.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  The Attorney-General
  The following numbers of employees were convicted of offences of fraud or dishonesty in the Departments for which I am responsible:

  Number

  1990

  One

  1991

  Nil

  1992

  Nil

  1993

  One

  11994

  One

  1 To date.

  Two of these employees were dismissed and the third resigned while suspended from duty.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  The Attorney-General
  Employees found guilty of fraud or dishonesty are liable to be dismissed under the relevant Department's disciplinary procedures.
  661

  Drugs (Unsuccessful Prosecutions)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful prosecutions for drug offences in England and Wales have been launched in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information for 1990 to 1992 is given in the table. 1993 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Number of successful and unsuccessful prosecutions for drug offences 1990–1992

  England and Wales

  Convicted (Successful)

  Not Convicted (Unsuccessful)

  Year

  Prosectuions [= 100 per cent.]

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1990

  27,930

  24,558

  88

  3,372

  12

  1991

  28,285

  23,455

  83

  4,830

  17

  1992

  28,308

  22,678

  80

  5,630

  20

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide figures for the amount his Department has been reimbursed by the Department of Social Security in respect of statutory sick pay provision since April 1992.
  662
  Mr. David Davis
  The amount of statutory sick pay reimbursement due to the Office of Public Service and Science is offset against employer's national insurance contributions payable to the Department of Social Security. The amount offset between 1 April 1992 and December 1993 was £56,300.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the names on the public appointments unit central list are known to be politically active.

  Mr. David Davis
  Details of political affiliation are not sought by the public appointments unit. From the information made available by candidates, only 13 per cent. of those on the central list are known to have been members of a political party.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the current savings that have resulted up to January from the introduction of market testing in the civil service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 20 January,Official Report, columns 775–76.
  663

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average wage of(a) a male and (b) a female working in Durham for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested can be found in tables 110 and 113 of part E of the new earnings survey for each year from 1979 to 1993.

  Paintings and Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to buy or borrow photographs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no plans to buy or loan any photographs from the Government art collections or elsewhere.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) paintings and (b) photographs there are on the walls of his rooms.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have four paintings belonging to the Government art collection in my room. There are 49 photographic portraits of past Secretaries of State for Employment and senior staff in my waiting room; these photographs belong to the Department.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 1031, what are the particular qualifications, experience or expertise relating to employment policy of the special adviser, Mr. Michael McManus.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is not my practice to comment on the qualifications, expertise or experience of my special adviser.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) pursuant to his answer of 13 December,Official Report, column 515, if he is yet in a position to place in the Library a list of the directors of each training and enterprise council and the companies or organisations which they represent;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a list of the directors of each training and enterprise council in 1992–93 and the companies or organisations which they represented.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The list of current directors will be available in the Library from 4 February 1994. It will cover the training and enterprise councils for England and will be updated quarterly.

  The information requested for 1992–93 is not held centrally, and the cost of obtaining it would be disproportionate.

  Employees (Food)
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the statutory provisions or relevant circulars or guidance from his Department affecting employers' powers to restrict the kinds of food made available to employees at their place of work.
  664
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no provisions in employment or health and safety legislation governing this matter; nor has this Department issued any such guidance or circulars.

  Maternity Leave
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will supply the figures for the number of weeks, after having their babies, that working women have off before they return to work, for each of the years since 1983.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information for each year since 1983 is not available. However, the survey "Maternity Rights in Britain" by the Policy Studies Institute, based on research co-funded by the Department, indicates that in 1988 working women returned to work after a median of 19 weeks absence following child birth.

  ILO Conventions
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the number of International Labour Organisation conventions deratified by the United Kingdom; and how many have been ratified by each other EC state.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Over the years, successive United Kingdom Governments have denounced 10 conventions. The United Kingdom is currently bound by 69 conventions. The number of conventions by which other EC states are bound is shown in the table:

  Number of ILO conventions to which EC states are currently bound (as at 31 December 1992)

  Number

  Belgium

  71

  Denmark

  59

  France

  102

  Germany

  64

  Greece

  58

  Ireland

  48

  Italy

  90

  Luxembourg

  55

  Netherlands

  76

  Portugal

  63

  Spain

  106

  United Kingdom

  69

  Sources: ILO Lists of Ratifications by Convention and by Country; ILO Chart of Ratifications of International Labour Conventions

  Stansted Airport
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received to date about the effect of the transatlantic air travel bilateral restrictions on employment at and around London's Stansted airport.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received seven representations on this matter.

  Redundant People
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has concerning schemes administered by the North Derbyshire training and enterprise council which offer subsidies to employers to take on redundant people; and if he will make a statement.
  665
  Miss Widdecombe
  The North Derbyshire training and enterprise council offers a wide range of support to unemployed people to help them acquire the skills they need to get and keep jobs. This includes encouraging employers to recruit unemployed people by assisting with the cost of training.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many requests he has received for information regarding notification procedures for impending redundancies as required under section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992;

  (2) how many requests for information regarding notification procedures for impending redundancies under section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 have been denied on the grounds of confidentiality; to what type of information confidentiality applies; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what criteria he uses when deciding that confidentiality applies to the operation of parts of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department receives requests from time to time for information about individual notifications of redundancies made by employers under section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Records are not kept of such requests. The Department's policy, based on legal advice, is that such information is given and treated in confidence. The Department is not able to comment on individual notifications unless details of those notifications have already been made publicly available by the employer.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what circumstances the Government would allow unions to represent again employees at GCHQ.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government have made it clear that their overriding objective remains to ensure the maintenance of continuous operations at GCHQ for the protection of national security. It is necessary to ensure that the staff are not subject to potential conflicts of loyalty. The Government are willing to consider any proposals which are consistent with that objective. All staff at GCHQ are free to join the Government Communications Staff Federation which is listed as a trade union under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. More than 50 per cent. have done so.

DEFENCE

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 11 January,Official Report, column 7, if he will place in the Library the papers his Department submitted to the joint Department of the Environment—Ministry of Agriculture assessment of THORP for the consultation exercise; and if he will set out
  666
  the basis of his statement that conversion of nuclear material to military purpose can be achieved only with extreme difficulty.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department participated in the preparation of the statement of Government policy on reprocessing and the operation of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield, which was made public on 4 August 1993. No submissions have been made since then by my Department in respect of the consultation or decision on the new Sellafield discharge authorisation. A copy of the statement of Government policy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  I have nothing to add to the position set out in paragraph 51 of that statement, on the usefulness of plutonium from THORP for weapons purposes.

  Vickers Armoured Vehicle
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his intention to acquire the Vickers mark II armoured vehicle for the British Army.

  Mr. Aitken
  No.

  Horizon Programme
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the Horizon programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  Following the signing of a memorandum of understanding in July last year, a joint project office was established in London in November of last year, to manage Project Horizon, the common new generation frigate, on behalf of the United Kingdom, France and Italy. Two international consortia are now being formed to conduct competitive project definition for the combat management system to be contracted later this year. And a competition is underway for the selection of the United Kingdom member for the international joint venture company which will design and build the three first of class ships, which we currently plan to enter service around the turn of the century.

  Departmental Dwellings
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number and location of(a) dwellings and (b) vacant dwellings owned by his Department in (i) each district of Hampshire and (ii) Hampshire as a whole.

  Mr. Hanley
  Statistics on Ministry of Defence dwellings are not maintained by local authority districts and such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  As at 31 December 1993, the Ministry of Defence owned 8,288 dwellings in Hampshire, of which 1,051 were vacant, located as follows:

  Stock

  Vacant

  Aldershot

  2,405

  390

  Bordon

  673

  77

  Farnborough

  104

  9

  Middle Wallop

  509

  61

  Oakhanger

  92

  4

  Odiham

  581

  11

  Portsmouth area

  3,446

  386

  Worthy Down

  478

  113

  667
  Many of the vacant properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or already allocated to service families who were due to move in shortly.

  In addition, 1,003 properties, of which 188 were vacant, were in the process of being sold.

  South Citadel Building, Whitehall
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts were placed for refurbishment of the command centre under the south citadel building in Whitehall between 1979 and 1985; who were the main contractors; and what was the value of each contract.

  Mr. Aitken
  Four main contracts were placed for the refurbishment of the command centre under the south citadel building in Whitehall between 1979 and 1985. The contractors were Griffiths McGee Demolition Co Ltd, Mirrless Blackstone Stamford Ltd, Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd and Hayward Tyler Ltd. The total value of the four contracts when let was approximately £700,000.

  Nimrod Aircraft
  Dr. David Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF Nimrod aircraft are allocated to royal duties.

  Mr. Hanley
  No Nimrod aircraft are specifically allocated to royal duties, although aircraft can be made available in the search and rescue role should it be considered necessary on any occasion.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Nimrod aircraft were on royal duty in Australia on 26 January.

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Nimrod aircraft there are in the RAF.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Royal Air Force currently has 33 Nimrod aircraft.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF Nimrod aircraft are located overseas.

  Mr. Hanley
  Two Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft are scheduled to depart the United Kingdom to conduct routine training in the Mediterranean on Tuesday 1 February. In addition to routine training deployments, Nimrod aircraft do deploy from time to time to Sicily from where they contribute to the NATO and Western European Union forces conducting maritine operations in the Adriatic; the next deployment is due to begin on Friday 4 February.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to alter the numbers of search-and-rescue helicopters based at the royal naval bases at(a) Portland and (b) Culdrose.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no current plans to alter the numbers of search and rescue helicopters at the royal naval air stations at Portland and Culdrose.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current number of SAR helicopters based at the royal naval bases at(a) Portland and (b) Culdrose.
  668
  Mr. Hanley
  Currently, three of the Sea King Mk4 helicopters held at the royal naval air station Portland are equipped for search and rescue operations. One duty aircraft provides day time cover with another held on standby. The royal naval air station Culdrose has a squadron of five Sea King Mks helicopters, all of which are capable of search and rescue operations. One aircraft is on duty at all times while another is held on standby.

  Malaysian Arms Deal
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many files marked "Not for NAO eyes" relating to the Malaysian arms deal are held in his Department.

  Mr. Aitken
  None.

  SSN Flotilla
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the modernisation of the SSN flotilla.

  Mr. Aitken
  I am pleased to announce that we have today placed a contract with Ferranti Thomson Sonar Systems—FTSS—for the full development and initial production of sonar 2076 which will be fitted to Trafalgar class fleet submarines.

  The contract has been awarded following competition and covers the provision of four boat sets and supporting shore equipment. At a price in excess of £180 million it is the largest single sonar order placed for some time and will continue to keep the Royal Navy at the forefront of sonar technology and capability into the foreseeable future.

  The contract is likely to create a number of new jobs and will safeguard hundreds of others at FTSS and at many sub-contractors, and will be welcomed by British industry.

EDUCATION

  Technology College Status
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have now expressed an interest in obtaining technology college status.

  Mr. Patten
  There has been a very encouraging level of interest from schools and businesses. More than 200 schools have made inquiries to my Department or the City Technology Colleges Trust on the technology college initiative.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the progress of the scheme for grant-maintained schools in Northumberland.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There is only one self-governing school in Northumberland at present—a much smaller proportion than in the country as a whole. But there is considerable interest at other schools, representatives from 50 of which attended one of the Department's conferences about grant-maintained status last year.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to establish freephone lines to advise the
  669
  public on grant-maintained school status on a national and regional basis; how long he expects such lines to be in operation; if they will offer a 24-hour a day service; and what is the estimate of cost.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the cost of the recent press advertisements promoting the availability. of information concerning grant-maintained school status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The cost of the present series of advertisements, designed to provide factual information on grant-maintained status to parents, governors and schools, will be about £200,000.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils are now being educated in self-governing grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Patten
  Over 530,000 pupils are now being educated in 814 self-governing schools. This represents 16 per cent. of England's secondary school population, and a significant and growing proportion of all primary school pupils.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools within Greater London have opted out of local education authority control; and how many have applications being considered by his Department.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  By 31 January, 145 schools were operating with grant-maintained status in the Greater London area, and two more had been approved for incorporation on 1 April. In addition, 14 schools had applications for grant-maintained status under consideration, and another six had voted in favour but had not yet published proposals.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many state-funded nursery school places are available in south Liverpool; and what is the annual demand for them.

  Mr. Forth
  Figures for south Liverpool are not held centrally. Nor is information collected on the demand for or supply of nursery school places as such. The Department's statistics relate to pupils attending maintained schools in whole local education authority areas.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what calculation he has made of the percentage of three and four-year-olds that could be provided for by local education authorities if the element in the standard spending assessment for nursery education was used fully for this purpose.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for local education authorities to determine what type and level of educational provision to make for under-fives. The number of under-fives who could be supported with a given level of expenditure would depend on the type of provision, mode of attendance and take up of places. Many parents choose to make use of the many and varied alternative provisions made by the significant voluntary and private sector.
  670
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those local education authorities which spend more than the element in the standard spending assessment for nursery education on providing places in nursery schools, units or classes.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on recent policy announcements on the availability of nursery education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations on nursery education in recent months.

  Truancy
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the correlation between truancy rates and teaching standards.

  Mr. Forth
  Many factors contribute to truancy, some of them outside the immediate control of schools. However, evidence from Office for Standards in Education inspections and other research suggests that there may be factors in pupils' classroom experience which contribute to the disaffection of some pupils and encourage them to stay away from school.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to cut down truancy.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department is currently supporting expenditure of some £9·6 million in 71 English local education authorities under the reducing truancy programme of the grants for education support and training —GEST—scheme 1993–94. The programme will be extended in 1994–95 to include a "Truancy Watch" component as a means of promoting community involvement. Approved projects will be announced shortly.

  Ministerial Visits
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will next be visiting Rochdale to discuss the educational needs of its population.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit Rochdale.

  Performance Tables
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools improved their performance in the school performance tables last year over that of the previous year.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The tables show that, on the most widely used measure of school performance—the percentage of 15-year-old pupils gaining five or more A to C grades at GCSE—62 per cent. of schools improved their performance in 1993 as compared with 1992. This is a most creditable performance by the schools concerned.
  671

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from Cornwall county council about the level of its financial allocation for capital expenditure projects for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  None. Local education authority bids for capital are dealt with consistently and fairly, in line with published criteria. Cornwall's annual capital guidelines are a reflection of the extent to which its plans for spending matched these criteria.

  Education Policies, Redbridge
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received in the last year about the education policies of the London borough of Redbridge.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received several representations, including from the hon. Member, about the admission of pupils to schools in Redbridge.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimates have been made of the adequacy of the supply of teachers of religious education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Our target intakes for initial teacher training provide for a 31 per cent. increase in recruitment to RE courses up to 1996–97—well above the average for secondary subjects. We review these targets annually.

  Capital Works
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current estimate of outstanding capital works in schools in England.

  Mr. Forth
  Information from the 1991 National Audit Office report on school buildings suggests that some £2 billion, at 1990 prices, was required to deal with the outstanding capital needs of school buildings. In 1994–95, Government support for capital and repair work at maintained schools will total over £600 million, much of which will go towards improving the school stock.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to reduce the amount of time it takes local education authorities to produce statements of special educational needs.

  Mr. Forth
  Subject to Parliament's approval, from September this year regulations will set time limits within which statements must be made and a code of practice will provide guidance on how those limits should be met. Normally, the process should take no more than 26 weeks from start to finish.

  Dearing Report
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the response of the teacher unions and associations following the publication of the Dearing report on the national curriculum and testing.
  672
  Mr. Robin Squire
  All the teacher unions have recognised the improvements to the national curriculum and testing embodied in the Dearing report. I welcome the subsequent action of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the National Association of Schoolmasters/ Union of Women Teachers in calling off their boycott of national tests. I hope that the National Union of Teachers will follow suit so that we can continue to raise standards in our schools in the interests of pupils.

  Training Targets
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations he has had from employers about national education and training targets.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend welcomes the continuing support from employers for the national education and training targets. He shares the view expressed to him by employers that the challenge presented by the targets must be met if the country is to remain competitive in the international marketplace.

  Surplus Places
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will reconsider the formulae by which he calculates surplus places in small schools in rural areas.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department assesses surplus places in the same way for all schools based on their physical capacity. We have always made it clear, however, that whether surplus places can be removed will depend on the type of school concerned and where it is.

  Further Education
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of secondary school pupils taking post-16 education remain in the same school rather than transferring to sixth-form colleges or other educational institutions.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Of the 16-year-olds who remained in full-time education in 1992–93, the proportion in school was 50·5 per cent.; 46·5 per cent. were in the same secondary school as when they were 15 years old, and 4 per cent. had transferred to another school. The proportion in sixth-form colleges was 12·2 per cent., while 37·3 per cent. went to other colleges of further education.

  School Discipline
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to(a) improve discipline in schools and (b) reduce the number of exclusions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend recently issued for consultation draft guidance on behaviour and discipline and on exclusions from school. The aim of the guidance is to help schools to improve standards of behaviour and to reduce the need to exclude pupils. Consultation lasts until 11 March, with a view to issuing guidance in final form in May.
  673

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Mr. Boswell
  No employees of this Department have been found guilty of fraud since 1989.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department's policy is to dismiss any employee who is convicted by the courts of fraud.

  Education Expenditure (Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much central Government money was spent per head of the population on education in Cornwall in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Regional Offices (Training)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give details of the training to be given to civil servants who will staff the proposed regional offices within the Department for Education.

  Mr. Boswell
  With effect from 1 May 1994, a group of staff working at the Department for Education will be given specific responsibility for regional links and for ensuring proper co-ordination with those Departments represented in the Government's integrated regional offices. Staff will be provided with training as appropriate to their individual needs.

  Student Publications
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the effect of his policy on student unions on the charitable work carried out by student rags.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government are determined to reform student unions and to secure that the principles of choice, democracy and accountability are universally observed in their activities. It is not our intention to jeopardise student services, for which funding will remain available in institutions' budgets.

  Office for Standards in Education
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of the setting up of the Office for Standards in Education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  When Ofsted was created on 1 September 1992, it incurred gross expenditure for the remainder of the financial year of £7·7 million.

  Regional Offices
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the estimated cost of setting up regional offices within his Department.
  674
  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has no plans to set up regional offices.

  Dance and Drama
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local education authorities made full discretionary awards for accredited courses for dance and drama in 1987 and in 1993; and if he will estimate the total population in the authorities that now make no discretionary awards at all.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Music and Arts Advisory Services
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which local education authorities still have(a) a music advisory service and (b) an arts advisory service.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information on these discretionary services is not collected by the Department. It is the Government's policy that, wherever possible, decisions about the need for such services and how best to obtain them should rest with the schools. Local education authorities may provide them if there is sufficient demand locally.

SCOTLAND

  Glenlight Shipping
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the criteria used by the Scottish Office in deciding the level of subsidies to shipping companies for general cargo and timber transportation; which Scottish companies are currently in receipt of these subsidies for general cargo and timber transportation; how much these subsidies have amounted to during each of the last five years for(a) general cargo and (b) timber transportation; and how much the Glenlight Shipping Company has received in respect of its transportation of timber for Caledonian Paper plc.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Each shipping operator's tariff rebate subsidy—TRS—allocation is based on the operator's estimates of traffic to be carried within the specified period and on previous years' actual traffic carried as compared with forecasts. The companies currently operating within the TRS scheme are listed in the table. All companies within the TRS scheme are eligible to receive subsidy on both general cargo and timber transportation. It is up to each individual company to decide on a commercial basis which commodities they wish to carry. Information is not available in the form requested for subsidy disaggregated between different commodities. The total amount of TRS paid during the last five years is also listed.

  Companies operating within the TRS scheme:

  P&O Scottish Ferries

  Orcargo

  Orkney Line Ltd.

  Shetland Line Ltd.

  Dennison (Shipping) Ltd.

  Easdale Island Shipping Line

  Gardner Shipping (Scotland) Ltd.

  Glenlight Shipping Ltd.

  Hay & Company (Lerwick) Ltd.

  Roderick Cunningham (Scalpay) Ltd.

  675

  P&O and bulk shippers' tariff rebate subsidy 1989–90 to 1993–94

  P&O

  Bulk Shippers

  1989–90

  4·3

  1·0

  1990–91

  5·0

  1·6

  1991–92

  4·2

  2·0

  1992–93

  4·3

  2·2

  11993–94

  6·8

  3·1

  1 Provision.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contact there has been between the Scottish Office and Caledonian Paper plc concerning the recent closure of the Glenlight Shipping Company and the implications for the operation of Caledonian Paper plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Glenlight Shipping Ltd. has not closed. The company is still operating, but has taken the commercial decision to discontinue bulk shipping operations in the highlands and islands area apart from the carriage of timber. The Scottish Office is continuing to provide tariff rebate subsidy to the company on the basis of eligible cargoes carried. There has been no contact between the Scottish Office and Caledonian Paper plc regarding this matter.

  Timber Barges
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the public subsidies payable by the Scottish Office to companies operating timber barges; and if he will retain the level of subsidy at the current levels.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are currently 10 shipping companies operating within the tariff rebate subsidy scheme and each of them is eligible for subsidy for the transportation of timber. Currently only one company, Glenlight Shipping Ltd., operates timber barges. The bulk

  Region and route number

  Section detrunked

  Date

  Borders

  A68

  That superseded by new section north of Packman's bridge to north of Drygrange bridge

  2 March 1989

  A7

  Ladhope Vale

  1 April 1991

  A68

  That superseded by Newtown St. Boswells bypass

  1 April 1991

  A1

  That superseded by Dunglass diversion

  1 April 1993

  Central

  A9

  That superseded by Dunblane bypass

  1 April 1991

  Dumfries and Galloway

  A75

  That superseded by Rinford bypass

  1 April 1989

  A75

  That superseded by Castle Douglas bypass

  1 April 1989

  A75

  That superseded by Glenluce bypass

  1 April 1990

  A75

  That superseded by Annan bypass

  1 April 1990

  A701/75

  That superseded by Dumfries bypass

  1 April 1991

  A701

  That superseded by Ae bridge diversion

  1 April 1991

  A75

  That superseded by Blackcraig improvement

  1 April 1992

  A75

  That superseded by Carrutherston to Hetland improvement

  1 April 1992

  A74

  Small sections of slip road to Kirkpatrick Fleming to Gretna special road

  1 April 1993

  Fife

  A92/987/907

  Admiralty interchange to Kirkcaldy

  1 April 1991

  A91

  Petheram roundabout, St. Andrews

  1 April 1993

  676
  transport of timber currently attracts a TRS rate of 40 per cent. Arrangements for the operation of the TRS scheme in 1994–95 have not yet been finalised.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he uses to determine that a trunk road should be detrunked.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Whether or not a road should cease to be a trunk road is a question of whether it should form part of a national system of routes for through traffic. Where a road ceases to fulfil a significant role in serving long-distance traffic, it will, therefore, be appropriate to detrunk it.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultation is carried out before a trunk road is detrunked.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As a matter of practice, consultations take place with all the local authorities for the area through which a road passes prior to publication of a notice by the Secretary of State of his intention to detrunk the road.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many roads or sections of roads in north-east Fife have been detrunked in the last five years for which information is available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  One. A Section of the A91 road at Petheram roundabout, St. Andrews was detrunked on 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Menzies-Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by region the roads or sections of roads that have been detrunked in the last five years for which information is available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is given in the table.
  677

  Region and route number

  Section detrunked

  Date

  Grampian

  A96

  That superseded by Forres bypass

  1 April 1989

  A92

  That superseded by Murcar to Balmedie improvement

  1 April 1989

  A92

  That superseded by Ellon bypass and Tipperty diversion

  1 April 1990

  A96

  That superseded by Inverurie bypass

  1 April 1991

  Highland

  A9

  That superseded by Mound bridges, Sutherland

  1 April 1989

  A830

  That superseded by Lochailort to Polnish bridge diversion

  1 April 1989

  A830

  That superseded by Mallaig to Glasmacardoch Bay diversion

  1 April 1989

  A9

  That superseded by Dunbeath bridge diversion

  1 April 1990

  A835

  That superseded by Garve railway bridge improvement

  1 April 1990

  A9

  That superseded by Dornoch Firth crossing

  1 April 1992

  A87

  That superseded by Dornie bypass

  1 April 1992

  Lothian

  M8

  Newbridge to Dechmont connecting roads

  31 March 1989

  A68

  That superseded by Sherriffhall roundabout

  1 April 1989

  A7

  That superseded by north Middleton diversion

  1 April 1990

  A7

  That superseded by Dalkeith western bypass

  1 April 1992

  Strathclyde

  A82

  That superseded by Arden to Auchentulloch diversion

  1 April 1989

  A82

  That superseded by Auchendennan to Arden bypass

  1 April 1989

  A82

  That superseded by Luss to Camus nan Clais improvement

  1 April 1990

  A76

  That superseded by Cumnock and Auchinleck bypass

  1 April 1992

  A74

  That superseded by Millbank to Nether Abington special road

  1 April 1992

  A82

  That superseded by Luss bypass

  1 April 1992

  A77

  That superseded by Bennane Hill bypass

  1 April 1992

  A74

  That superseded by Elvanfoot to Paddy's Rickle bridge special road

  1 April 1993

  A80

  City of Glasgow district boundary to Crow Wood superseded by Stepps bypass

  1 April 1993

  Tayside

  A972/929

  That superseded by Kingsway to Powrie improvement

  1 April 1989

  A91
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future of the A91 road from the M90 to Cupar.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are at present no plans which would affect the future of the A91 from the M90 to Cupar. The question whether the whole of the A91 should be retained as a trunk road is one which we shall consider as part of an examination of the whole of the trunk and primary route network consequent upon reorganisation of local government.

  Rose McCormack
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to examine the circumstances surrounding the death of Rose McCormack and her baby in Grangemouth.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is fully aware of the circumstances of these tragic deaths, since their 678
  circumstances were reported by the police to the procurator fiscal at Falkirk, who in the normal way examined in detail what had occurred.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed;

  (2) what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Mr. Lang
  Staff who are involved in fraud are dealt with under departmental disciplinary proceedings. A range of disciplinary penalties is available, including dismissal. Depending on the circumstances of the case criminal proceedings may also be brought against the member of staff concerned.

  The number of financial frauds which have been recorded since 1989 are as follows:

  679

  Year

  Number

  1989

  2

  1990

  1

  1991

  5

  1992

  2

  1993

  5

  Eight of the cases have resulted in dismissal.

  NHS Trusts (Pay)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cars each national health service trust and health board has bought as part of a payment package for senior personnel in the last year; and what is the average value of such cars.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 74, on the percentage rise of national health service trust chief executives' pay between 1992 and 1993, how many chief executives exceeded the 1·5 per cent. norm for settlements; and by how much in each case.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has received from Atomic Energy Authority Technology in regard to its imminent plans to increase radioactive discharges from its Dounreay reprocessing plant in Caithness.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Following an application by AEA Technology for revised limits Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate is currently reviewing the AEA Technology authorisations to dispose of solid, liquid and gaseous wastes. The applications for revised certificates of authorisation have been placed on public registers where they are available for inspection, at the offices of the inspectorate and at the offices of Caithness district and Highland regional councils.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appointments he has made within his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Scotland for each year since June 1987.

  Mr. Lang
  The information held centrally by my Department does not show the number of appointments made in any given year. The total number of appointees at 1 September 1993 to non-departmental public bodies, NHS bodies and nationalised industries which are the responsibility of my Department is shown in the summary tables in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1993", copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House. Information about the total numbers of appointees in earlier years is available in previous editions of this annual publication.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many relatives of Conservative hon. Members have been appointed to public bodies in Scotland since 1987; and if he will make a statement.
  680
  Mr. Lang
  The relationship of those appointed to non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department is neither sought nor recorded.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all public body appointments made by him where the current annual salary is(a) over and (b) under £10,000.

  Mr. Lang
  The remuneration of those appointed to non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department is listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1993", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the local councillors appointed to Scottish hospital trusts, giving the political affiliation in each case.

  Mr. Stewart
  On the basis of the information held centrally the position is as follows:—

  Party

  Angus Community NHS Trust

  Mr. G. Norrie

  Independent

  Caithness and Sutherland Hospitals NHS Trust

  Rev. A. Murray

  Independent

  Mr. J. Rosie

  Independent

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals

  NHS Trusts

  Mr. E. Gibson

  SNP

  Mr. G. Willacy

  Labour

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. I. Borthwick

  Independent

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  Mr. P. Fawcett

  Labour

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. J. M. Humphrey

  Conservative

  Hairmyres and Storehouse Hosptials NHS Trust

  Mrs. M. Mitchell

  Conservative

  Perth and Kinross NHS Trust

  Mr. J. Mathieson

  Conservative

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. B. Baird

  Conservative

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  Mr. P. Johnston

  SNP

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  Mrs. J. E. Cameron

  Conservative

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the members of political parties appointed by him to public bodies each year since 1987; and if he will give the political affiliation of each.

  Mr. Lang
  Appointments are made on the basis of aptitude and merit. I do not make appointments of members of political parties in that capacity and no central record is kept of the political affiliation of those appointed to public bodies.
  681

  Scottish Homes
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Scottish Homes is seeking revenue subsidy for housing associations from local authorities in all parts of Scotland; and what such grants have already been made.

  Mr. Lang
  Scottish Homes does not seek revenue subsidy for housing association from local authorities. If associations undertake activities jointly with local authorities, the funding of such activities is for negotiation between the parties concerned.

  Criminals (Employment Status)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the employment status of persons convicted of crimes in Scotland in the last five years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The only information collected centrally on the employment status of persons convicted of crime relates to crimes of homicide and can be found in the statistical bulletin, "Homicide in Scotland 1983–1992".

  Highlands and Islands Objective 1 Plan
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he expects to announce the location of the secretariat for the administration of the highlands and islands objective 1 plan; how many personnel he expects to be employed within the secretariat; and when the appointment of the head of administration will be announced;

  (2) what representations his Department has received regarding the location of the secretariat for the administration of the highlands and islands objective 1 plan; if he will give details of any submissions which have suggested locating the venture outwith Inverness district; and if he will give details of the submissions which have suggested locating the venture on an island.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: As part of the process of drawing up the highlands and islands objective 1 plan, the Scottish Office has had discussions with the various agencies involved about the possibility of establishing a programme executive within the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area. Those discussions have focused on locating the executive in the Inverness area, although not necessarily within Inverness district. There have been no formal submissions on the location, but in responding to the draft plan, the following suggestions were made:

  Organisation

  Proposed location

  Sutherland District Council

  Sutherland

  Argyll and Bute District Council

  Oban

  Ross and Cromarty District Council

  Ross and Cromarty

  Western Isles Islands Council

  Western Isles/Stornoway

  Shetland Islands Council

  Shetland

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Argyll and Bute

  Lewis Council of Social Service

  Western Isles

  Western Isles Objective 1 Group

  Western Isles

  An announcement about the appointment of the programme director will be made shortly. Under the terms of an interim agreement with Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the director will be employed by HIE and his office will be located in their headquarters in Inverness.
  682
  One of his initial tasks will be to prepare more detailed proposals for the functioning of the executive including staff numbers and their location.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will take to ensure that assistance from the European structural funds, under objective 1, will be channelled into crofting.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: Crofters already benefit from a range of national and EC structural support measures which will continue under objective 1. In addition, the objective 1 plan which was recently submitted to the European Commission allows for consideration to be given to additional measures to help crofters to increase efficiency and improve the quality of their produce.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the general practitioner fundholders operating within the Ayrshire and Arran health board area; what is the size of the budgets under their control; and if he will make a statement on the criteria which GP practices have to fulfil in order to gain fund holding status.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: Three fund-holding practices have been operating within the board area from 1 April 1993: Dr. Richardson and partner, Institute avenue, Catrine combined with Dr. Cleland and partners, High street, Mauchline; Dr. Thomson and partners, 8 Cathcart street, Ayr and Dr. McSherry and partners, 9 Frew terrace, Irvine.

  Details of the allotted sums, or funds, determined by the health board and deployed by a GP fundholding practice are published annually in each individual practice's audited annual accounts. Such audited accounts are not yet available for 1993–94.

  The health board is required to determine each application according to the National Health Service (Fundholding Practices) (Scotland) Regulations 1993— SI 1993 No. 488. The main criteria to be fulfilled to gain GP fundholding status are that the practice, or group of practices, must have a list size of at least 6,000 patients; the fundholding application must be made by all members of the practice partnership; the practice must demonstrate that it has the managerial capability and resource plans necessary to manage a fund effectively and efficiently; and it must have a computer system to support the effective and efficient management of the fund.

  Dental Practices
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dental practices accepted national health service patients in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: No information is held on dental practices. The number of individual dentists registered on health board dental lists to provide national health service general dental services in each of the four health board areas within Strathclyde region and the total number of dentists registered in

  683
  Scotland is contained in the table. Information for individual local government districts and regional areas is not available.

  Number of dentists on health board dental lists in Scotland at 31 December

  Year

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Greater Glasgow

  Lanarkshire

  Scotland

  1978

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1,188

  1979

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1,207

  1980

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1,251

  1981

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1,294

  1982

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1,334

  1983

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1,379

  1984

  113

  110

  263

  131

  1,360

  1985

  115

  112

  263

  133

  1,392

  1986

  122

  114

  282

  137

  1,456

  1987

  132

  122

  289

  142

  1,511

  1988

  133

  113

  299

  137

  1,528

  1989

  137

  112

  328

  140

  1,587

  1990

  141

  118

  337

  142

  1,626

  1991

  157

  118

  340

  147

  1,666

  1992

  160

  120

  348

  141

  1,680

  1993

  165

  126

  358

  147

  1,774

  1 Information before December 1984 is not available for dentists registered with individual health boards

  Prescriptions
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of prescriptions dealt with in each year since 1978–79; and, of this total, how many were(a) free of charge, (b) covered by a pre-payment certificate, (c) paid for as a straightforward commercial transaction and (d) paid for in some other way.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: The available information is as shown in the table.

  No breakdown is available between those prescription items which were free from charges and those covered by a pre-payment certificate. Column 5 shows, where available, the value of the pre-payment certificates issued in the respective years. No information is available regarding prescriptions paid for in some other way.

  NHS prescriptions (Scotland)

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Year

  Number of prescription items

  Number dispensed free of charge

  Number paid for directly

  Value of pre-payment certificates £

  Million

  Million

  Million

  Million

  1978–79

  35·78

  22·35

  13·43

  N/A

  1979–80

  35·61

  23·16

  12·45

  N/A

  1980–81

  35·49

  24·88

  10·61

  N/A

  1981–82

  35·46

  26·23

  9·23

  0·85

  1982–83

  36·50

  27·69

  8·81

  1·00

  1983–84

  37·24

  28·77

  8·47

  1·10

  1984–85

  37·77

  29·75

  8·02

  1·27

  1985–86

  37·87

  30·53

  7·34

  1·45

  1986–87

  38·51

  31·56

  6·95

  1·64

  1987–88

  40·05

  33·27

  6·78

  1·81

  1988–89

  41·12

  34·41

  6·71

  2·02

  1989–90

  43·25

  36·36

  6·89

  2·27

  1990–91

  44·37

  37·70

  6·67

  2·63

  1991–92

  46·48

  39·89

  6·59

  3·07

  1992–93

  48·30

  41·79

  6·51

  3·50

  684

  Dental Treatment
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pregnant women received free dental treatment in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: All pregnant women and women who have had a child within the previous 12 months are exempt from NHS dental charges and receive free dental treatment. Information is recorded on courses of treatment rather than individual patients treated. The total number of courses of dental treatment received by pregnant women and nursing mothers is contained in the table.

  Number of courses of dental treatment for pregnant and nursing women in Scotland

  Year (calendar)

  Number of courses of treatment

  1978

  80,009

  1979

  82,830

  1980

  89,207

  1981

  92,253

  1982

  93,947

  1983

  93,066

  1984

  92,608

  1985

  95,162

  1986

  98,565

  1987

  98,390

  1988

  98,796

  1989

  107,981

  1990

  103,873

  1991

  118,000

  1992

  118,060

  1993

  115,436

  Council House Sales
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authority houses have been sold since the introduction of right-to-buy legislation in each district council area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  685

  Right to buy sales of local authority dwellings

  Area

  2Number

  Scotland

  201,485

  Fife

  Berwickshire

  821

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1,412

  Roxburgh

  1,527

  Tweeddale

  451

  Central

  Clackmannan

  2,307

  Falkirk

  8,201

  Stirling

  3,534

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,688

  Nithsdale

  2,524

  Stewartry

  907

  Wigtown

  1,428

  Fife

  Dunfermline1

  6,878

  Kirkcaldy

  7,340

  North East Fife

  3,153

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  7,716

  Banff and Buchan

  3,695

  Gordon

  1,932

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,009

  Moray

  3,547

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  454

  Caithness

  998

  Inverness

  1,996

  Lochaber

  963

  Nairn

  327

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,364

  Skye and Lochalsh

  241

  Sutherland

  401

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  4,989

  Edinburgh

  15,611

  Midlothian

  4,132

  West Lothian

  4,944

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  2,063

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  439

  Clydebank

  2,940

  Clydesdale

  1,849

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1,143

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  1,881

  Cunninghame

  5,079

  Dumbarton

  2,321

  East Kilbride

  588

  Eastwood

  600

  Glasgow

  25,297

  Hamilton

  5,684

  Inverclyde

  2,875

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  3,588

  Kyle and Carrick

  5,518

  Monklands

  5,586

  Motherwell

  6,351

  Renfrew

  9,027

  Strathkelvin

  3,135

  Tayside

  Angus

  3,681

  Dundee

  8,704

  Perth and Kinross

  4,918

  Islands Councils

  Orkney Islands

  533

  Shetland Islands

  503

  Western Isles

  692

  686

  1 Return outstanding for quarter 2 1993.

  2 Sales from October 1980 to June 1993.

  Milk
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secetary of State for Scotland how many gallons of milk were consumed in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how many gallons of milk were produced in Scotland in that year.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: The volume of milk produced and sold through milk marketing schemes in Scotland in 1992 was 1,156 million litres. The volume used for consumption as liquid milk was 662 million litres.

  Meigle Cottage Hospital
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the representations his Department has received regarding the future of Meigle cottage hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: Since March 1991, the Scottish Office Home and Health Department has received 37 letters from 29 individuals regarding the future of Meigle cottage hospital.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what details of population growth for the Blairgowrie cottage hospital and the Meigle cottage hospital which were used to determine the hospital needs for both these catchment areas.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: Tayside health board has responsibility to assess the needs of the local population and to obtain appropriate services to meet these needs. In doing so, it takes into account a wide range of factors including predicted changes in the size and composition of the local population. In the particular case of Meigle and Blairgowrie, I understand that the health board used the population projections of the General Registrar's office.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the report by the Forestry Commission on the review of access to Forestry Commission woodlands after sale.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: I shall arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library shortly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Goode Report
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he proposes to reform the law on pensions in the light of the Goode report.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 31 January.
  687

  Rhinitis
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council regarding its proposed inquiry into occupational rhinitis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I wrote to the chairman of the council, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 23 September 1993, asking the council to consider and advise on whether the present prescription of the prescribed disease D4—inflamation of the mucous membrane of the upper respiratory passages or mouth—should be changed and, if the council concludes that it should, for recommendations on revised terms of prescription.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if a person enrolled on a full-time training course supported by(a) training for work or (b) the European social fund and attending an educational establishment, is eligible for (i) housing benefit or (ii) council tax benefit; how their training allowance is taken into account in assessing the amount of benefit they should receive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  A person attending a full-time training for work course is eligible for housing benefit and council tax benefit, subject to normal rules. The training allowance is taken into account in assessing benefit entitlement, but any payment reimbursing travelling expenses, any training premium and, in certain circumstances, any living away from home allowance is disregarded.

  A person attending a full-time training course supported by the European social fund, which does not fall within the definition of a training allowance, is ineligible for housing benefit and council tax benefit unless he or she is a member of the vulnerable groups, including disabled people and lone parents.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide full details of the arrangements for awarding performance-related pay to staff employed by the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Total cost of DSS proposals for 1993–94 and PES period

  £ million, cash

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Phasing

  5

  35

  20

  15

  Increase in protected income margins to £30 and 15 per cent.

  5

  35

  50

  60

  Reduction in additional deduction rate

  Negligible

  5

  5

  5

  Reduction of 25 per cent, in the amount of maintenance for caring parent once child 11, and again at 14

  Negligible

  10

  10

  15

  Total cost of proposals

  15

  85

  85

  95

  Effect of rescheduling of work to accommodate implementation of changes

  30

  15

  —

  —

  TOTAL effect of programme costs

  45

  100

  85

  95

  Note: Figures have been rounded to the nearest £5 million. Amounts less than £2·5 million are treated as negligible. Totals may not sum because of rounding.
  688
  Mr. Burt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) by the chief executive of the Child Support Agency on 19 January 1994, at column 797.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the estimated reduction in yield to the Child Support Agency arising in a full year from the reduction in extra maintenance payments from 25p in every additional pound of assessable income to 15p and 20p if there are two children;

  (2) what is the estimated reduction in yield in a full year to the Child Support Agency arising from the reduction of one quarter in the care element of the maintenance requirement for a child over 11 years and of a further quarter when the youngest child reaches 14 years;

  (3) what is his estimate of the total sum forgone by the Child Support Agency as a result of the changes to the child support system announced by his Department on 22 December;

  (4) if he will estimate the reduction in yield to the Child Support Agency of the phasing proposals set out in the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1994;

  (5) what is the estimated reduction in yield to the Child Support Agency arising in a full year from the increase in the level of protected income above income support from £8 to £30 and the lop in the pound to 15p.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money he has made available for the cost of the modifications announced on 22 December 1993 to the Child Support Act 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  The estimated costs of the changes to the assessment formula and of the extension to the provisions for phasing in new amounts of maintenance are in the table.

  These estimates are derived using the assumptions about volume of cases, taking account of factors such as time taken, throughput and compliance rates underlying the figures published in the agency's business plan, and do not, at this stage, make any allowance for changes in these variables in response to this package of changes.
  689
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost to the Child Support Agency of the withdrawal of the collection fee in cases where maintenance is being paid direct to the parent with care.

  Mr. Burt
  It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of the cases affected. The number is likely to be small, so it is anticipated that the cost will therefore be minimal.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the Child Support Agency's administrative budget for 1993–94 and for the next three financial years.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  £ million

  1993–94

  120

  1994–95

  135

  1995–96

  136

  Sources:

  1993–94 Winter Supplementary Estimate, November 1993.

  1994–96 DSS Departmental Report 1993.

  Invalidity benefit spells commencing by period

  Period

  Total spells commencing (ii)

  Total spells

  Total spells

  All men

  Per cent.

  All women

  Per cent.

  7 June 1971 to 3 June 1972

  636,000

  526,000

  83

  110,000

  17

  5 June 1972 to 2 June 1973

  416,000

  365,000

  88

  51,000

  12

  4 June 1973 to 1 June 1974

  453,000

  400,000

  88

  53,000

  12

  3 June 1974 to 31 May 1975

  459,000

  403,000

  88

  56,000

  12

  1 September 1975 to 6 June 1976

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  7 June 1976 to 4 June 1977

  520,000

  440,000

  85

  79,000

  15

  6 June 1977 to 3 June 1978

  562,000

  473,000

  84

  89,000

  16

  5 June 1978 to 2 June 1979

  621,000

  518,000

  83

  103,000

  17

  4 June 1979 to 31 May 1980

  543,000

  439,000

  81

  103,000

  19

  2 June 1980 to 30 May 1981

  365,000

  283,000

  78

  81,000

  22

  1 June 1981 to 29 May 1982

  303,000

  229,000

  76

  74,000

  24

  5 April 1982 to 2 April 1983

  305,000

  225,000

  74

  80,000

  26

  4 April 1983 to 31 March 1984

  278,000

  205,000

  74

  72,000

  26

  2 April 1984 to 30 March 1985

  272,000

  199,000

  73

  73,000

  27

  1 April 1985 to 5 April 1986

  285,000

  207,000

  73

  78,000

  27

  7 April 1986 to 4 April 1987

  284,000

  202,000

  71

  83,000

  29

  6 April 1987 to 2 April 1988

  282,000

  201,000

  71

  81,000

  29

  4 April 1988 to 1 April 1989

  280,000

  199,000

  71

  81,000

  29

  3 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  284,000

  208,000

  73

  76,000

  27

  2 April 1990 to 30 March 1991

  288,000

  204,000

  71

  83,000

  29

  1 April 1991 to 4 April 1992

  323,000

  233,000

  72

  90,000

  28

  Notes:

  (i) All figures are for Great Britain and are based on a 2·5 per cent. sample up to 1974–75; a 2 per cent. sample up to 1977–78; and a 1 per cent. sample thereafter. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and percentages are rounded to the nearest whole per cent.

  (ii) May include two or more spells commencing for the same person.

  (iii) Figures include spells where benefit is not paid because of entitlement to overlapping benefits.

  (ix) There are no figures available for 1975–76 as this was an incomplete statistical year.

  Invalidity Pension
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make to people whose entitlement to earnings-related invalidity pension based on contributions paid since 1978 is to be abolished will receive a refund of the contributions proportionate to the reduction in benefit.
  690
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Child Support Agency will be publishing an annual report; and how the public will be able to obtain it.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 31 January 1994:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency's annual report.
  As stated in its Business Plan for 1993–94, the Agency intends to publish an Annual Report in the summer of 1994. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House, and will also be available from the Agency's headquarters at Millbank Tower.
  I hope you find this letter helpful.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of successful claims for invalidity benefit for each year since inception of the scheme broken down by sex; and what proportion of claims by each sex represented the total.

  Mr. Scott
  National insurance contributions correctly paid at the time of payment are not refundable. We have no plans to change this position.
  691

  Social Fund Loans
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families were refused loans from the social fund because they were too poor to repay them or because they were considered of insufficient priority within the budget.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. General information on refused loan applications is published in my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State's annual report on the social fund for 1992–93, which is in the Library.

  Hearing Loss
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many representations he has received on the increasing of minimum assessment to 20 per cent. in cases of hearing loss among ex-service men; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many representations he has received from associations representing ex-service men and women on the proposed increase to 20 per cent. of the minimum assessment figure of those suffering from hearing loss; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available on how many further representations have been made since the change became effective.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of ex-service men and women receiving war service and disability pensions suffer from hearing defects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefits (Calculation)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reduce the nominal amount of income assumed on savings for calculation of benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 16 December, at column 837.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema (Compensation)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend the recent arrangements to compensate former mineworkers who suffer from severe bronchitis and emphysema as a result of their employment to make similar provision for workers in the steel industry who suffer from these diseases as a result of the conditions of their employment.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no such plans. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council concluded in its report "Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema", Cm 2091, that, on present evidence, it could not recommend prescription of the diseases in relation to metal production workers.

  Income Support Personal Allowance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if a step-child living with a parent with care is taken into account for the purposes of deciding if the absent parent's liability for the income support personal allowance is reduced to 50 per cent.
  692
  Mr. Burt
  No.

  Child Support Act 1991
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how much it will cost to implement the modifications announced on 22 December 1993 to the Child Support Act 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  The final cost of implementing the changes is difficult to estimate as the impact extends over several years, until all phasing cases are dealt with. Initial indications suggest that the total work involved would cost in the region of £3 million, which it is intended to absorb within current estimates.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the cost of the modifications announced on 22 December 1993 to the Child Support Act is being made available from the budget for(a) 1993–94 or (b) 1994–95.

  Mr. Burt
  The changes will have some effect on expenditure in the current financial year: this will be met from the Reserve and will not add to the planned total of public expenditure. A supplementary estimate will be sought shortly. The main financial impact of the changes will be in 1994–95 and subsequent years.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether the assessment forms issued to absent parents under the terms of the Child Support Act 1991 indicate that any information disclosed in the assessment forms will be disclosed to the other parties directly involved in that assessment;

  (2) whether the assessment forms issued to absent parents under the terms of the Child Support Act 1991 indicate that any information disclosed in the form is confidential and for the use of the Child Support Agency only.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 31 January 1994:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security requesting information about the maintenance enquiry forms used by the Child Support Agency.
  When the Agency takes on a case, the absent parent is sent a maintenace enquiry pack. In this pack, the absent parent is advised that, as part of the Department of Social Security, the Agency is bound by very strict rules of confidentiality. The pack also makes clear that, unless ordered to do so by Court Order, the Agency will not normally disclose an address or telephone number to the other party without the absent parent's specific permission.
  In addition, the Child Support Agency Charter states that, like the courts, the Agency is required by law to let both parents know what financial information was used to make the maintenance assessment.
  I hope that you find this reply useful.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed;
  693
  (2) what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Mr. Hague
  Allegations of internal fraud are investigated under the Department's disciplinary procedures. Where an employee is considered, on the balance of probabilities, to have committed such an offence, dismissal would be appropriate.

  Since 1989, a total of 68 officers have been dismissed in such circumstances or have resigned during the course of an investigation. The yearly breakdown is as follows:

  Number

  1989

  9

  1990

  6

  1991

  13

  1992

  18

  1993

  21

  1994 to date

  1

  Pensions
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, columns 424–25, if he will list the organisations and individuals which have been issued with a copy of the consultation document on age-related benefits.

  Mr. Hague
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 January 1994, columns 20–22]: The following organisation also received copies of the consultation document on age-related rebates: Confederation of British Industry.

  Industrial Injury Claims
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amount was recovered, under section 22 of the Social Security Act 1989, from the damages paid to victims of industrial injury for Durham for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  This 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 Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 31 January 1994:

  September 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  April 1992 to March 1993

  April 1993 to December 1993

  Number of benefit claimants who have repaid benefits to the CRU

  3,390

  19,181

  44,398

  25,888

  Sum of money recouped by the CRU from benefit claimants

  £3·6 million

  £25·4 million

  £51·3 million

  £56 million

  I hope my reply has been helpful.

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give his Department's estimate of the number of people in receipt of state old-age pensions who are also in receipt of(a) housing benefit and (b) income support for each year since 1980; and what he estimates the figure will be for 1994–95.
  694
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the amount recovered, under Section 22 of the Social Security Act 1989, from damages paid to victims of industrial injury in Durham since 1989.
  Firstly, I should explain that the information is not available in the precise format requested. This is because information held is by Benefits Agency (BA) Districts whose boundaries do not correspond exactly with those of counties. I have, however, provide below information relating to the BA Districts of North and South Durham which most closely cover the Durham area.
  The Recovery Scheme did not begin to operate until September 1990 and the amount recovered for the period September 1990 to March 1991 is £862·00
  From April 1991 to March 1992 the amount was in the region of £30,000; from April 1992 to March 1993 it was £558,000.
  The total amount recouped for the period April 1993 to the latest date that figures are available, December 1993, is in the region of £733,000.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Compensation Payments
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the total number of benefits claimants who have been awarded compensation for injury or disease and who have repaid benefits to the compensation recovery unit under the Social Security Act 1990, in each year since 1990;

  (2) what was the total sum of money claimed back under the Social Security Act 1990 by the compensation recovery unit from benefit claimants who have been awarded compensation for injury or disease in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Scott
  This 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 Mr. John Denham, dated 31 January 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking about the numbers of benefit claimants who have been awarded compensation for injury or disease and have repaid benefits to Compensation Recovery Unit in each year since 1990; and the total recovered in these cases.
  I have provided the information you require in the table below. It should be noted, however, that figures are only available from the Recovery Scheme's inception in September 1990 up to December 1993, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table.

  Estimated number (000s) of cases where state retirement pension is received

  Year

  With housing benefit only

  With both housing benefit and income support

  With income support only

  1988

  1,040

  920

  692

  1989

  1,070

  810

  538

  1990

  1,051

  788

  629

  1991

  1,048

  682

  620

  1992

  1,049

  626

  721

  695
  Sources:

  Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries May 1988 to May 1992.

  Housing Benefit Statistics Annual Eqnuiries May 1988 to May 1992.

  Notes:

  1. Average figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand and are per benefit unit and not per individual. A benefit unit may be a single person or a couple.

  2. For all years, Housing Benefit has been defined as rent rebate and rent allowance.

  3. The Income Support scheme was not introduced until April 1988; Housing Benefit information prior to this date in the form requested is not held.

  4. There will be an element of double counting in the 1988 figure for those on Income Support only, as this includes both claimants and partners where both are in receipt of a state Retirement Pension.

  5. Estimates for 1993–94 and projected figures for 1994–95 are not available.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what is his estimate of the payments per employed worker into occupational or private pensions schemes for each year since 1980; and what he estimates the figure will be for 1994–95.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table. Estimates for 1994–95 are not available.
  696

  Year

  Workforce1 (millions)

  Aggregate payments2 (£ billions)

  Payments per employed worker (£)

  1980

  25·301

  13,350

  527·60

  1981

  24·323

  16,490

  677·90

  1982

  23·888

  16,954

  709·73

  1983

  23·595

  17,763

  752·80

  1984

  24·051

  18,542

  770·90

  1985

  24·354

  19,059

  782·60

  1986

  24·354

  19,540

  803·00

  1987

  24·774

  20,304

  819·60

  1988

  25·580

  21,401

  836·60

  1989

  26·231

  24,537

  935·40

  1990

  26·514

  25,289

  953·80

  1991

  25·691

  28,294

  1,103·30

  1992

  25·119

  29,152

  1,160·60

  1 Size of the employed workforce in June of each year, 1980 to 1992 (United Kingdom seasonally adjusted to include those in full-time and part-time employment, self-employment, and the armed forces).

  2 Aggregate payments into occupational and personal pensions by employees and employers at current prices. The information relates only to current payments into occupational or personal pensions by both employers and employees. The data does not give a full picture of total pension rights being accrued as these will continue to increase during any contribution holidays.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Westminster Council: District Auditor's Report
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view of the actions of Westminster City councillors., as described in the report of the District Auditor a summary of which was published on 13th January 1994.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, this is a matter for the council, its auditor and its electors, not for the Government. It would be wrong to comment on any particular case until the legal processes are complete. If the allegations are proved to be true the Government will unreservedly condemn the actions of the councillors responsible.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, that is the form of reply I expected and I suppose I must be grateful. Is the Minister aware, however, that on 1st July 1991 I asked a specific Question of the Minister at the Dispatch Box about whether what Westminster City Council was doing at that time in its housing policy was in accord with government policy? The following phrases were used by the Minister in her answer:
"those proposals appear to be sensible and they do not conflict with government policy … that can only be a good thing and an imaginative way of addressing the problem … the Question attacks a very good scheme which addresses a difficult problem for West minster".—[0fficial Report, 1/7/91; col. 770.]
I suggest to the Minister that it is now a little too late to say that the matter has nothing to do with the Government. More than once attention has been drawn to it by Members of your Lordships' House other than myself—
Noble Lords: Question !
Lord Dean of Beswick: Does the Minister not agree that according to answers given at that time the Government were involved and knew what Westminster City Council was doing? If there was no collusion, there was certainly agreement that it could carry on with what it was doing.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can say to the noble Lord that, to the very best of my knowledge, the Government were not aware that this was happening. Indeed, it came to the notice of the Government in 1991 through press reports.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the District Auditor published these very serious charges against a number of councillors
1184
before he had given them any opportunity to reply? Is not that wholly contrary to natural justice and does it riot indicate that the District Auditor is unfitted to his post?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no, it does not suggest that the District Auditor is unfitted to his post. He knows exactly what he is doing. What he is allowed to do is laid down perfectly well by statute. It is in the 1982 Act. That statute has passed through both. Houses of Parliament.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in the light of the Answer given to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, will the Government now retract statements that have been made about other councils which have got up to various shenanigans down the years about which the Government have not been afraid to comment'?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am slightly disappointed that the noble Lord brings party politics into the situation—
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Arran: This is a set of very grave and serious allegations. They should be totally independent of any form of party politics.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not absolutely deplorable that before persons charged with serious offences have had the opportunity of making their defence, which they are entitled to do, attempts should be made in this House to prejudge the issue? Where is our sense of natural justice? Where is our sense of common decency? Where is our sense of British fair play?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. It is important that the Government are seen to be completely independent and completely impartial.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, as someone who has been responsible for following through two district auditors' reports, may I ask the Minister whether he really believes that there is any chance of Mr. John Magill changing his provisional views? Appreciating, from experience, that he is not likely to make claims that he cannot substantiate, is not the evidence of malpractice therefore conclusive?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not precisely certain what the noble Baroness is asking. Perhaps she can elaborate at some later date.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend think that in view of the fact—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I think that my noble friend should be allowed to ask his question.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend think that, as this is a matter upon which the courts will be asked to adjudicate, both Parliament and parliamentarians should, in the circumstances, show a

1185
little reticence instead of trying to muddy the waters which can only result in something less than justice being done?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The courts could be asked to adjudicate. But that is by no means certain. In the meantime, the case is semi-sub judice, so to speak. Perhaps I may make clear that if the case did go to the courts it would of course become sub judice.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a paper entitled Home Ownership Proposals was produced to a meeting of the chairmen's group of the Westminster City Council on 27th January 1987, and the chairmen's group decided to take the proposals forward? Is he further aware that among the proposals contained in the paper was a paragraph which reads:
"The short term objective must be to target the marginal wards and, as a matter of utmost urgency, redress the imbalance by encouraging a pattern of tenure which is more likely to translate into Conservative votes"?
Are not those precisely the proposals that the then Minister approved on 1st July 1991; those that "appear to be sensible" and do not appear to "conflict with government policy"?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not aware of those remarks made back in 1987. We would do well this afternoon not to go over government policy on homelessness. It is neither the right time nor the right occasion for that. This Question pertains entirely to the situation surrounding Westminster City Council.
Lord Avebury: My Lords—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords—
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches, I think.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, further to the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has it always been the Government's policy to refrain from commenting upon alleged misconduct by local authority members until convictions are secured in a court of law?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, when the district auditor is called in, that is the case.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is an interim report. To my knowledge, no government have ever commented upon interim reports. I hope that this Government will continue that practice.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is right. That is the machinery laid down in the 1982 Act.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the use in his first Answer of the word "allegations" is incorrect? It was the District Auditor who acted on the basis of certain allegations that had been made. The procedure that he has since followed conforms fully with the Local Government Finance Act, the shortcomings of which were pointed out to the Government by me and others during its passage through this House.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, nevertheless the Bill did go through this House. It went through another place as well. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear continually, if he believes that there are things which could be improved upon or matters that could be put right, after the case is over he will examine them.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that a little while ago he appeared to promulgate a doctrine that when there might be legal action pending, an issue was semi- sub judice? He postulates a position in which almost every issue of public discussion would be precluded from being brought before the public. Will he repudiate that rather extraordinary doctrine which some of his more senior noble and noble and learned friends seem to have accepted in a desperate attempt to defend Westminster City Council, in sharp contrast to the position in which councils of a different political persuasion have been arraigned for sins in the past?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the auditor is following procedures laid down by statute and conducted in a quasi-judicial manner. That is how the law stands at the moment. That is how the law will stand unless and until Parliament decides to change it.

British Rail: Off-Peak Fares
2.48 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their attitude to the reported plan to withdraw cut-price off-peak travel on British Rail prior to privatisation.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, BR has no plans to withdraw cut-price off-peak travel.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving that helpful Answer. Is he aware that the Question was prompted by an item in all national newspapers which said that plans to phase out off-peak fares which permit passengers to travel anywhere on the network were in the final stages of preparation? I welcome the Minister's assurance. Since more than 50 per cent. of BR's passengers enjoy the facilities of off-peak travel, have the Government any ideas about how that will operate when the network is fragmented, as I understand that franchisees will observe a network plan for full fares but not for off-peak fares? Will that not result in substantial additions to the cost of travel in this country?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we believe that it will be in the commercial interest of private operators to offer discount fares to attract passengers and thereby maximise off-peak revenue. Anxieties have been raised about the issue of inter-availability. However, the flexibility and convenience of commonly-priced inter-available tickets must be balanced against the wider choice of differently priced services.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree or disagree with the statement made by Mr. Michael Beswick, when presenting a BR report about through ticketing, that the impression given that railway companies would honour each other's tickets was "a bit of a con" and that phasing out cheap fares was the best way of income-maximising for the railway industry as a whole? Will the Minister also comment on the effect that any such back-door fare increase will have on the travelling public, who were promised that rail privatisation would not involve increased rail fares?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we refute the contention of back-door fare rises. The document in question was prepared by BR for a working group. It had not been seen by Ministers and does not represent government policy. However, I believe that the British Rail manager concerned was making the point that a lot of people travel using discounted tickets.

Credit Agencies: Data Errors
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further measures they intend to introduce to protect individuals from serious errors in data held by credit agencies.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, credit reference agencies are subject to regulation and licensing under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In their use of computerised personal data they are also subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. Consumers are entitled to have access to their files and to have incorrect data amended. The present arrangements appear to be working satisfactorily and we have no plans to change them.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. The Data Protection Act is fine so far as it goes. Has my noble friend seen reports and a particular letter in the press about individuals checking with agencies and finding that they hold information which has serious mistakes in it? Surely, it should not be necessary for members of the public to have to check with every relevant agency in order to ensure that there are no gross errors. That is certainly not in the spirit of the Citizen's Charter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have seen the letter to which my noble friend referred and I agree that it contains some errors. Under the Data Protection Act 1984 computerised personal data must be accurate and must be kept up to date. It is obviously important that these agencies should do that, but the Government cannot be responsible for what agencies keep on their records.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister in his first Answer indicated that he was satisfied with the working of the Data Protection Act. Does he recall that the Data Protection Registrar, Mr. Eric Howe, when presenting his last annual report,
1188
stated that he was anxious about the market in computerised data on individuals—for instance, income tax, bank accounts and credit cards—and he asked the Home Secretary to launch a parliamentary investigation? He stated:
"I have drawn it to the attention of the Home Secretary and it may be that Ministers and Parliament might like to consider a wider inquiry to find out what is this market, how big it is, how easy it is to use".
What response has the Home Secretary given to that request from his own Data Protection Registrar?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, these matters are kept under review and this is, of course, an expanding part of life. If issues are wrong they will be checked. However, one must remember that in 1992 there were 4,600 complaints to the Data Protection Registrar, 63 per cent. of which were referred to credit reference agencies. The files of the agencies cover several million individuals and so the proportion is small.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, do the recommendations and worries expressed by the Data Protection Registrar cause no anxiety to the Government? Surely, the answer that there will be a continual review is not adequate to that very specific request.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course they cause anxiety and we are addressing ourselves to that. However, that does not mean to say that it is necessarily appropriate to change the legislation.

Radiotherapy Treatment: Standard
2.55 p.m.
Lord Ironside Lord Ironside asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will request the British Standards Institution to develop an interpretation and application of BS5750 quality standard for use by the radiotherapy treatment profession in the United Kingdom, which local health authorities can link to a professional code of practice to prevent permanent injury being caused to those receiving radiotherapy treatment following breast cancer surgery.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, in 1991 the Government commissioned two radiotherapy centres to pilot implementation of a quality standard entitled quality assurance in radiotherapy. The results of that work have now been received and will be disseminated to the National Health Service later this year.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. I thank her in particular for a willingness to look seriously at the whole question of radiotherapy treatment following breast cancer surgery. I thank her too for holding discussions with RAGE, the Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure. She knows my anxieties about that. Will my noble friend ensure that BS5750 assessments are carried out by accredited bodies which are approved and authorised by the President of the Board of Trade?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the gracious comments he made in the initial part of his supplementary question. I regret that I cannot give him the assurance that he wants. BS5750 is only one system. It offers no guarantee of a quality service or improvement to clinical practice unless the quality systems and clinical protocols are right. All quality systems are based on professional standards.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that she referred to a trial period? If that is the case, when is the period likely to end? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that BS5750 is internationally accepted and that the British Standards Institution would not have approved it unless it was completely and utterly satisfied?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that the BS5750 procedures were initially drawn up for the defence manufacturing industry and that they have been interpreted for different forms of quality assurance. We believe that in some instances they are good for the National Health Service. If the initial protocols are flawed BS5750 does not help. However, two centres have been accredited and we are examining those results to see whether they are satisfactory. We shall disseminate those results to other centres so that they can see whether they too wish to adopt the same approach.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, do such incidents have an element of human error? If so, could that be eliminated by computer control? Cases of overdosage and underdosage have been reported in the press. Is that due to human error, incorrect technology or the lack of a code of practice?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the issue of breast cancer is extremely difficult because there is no definitive or right way to treat it. It depends on factors such as the size of the cancer, the stage it has reached, the site, and the overall health of the individual woman. There is no question of coming up merely with a definitive answer, and that is why we must rely on training, medical audit and the skills of individual radiotherapists.
Lord Rea: My Lords, with regard to these sad cases of post-radiation injury, is the Minister aware that whatever code of practice is adopted the Royal College of Radiologists is willing and wishes to adopt a code of good practice? Does the Minister believe that in this instance the proper role of government is to act as a mediator between the sufferers, who are represented by RAGE, and the Royal College of Radiologists? Does she agree that dialogue is better than confrontation? Will she use her good offices to persuade RAGE to give the Royal College of Radiologists full details of the cases of radiotherapy damage which it has collected throughout the country in order to identify accurately and scientifically the particular radiotherapy regimes and dosage schedules responsible for the injuries sustained and why?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is absolutely essential that the National Health Service works with
1190
those who receive the treatment. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ironside for meeting me on 24th January to discuss those issues. I understand that the organisation with which he is closely involved—RAGE—is extremely anxious to co-operate with the department, the Chief Medical Officer and Dr. Karol Sikora, an expert in the field, who together will be meeting the Royal College of Radiologists to pursue the matter. I am grateful to RAGE and I hope that we can work closely with it.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill
3 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Restriction of employers' right of recovery]:
Lord Jenkin of Rodingmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that it would be for the convenience of the House if, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 which are part of the same group of amendments designed to achieve our purpose.
I make no excuse for returning to the issue which we discussed both on Second Reading and in Committee; namely, how best to protect small employers from the financial consequences of abnormal sickness among their employees. The House will recollect that government proposals in the Bill involve two tests. First, they define "small employers" as those with annual national insurance contributions of under £20,000. That is an improvement on the present position where the figure is £16,000. In Committee I described the firms which qualify as being within the charmed circle. If you come within the charmed circle, you can move on to the next stage. If you do not, that is the end of the matter.
The second stage is to reimburse statutory sick pay paid to any employee in respect of over four weeks' sickness. I do not wish to go into great detail. I wish merely to recap briefly and describe the three main disadvantages of that scheme. First, it creates an arbitrary barrier or threshold, contrary—I remind the House—to the very first recommendation of the report on deregulation of the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover. Secondly, it fails to provide relief in cases where many small employers might think that they deserved it. If no employee is off for more than four weeks, however many are sick at the same time—I gave the example of a number of employees being injured in a minibus accident—no reimbursement is made. Thirdly, it manages to provide relief to very wealthy firms, perhaps with a very few highly paid professional staff, when common sense would suggest that that is quite unnecessary. I shall leave the matter there because I spelt it out in Committee.
The scheme proposed in the Bill aims at the wrong target. It is aimed at small firms, when it should be aimed at an exceptional level of sickness in the firm as a whole rather than long periods of individual sickness.

1191
The alternative system which we discussed in Committee and which has been put forward by the Forum of Private Business is administratively much simpler and hits more accurately the target of exceptional sickness. It triggers reimbursement when in any month the statutory sick pay paid by an employer exceeds a given percentage of his monthly national insurance contributions. He must know both those figures and he merely needs to compare them. The proposal is that the percentage should be fixed by order. As an example, we took the figure of 5 per cent. On that basis, any statutory sick pay paid in a month in excess of 5 per cent. of a firm's monthly national insurance bill is then reimbursed.
That is a trigger. There is no artificial threshold as there is with the £20,000 limit. There is no charmed circle. It catches all exceptional sickness and reduces sharply unnecessary payments to wealthy firms. Simply because of the law of averages, it is extremely unlikely that very large numbers of people in large firms will be off at the same time. It is by no means improbable that half the employees of a small firm may be off sick at the same time. Therefore, in practice, it gives substantial help to small firms.
The percentage figure would be fixed by the Government at a level which ensures that the overall cost is no greater than under the present scheme. I imagine that that would be a requirement of the Treasury, if my noble friend were in discussion with it.
In Committee my noble friend offered two substantial objections to the amendment. He said that the scheme would be open to abuse by unscrupulous employers who might be tempted to shift their statutory sick pay payments from one month to the next in order that, in aggregate, they might reach the 5 per cent. figure, or whatever it is, when in two individual months they would not reach that level.
Secondly—and many of us were impressed by the force of my noble friend's argument on this point—there is not enough time between now and April for either proper consultation or for the necessary steps to be taken to implement the scheme. To some extent those two objections are linked because I have no doubt that, with more time to consult and plan, the risk of abuse could be eliminated substantially.
Therefore, the amendment which I have tabled and to which other noble Lords have added their names aims to meet my noble friend's objections by proposing that the revised improved scheme should come into force not on 6th April of this year but on 6th April 1995. In other words, that gives the Government not two months but 14 months in which to prepare the scheme. It would allow time for wide consultation with employers. It gives firms time to change their payroll systems, including computerised systems. It provides the department with sufficient time to set up its own control and monitoring machinery so as to check the possibility of abuse.
However, the amendment also offers the Government a let-out because it is conceivable, although extremely unlikely, that further consultation and examination might reveal as yet undiscovered snags in the scheme which would make it, in the event, impracticable.
1192
Therefore, the Government must be able to come to Parliament and say—I put it in the oratio recta—"Sorry, it cannot be done. We have looked at the scheme very thoroughly and most people would prefer to stick to the relief that was originally proposed". I do not believe that that is likely but it is not impossible.
Therefore, the amendment proposes that if the Government can bring forward a report before 30th November of this year, the anniversary of the 1993 Autumn Budget, recommending that the revised scheme is not proceeded with and then, before 31st January, Parliament approves the report, the new scheme would be stillborn. It would not come into effect and the Government's existing scheme would remain in force. If the Government reach the conclusion that the new scheme is wholly practicable and is indeed better—my noble friend made some kind remarks about it at earlier stages—then it will come into operation automatically on 6th April 1995. I believe that that meets the Government's main substantial objections.
The forum's proposal has attracted wide support. We have been told by my noble friend Lord Reay that it is backed by the CBI. It has been backed by the Institute of Directors, although rather more sotto voce, and it is backed by the British Payroll Managers Association, which is a professional body representing the people who will have to operate the system. I am told—and I say that because I have no personal experience—that of the employers' representatives on the department's statutory sick pay panel, none is positively opposed to the scheme. Moreover, as the names to the amendment indicate, it is supported by noble Lords from all parties. Therefore, I hope that on this occasion I can persuade my noble friend to smile on the amendment. It may well require redrafting, despite the best efforts of myself arid the extremely helpful Clerks in the Public Bill Office. However, there will be time for that before Third Reading. Those concerned will have between now and the end of November for wide consultations and all the necessary preparation. I believe that that removes the main objection which my noble friend advanced in Committee. I hope that he will now feel disposed to accept the amendment or, at least, to accept the spirit behind it. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): M y Lords, I believe that it will assist your Lordships if I reply to my noble friend's amendment at this stage. Of course, that does not preclude any noble Lords from speaking thereafter. My noble friend has, again, made a strong case for his amendment. As I explained when we discussed the matter in Committee, I recognise the advantages in principle of my noble friend's proposal for those employers who have an exceptional proportion of their workforce off sick at the same time.
My objections to the amendment were primarily practical and concerned the need to guard against abuse, the lack of statistical data to enable us to set the compensation threshold at an acceptable level and the lack of time to consult industry more widely on the proposal. I am, therefore, most grateful to my noble friend for his understanding and appreciation that those

1193
practical considerations and concerns could not adequately be dealt with in the remaining time before the Bill is implemented. My noble friend has found an ingenious way forward. He has very helpfully provided an amended version of his proposal which will allow the Government time to collect data on employers' monthly statutory sick pay and national insurance contributions payments. That will enable us to calculate the level at which to set the reimbursement threshold so as to cost no more than the planned costs under the existing small employers' relief scheme.
Deferment of the proposed change until April 1995 will also enable us to consult employers' and employees' organisations on the basis of a clear and detailed account of the change spelling out its pluses and minuses. Employers' and their representative organisations will be able to compare the benefits of the proposed scheme with the existing small employers' relief scheme. They will be able to judge whether the loss to those employers who would not benefit under the new scheme is outweighed by the gains of those who would.
If, after consultation, industry wanted the proposed new scheme, and the Government were satisfied that it met our concerns, my noble friend's proposal would give us sufficient time to implement it in April 1995. On that basis, I am happy to accept my noble friend's proposal. I would ask him, however, to withdraw the amendment in its present form, so that the Government can table an equivalent amendment on Third Reading which covers all the consequences of introducing a new scheme. For example, the amendment should provide for the repeal of the present small employers' relief scheme in the event of the new scheme's adoption.
However, I must tell my noble friend that I am concerned that subsection (5) of his amendment would put an unnecessary burden on Parliament to approve any report. That goes slightly too far. We believe that a report should be laid before Parliament without requiring formal approval. I hope that my noble friend understands my concerns and I trust that we shall be able to settle the matter between us before Third Reading. In the light of this undertaking, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment today. As I said, I shall be happy to bring forward an equivalent amendment on Third Reading.
3.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount most warmly for that reply. On this occasion the Committee stage operated as, in classic theory, it should; namely, as a negotiating process in which points are given and taken. I am extremely glad that the Government have accepted the principle of an exceptional level of sickness. Having investigated and consulted further, I very much hope that they will bring the scheme into effect in 1995.
I should especially like to thank the noble Viscount very warmly for the personal part that he has played in bringing us to the present point. However, I must stress that it is also the responsibility of people on this side of the House to look gift horses in the mouth. I hope that
1194
one tiny word of reservation may be forgiven. The amendment had only one tooth which was the power of Parliament to approve the report. I am not altogether surprised that the Executive did not find that persuasive. It is part of an argument which has been going on for centuries and which will go on for many more. I was a little disappointed to hear the job of approving a report being described as a "burden" on Parliament. However, I shall not pursue the point. We have achieved nine-tenths of what we asked for and that is much better than the proverbial half loaf. We are extremely grateful.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as my name is also attached to the amendment I should also like to say how extremely pleased I am that the Government have at least accepted the principle behind it. As we said in Committee, the amendment was ingeniously drafted. It has now been even more ingeniously drafted to meet the Government's objections.
I have two short points to make. One concerns the time for consultation. We rely on the Government actually listening to the consultations and allowing themselves to be persuaded if the arguments are strong enough. We have had past experience where that has not always been the case and where the Government have appeared to listen and have then ignored what was said.
Secondly, there are the complications about which we heard in Committee. As it happens, I am involved with a business which runs a payroll bureau. I spent some time with the firm between the Committee and Report stages. The firm undertakes 80 payrolls—some weekly, some fortnightly and some monthly. It covers companies which range from one to 25 employees, with an average of about eight. The firm largely works for the archetypal small employer. As I said, I spent some time with the firm and those concerned told me that they could see that the proposed scheme would certainly be no more complicated than the existing one. The changes to the computer and the software that would be required would- be comparatively straightforward and would be needed just to isolate the employers' national insurance contributions and the amount of sick pay. There would be plenty of time to do so in the allotted time.
The interesting point made by the firm was that the advantage of the scheme is that it relates to the immediate situation reflected in the level of existing employers' insurance contributions and statutory sick pay as it occurs through the year. Of course, the existing scheme relies on the contributions in the previous year. If there is a change in the circumstances of the firm since the previous year, then that is not always reflected in the reimbursement of SSP. In fact, the proposal would bring the scheme into action in line with the existing situation in such firms. In the case of the firm to which I referred, those concerned were quite pleased with the scheme. They thought it was ingenious and that it would work.
I should like to repeat a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I refer to the matter of not seeking the approval of Parliament. If the Government are persuaded—and the House is already persuaded as, I am sure, the other place will be—of the strength of the argument after consultation, I fail to see why they should be almost scared to ask for the approval of

1195
Parliament. That would be the proper way to proceed. I hope that they are not removing subsection (5) from their amendment because they have it in the back of their minds that they can ignore the outcome of the consultations if they wish.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as my name is the fourth name attached to the amendment, perhaps I may also join those who thanked my noble friend for having listened to the voice of the House and of industry and for having accepted the amendment. I was pleased that my noble friend emphasised the consultations that he will be having with industry for working out the modalities and the regulations to be introduced. It is most important that they should not be so complex and that, in the Government's desire to prevent fraud, they do not bring in regulations which are so burdensome, onerous and complicated that firms are reluctant to make use of them. That, to some extent, is one of the faults with the present scheme.
The scheme set forth in the amendment has the merit of simplicity. I hope that that will not be obscured by regulation. As I said, it is most important to ensure that the regulations are not such that that becomes obscured. In the meantime, I should like to thank my noble friend very much for having accepted the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, there are three directions in which congratulations should now be extended. First, they should be extended. to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding who worked extremely hard during the earlier stages of the Bill. He evolved the extremely ingenious development which is now before the House and very patiently negotiated it with the Government. I am sure he is entitled to the warm congratulations of all noble Lords.
Secondly, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his flexibility. 'Those of us who have been in government know that he must have had quite a struggle inside the department, and indeed with similar departments of state, and it is a tribute to his determination and strength of personality that he has achieved this agreement. He is warmly to be congratulated. Thirdly, I humbly congratulate your Lordships' House as this has been an extremely good example of the work this House can do and does do as a revising Chamber on highly complicated, difficult and important matters.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, my noble friend has produced an ingenious scheme and now that my noble friend the Minister has accepted it in principle there is time to go into the pros and cons of the arrangements to see whether this would be a preferable scheme to the one in the Bill. However, I suggest that it is sometimes better to have a bird in the hand rather than two in the bush. As things stand at the moment, I prefer the present proposals in the Bill which come into operation in April 1994. But I should prefer them even more if my noble friend were prepared to reconsider the possibility of reimbursement after three weeks rather than four. I raised that point in the Second Reading debate and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also referred to it in Committee. It seems to me that this could be a
1196
simple and practical way of overcoming some of the more difficult situations in exceptional sickness and injury cases which have been mentioned on a number of occasions during our proceedings.
My noble friend the Minister said that it was important in considering this matter to maintain the incentive for employers to take sickness absence seriously. That, of course, is a weighty argument, but, on the other hand, as your Lordships know, small firms tend to have a better sickness absence record than large firms. It is understandable that that should be the case. Often in small firms the boss works alongside his employees. There is a spirit of team work and people know each other well. In those circumstances it is understandable that employees would think twice before going sick and putting additional burdens on their colleagues. I hope that my noble friend will be able at least to say that he will give further consideration to that point in the light of the debates that we have had in your Lordships' House.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to answer three points. First, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken who appreciate that the Government have considered this amendment and have tried to address the concerns of my noble friend. Indeed, my noble friend has restructured his amendment so that it addresses many of our concerns. I can, of course, give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that there will be full and proper consultation on this matter. If the noble Lord does not believe me, he should attend the meetings in my department of the employers' panel. He would then discover that we have hours of frank discussion on SSP and other subjects.
It is important that a report is made available for Parliament, and that Parliament should be able to debate that report if it so wishes. I shall discuss that matter with my noble friend. I made the point that his amendment, in seeking the approval of Parliament, placed a commitment on Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree has asked about small employers' relief. We have already raised the threshold of national insurance contributions for small employers from £16,000 to £20,000, We have reduced the period from six weeks to four so that small employers will be able to receive 100 per cent. reimbursement. During this period of consultation we shall consider all the aspects of this matter. I am sure that during that period we shall have to examine how well our scheme will work while we consider the scheme proposed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. We shall have to await the result of the consultation process.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I must add my words of gratitude to my noble friend. He has listened most patiently and has given much of his time, and that of his officials, to hear the arguments and to discuss our proposals. That is an excellent way in which our system can work. I am grateful to him for that. I am also grateful to all those who supported the amendment and to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his kind words.
One group which has not been thanked and which should be thanked is that remarkable organisation, the Forum Of Private Business. This scheme was the

1197
forum's scheme and it sold it to me. I have sold it to the Government and the forum is entitled to take every credit for that.
This matter constitutes a particular pleasure for me as I initiated the initial policy change that led to the introduction of statutory sick pay when I was Secretary of State at what was then the DHSS. We seem to have come full circle and we are now on the way to getting a good system of relief for small firms. I express again my gratitude to all those who have taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Annual report by Secretary of State. —The Secretary of State shall annually publish and lay before Parliament a report on the effects of this Act upon the employment of people with disabilities and upon the level of dismissals connected with sickness or with statutory sick pay.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope very much that we can draw on a similar spirit of accord and concord, this time not on behalf of small businesses but on behalf of the disabled. This amendment, if approved by your Lordships, would ask the Secretary of State to bring an annual report to Parliament on the effect of the Bill upon some of the most vulnerable people in the labour market; namely, those in work with a poor health record, and those unemployed people who have a poor health record but who none the less seek to -re-enter work.
We fear—though we hope we are wrong—that the Bill perversely may encourage employers to sack the sick and be even more reluctant to employ the disabled in future. As regards sacking the sick, I should have thought that it was obvious that anyone with a poor health record, who perhaps suffers from asthma or a chronic heart or back condition and who often needs time off work, must, in the eyes of the employer be a less effective and efficient worker. Such people taking time off when they are ill generate problems. Other employees have to cover for them, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said in Committee. Temporary staff have to be employed and extra work is involved in supervision. But at least when 80 per cent. of statutory sick pay was refunded by the Government there was some financial protection to the employer. Now, with even that financial protection stripped away—larger employers will now pay 100 per cent. of statutory sick pay—and with employers facing not only the work disruption presented by employees with poor health but also a financial penalty for keeping them on the books, is there any reason why they should do so? They are not, after all, charities.
The Minister may say that there is no evidence that firms will sack the sick when they have to pick up the bill for 100 per cent. of statutory sick pay. We do not have hard evidence on this matter but we have some anecdotes and assertions. The National Audit Office stated in its report last year:
1198
"Some employers and organisations representing them told the National Audit Office that they believed that the 1991 changes to the Statutory Sick Pay Scheme had increased employers' costs".
That concern has also been reported quite frequently by citizens advice bureaux. A CAB in South Wales reported the case of a client who had been off work sick for two weeks. Her employer had failed to pay statutory sick pay as she said that she could not afford it. Another CAB in the West Midlands reports the case of a client who was off sick for two weeks whose employer told him he would be dismissed if he took time off work. The CAB comments:
"he has no choice, he either works and exacerbates his injury or loses his job".
A CAB in Avon reports the case of a client who was on sick leave, who was paid less than the full amount and who was told by her supervisor after six weeks off sick that she was to be made "redundant" and that someone was already doing her job. Another CAB in Devon reports that a client was dismissed after being off work for six months while awaiting a major operation. He was dismissed even though the doctors were confident he could return to work after the operation.
CABs around the country are reporting an increasing number of inquiries concerning sick leave, suspension and dismissal from work in connection with illness. I could go on. The CAB has many more such anecdotal stories. They are anecdotal, but they are supported by last Sunday's "Money Programme", which interviewed many employers some of whom said that due to the changes in statutory sick pay they would now be more reluctant to retain in work someone who suffered chronic ill health.
In another place the Secretary of State, speaking of this Bill, made clear that its purpose was to encourage business to police sickness records among the workforce because of the relatively high level of sickness in Britain. I am sure that business will now police those records. Too often the policing will take the form of relieving staff of their services. What are employers expected to do? Are they to introduce gyms or send their staff to health farms? No. Such people will join the ranks of those on invalidity benefit or unemployment benefit, at infinitely greater public expense.
All the anecdotal evidence so far suggests that employers will be increasingly reluctant to retain staff who are chronically sick or disabled now that employers in larger firms are to foot 100 per cent. of any statutory sick pay. Once out of the labour market the disabled or chronically sick find it extremely difficult to re-enter. Many go on to invalidity benefit, unemployment benefit and then income support. If their condition improves and they come off invalidity benefit and wish to re-enter work—as they do —what are their chances? They are slender. Only one in eight of those coming off invalidity benefit who seek work find it-12 per cent. Seven in eight do not find work. They have to go on to unemployment benefit and income support because employers will not take them on.
Of the one in eight who are fortunate enough to find work, two-thirds do so with their previous employer. In other words, if the previous employer will not take that

1199
person on, very few others will. It is not always easy for those people. Their previous employer may have gone out of business. Given that on average disabled people have lower educational qualifications—only 17 per cent. stay on at school after 16—they are not especially skilled or attractive in economic terms. They are also often handicapped by the attitudes and perceptions of employers. After all, at present 75 per cent. of employers do nothing to help workers who become sick or disabled to remain in work. They do not now adjust their hours and the conditions of work or provide the aids, adaptions and appliances which such staff may need in order to stay in work, even though in approximately a third of cases of people who become chronically sick or disabled the condition was created or exacerbated by work. The chronically sick find that they cannot re-enter the labour market.
Of those who do manage to return to work—and, as I said, only 12 per cent. of those able to work find employment—four-fifths return to the same hours and the same conditions that applied when they left work. In only one case in five does the employer adapt the work situation. That is the position now. In future if employers take on a disabled person after six months 50 per cent. of the cost of any physical adaptation to the work place will have to be paid by the employer and 100 per cent. of statutory sick pay.
Imagine, my Lords, that you are an employer. Indeed, many noble Lords are, or have been, employers. You are faced with a man of 50 with a poor health record who is likely to make claims on statutory sick pay while another 20 younger, fit men are hungry for the job and are less likely to make claims on statutory sick pay. Who are you going to employ? You are not a charity. Yet if, as the former boss, you do not employ that man, almost no one else will.
According to the Spastics Society, the disabled already find that they are six times less likely to be called for interview than an able-bodied person with the same qualifications. The disabled have three times the unemployment level of the able bodied. Now, in addition, they are to be given a negative dowry in that employers are to pick up the whole of their statutory sick pay. Will you, as an employer, take them in preference to somebody who is less likely to make a claim? I cannot believe that you would.
We moved an amendment in Committee which suggested that the negative dowry of statutory sick pay should be reimbursed by government for a limited period, thus removing the negative dowry that someone who is disabled might carry into work. However, there was not enough support in the Committee for that view. I accept that. I recognise also the point that was well made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that your Lordships needed more evidence that there was a problem before such an amendment might be acceptable. I respect that view. That is why the amendment appears in its present form.
The purpose of the amendment is to determine whether the evidence exists, either way, to tell us whether the statutory sick pay proposals in the Bill are an invitation to employers to sack the sick and a disincentive to employers to re-employ the disabled. We
1200
cannot know if we refuse to collect the information. It is the mildest amendment possible. It asks that the Secretary of State bring a report to Parliament to tell us whether there is a problem. I believe that there is, and that there will be. The disability groups believe that there is a problem and that there will be. But how do we know?
I hope that I am wrong. In Committee the Minister told me that I was wrong. But as he does not have the evidence either, how can he know? I hope that he is right. The only way to find out is to monitor the situation because what we do not monitor we cannot know. We owe it to the sick and disabled to know. The very act of monitoring may persuade less scrupulous employers to behave more honourably towards those in their employ.
Hence the amendment. Technically, it is quite simple. At local level much of the information already exists. Whenever a person applies for unemployment benefit he or she has to give the reasons for leaving the previous job. That information needs to 'be collated and collected in an annual report issued by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is quoted at col. 1113 of Commons Hansard for 15th December 1993 as saying:
"There has been no evidence of sick employees being sacked or companies being more reluctant to employ people who have been sick".
RADAR, the group working on behalf of the sick and disabled, says exactly the opposite. It states:
"There is absolutely no evidence that employers will be prepared to pay extra money to retain disabled staff. On the contrary, there is extensive evidence that workers tend to lose their jobs when they are disabled".
Is RADAR right? Is the Secretary of State right? How do we know? How can we tell? It is clear that the Secretary of State cannot have any evidence if he does not collect it. If he is confident of his view, then the evidence, as reflected in the amendment, will support him. If, unfortunately, the Secretary of State is wrong, then the evidence will give him the reason, the justification and the will to change the situation. At least the amendment would allow us to move away from allegation, counter allegation, assertion and anecclote—always a frail basis for statutory policy.
We fear that the Bill may encourage employers to be increasingly zealous in sacking their sick and increasingly hesitant to re-employ them. We truly hope that we are wrong, but we do not know. We need to know and the only way to find out is for the Secretary of State to collect the facts and to bring that report to Parliament. Your Lordships have an honourable record in protecting the rights of the disabled, but those rights have to be based on all our information. It is in that light that I hope noble Lords will support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as always in her speech, the noble Baroness meant well. She always does. However, I wonder whether she realises what a wholly impractical task she seeks to impose upon the Secretary of State. The amendment does not ask for a report as to increases or decreases in unemployment among sick people; it asks for a report on the effects of the Bill on those numbers. If unemployment rises or falls among sick people, how on earth is the Secretary of State to know that that is an effect of the Bill? It would be pure guesswork. It is surely much better to rely

1201
on the facts as they become known in the ordinary way than to seek to impose a quite impossible task on the Secretary of State. How can anyone know whether changes that take place in future years —changes take place the whole time—are a result of the Bill?
If one considers the amendment, the Secretary of State is supposed to perform this all but impossible task annually. I do not believe that he can do so. It is only misleading ourselves, and perhaps misleading sick people too, to put such a provision on the statute book. I hope that noble Lords will not do so.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord is perhaps somewhat severe in what he said to the principles of research in general. It is, of course, true that in every question of research there is ultimate room for doubt about causation. Nevertheless, in every operation of government and of history we look for correlations and investigate whether it seems likely that those correlations imply a logical connection. The process is familiar. The Government act on its results regularly every year, often with great confidence.
I know the attitude that the noble Lord puts forward. It is that which in my profession we describe as source nihilism. However, I did not know that it had extended its territory any later than the sixth century. I am pleased to welcome the noble Lord into this century but I cannot say that I am the least persuaded by what he said.
On these Benches, we are happy to support the amendment. It deals with two points of fact which have been disputed through every stage of the Bill's progress in both Houses. Like the noble Baroness, we should like to know who is right. Even if in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I agree that we may not know with infallible and certain knowledge, there may be a much greater degree of probability in what we say. If one brings in changes and the level of dismissals immediately rises rapidly, then it is at least a plausible hypothesis that those factors are connected. On the other hand, if the level of dismissals should suddenly go down, it is a little unlikely that that conceals a rapid increase due to statutory sick pay.
We accept it is perfectly possible that we may be wrong; everyone may be wrong. In saying that, I should like to believe that we are in the same boat as the Government: at they also accept that they may be wrong and that they, like us, may be prepared to take the risk of finding out. There is nothing to be said against accurate information.
First, the amendment deals with disabilities. Two valid points have been made against each other throughout the Bill. There has been no meeting of minds. The first valid point—I believe that it is not contested on any ground—is that the disabled have a more reliable attendance record as employees than the workforce as a whole. The more that we can use this debate to publicise that fact, the better; we agree with it. The other point, sustained by statistics which the noble Baroness quoted about people being called for interview, is that that fact is not generally perceived by employers. We are dealing with an area in which
1202
perceptions are everything. Every time they read the newspapers, the Government probably recognise that perceptions are not necessarily the same as facts. What matters is whether there is a perception that the disabled are likely to be more costly to employ. If there is that perception, it will make people less likely to employ the disabled and the situation will call for remedial action.
On dismissals, I thank the noble Viscount and his officials for the courtesy with which they listened to us during the meeting last Thursday. I was extremely glad of that chance. We believe that there is a considerable risk that employers may dismiss people because they are sick and because it is a great cost to employ them. I understand that the Government think that dismissals because of sickness are not likely to be due to statutory sick pay. I understand that the Government think that the interruption of production is a much more serious problem. That may well be the case, but I am sure that the Government are familiar with the principle of the last straw that breaks the camel's back. There may be a very heavy load on the camel already; but why put on the extra weight which may be just too much?
The Government who stand by free market principles will find it difficult to deny that, if you increase the price of something, you create a disincentive to use it. Therefore if you increase the price of labour which suffers from sickness, you create a disincentive to employing that labour. That is what concerns us. That is what we hope will be monitored. That is where we should like accurate information. We agree entirely with what the noble Baroness said about the difficulty of re-entry into the labour market for this reason. If you lose a job at over 50 years old, it is hard to become re-employed. If people are not employed beyond 50, the actuarial basis of pensions becomes extremely difficult. If the Government do not accept the amendment, it is pickling a very expensive rod for their own backs. I hope that they will think again.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness's amendment. It seems to me reasonable and practical. The principle and ethic underlying it are sound. I leave the complicated details of the Bill to others. However, in taking note of the arguments from all sides, I support the amendment. Principles and ethics arise in such issues. It is about time that such principles and ethics were heard more clearly in this day and age. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I believe that there are compelling reasons to accept the amendment so eloquently put forward by the noble Baroness. I have neither heard nor read of any substance in the arguments put forward for rejecting the amendment. I am unimpressed by the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He said that the amendment is impracticable. That is the last thing to be said about the amendment. The point is that it is practicable to find out precisely what is going on. If we do not find out such information when we are able to do so, we live in ignorance.
The noble Lord also said that we should rely on the facts as they become known in the ordinary way. The

1203
whole point is that the facts do not become known in the ordinary way. That is why we live in ignorance of all the problems of disabled people. No one knows. Ministers far too often say: "We don't hold this information centrally".
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Will he explain how the Government or anyone else are to attribute to the Bill an increase or decrease in the amount of unemployment among sick people? The Government can undoubtedly obtain the facts as to whether there is an increase or a decrease; but how on earth do they ascertain that the change is a result of this Bill?
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I shall be delighted to respond. That can be done perfectly well by social and academic analysis. The reasons for illness and disability are carefully tabulated, all the OPCS reports clearly indicate the causes and the reasons through meticulous, academic analysis. But we have not yet gone far enough; and if the analysis is applied to the Bill, in one year's time we shall find out precisely what is happening and whether the Minister is correct in saying that the Bill has no effect on the employment of disabled people. That is a nonsensical proposition.
I am convinced that this legislation will have a deleterious effect on the employment of disabled people. Employers are not in the business of charity. They want to maximise their profits—understandably so. But there is no point in the Minister saying, as he has already said, that we know that disabled people are good workers. Of course we know that they are good workers, but the employers do not. There are some marvellous employers, and many noble Lords present are associated with fine firms with a good record on disabled workers. However, there are some awful employers, many of whom, it is true, regard disabled workers as being a costly burden. All my experience as Chairman of the All-Party Disablement Group for the past 21 years indicates that that is so, employers do regard disabled people as costly liabilities.
I am also convinced by the high rate of unemployment among disabled workers and by the ignoring and neglect of the quota system. If employers regard disabled workers as a cost liability, it must be a deterrent from taking on and keeping disabled workers. No Minister, in a market-led economy, can deny that—it is impossible.
If my noble friends and noble Lords opposite, as well as the disability organisations who oppose the Bill, are correct, it is crucial that the amendment should be carried so that we can find out the damaging effect of the Bill on disabled people. The amendment is all the more important because of the evasive response of the Minister on Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, asked, reasonably, whether the Government would monitor the effect of the Bill. What could be more reasonable than that—to monitor the effects of the Bill? Instead of a direct affirmative to that reasonable request, the Minister merely said that the Government would be considering the effects and would consider whether research should be mounted. That is simply not good enough.
1204
In view of the deep anxieties expressed in the House by noble Lords, disablement organisations and disabled people themselves, the Government have a moral obligation to monitor the effects of the Bill when it becomes an Act through an annual report. The Minister says that there will be discussions about the consequences of the Act. Again, that is not good enough because the Government should convey to noble Lords all the information they receive. The fate of disabled people should not be buried in Civil Service files. The information should be reported to this House so that noble Lords can decide what should be done and how the Act should be amended, if necessary.
I conclude by giving the Minister some information which has not yet been publicly disclosed. I believe that it destroys one of the main arguments which he put against the amendment when he was trying to answer it. In Committee, the Minister rejected the request by my noble friend Lord Carter for an annual report. One of his main arguments, if not the main argument which he put forward for rejecting an annual report was:
"The Prime Minister has asked my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People to work with the all-party disablement group to identify areas for further action where discrimination could be eliminated at little or no cost".—[Official Report, 25/1/94; col. 927.]
That is marvellous ! The Government are so actively involved with the all-party group in solving the problems; but I have to tell the Minister that I personally have been deeply involved in the discussions with the Prime Minister and all the negotiations with the Minister. Unfortunately for the Minister's argument, after the last negotiations recently, the officers of the All-Party Disablement Group and every member of that group present at the negotiations decided to break off the negotiations and withdraw from them because we were dissatisfied with the progress. My guess is that at the meeting at which I shall be present tonight at five o'clock, when the proposal is put to the All-Party Disablement Group, the members will fully endorse the recommendation of the officers to withdraw from negotiations. So I do not believe that the Minister has any substance in his argument.
The very least we can do for disabled people is to provide an annual report so that this House and another place are able to assess the effects of the Bill. It is a modest, reasonable proposal and I hope that noble Lords will vote for it.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, we have been listening to a confused discussion. So far as I can see, there are two main issues. One is to ask the Government to accept the amendment and to analyse the effects of the Bill on the employment of the disabled as a result of the withdrawal of statutory sick pay. The other is how the disabled will be treated when they are sick, when they return or when they do not return to employment. Those are two completely different issues and I hope that on that ground the Government will reject the amendment.
However, that does not stop the anxiety expressed all round the House of the disabled in employment which I believe is a separate issue. There are a whole lot of reasons why the disabled are employed or not employed. There are many statistics, in particular the

1205
latest from the Department of Employment which I have obtained which showed that in 1991 there were 500 million absentee days. How many of those were of the disabled? Probably extremely few. A good many noble Lords in this House have worked with the disabled and know that they are often in better health in their jobs than those who skive off and play golf on Friday, Saturday, Monday and Tuesday. I do not think that the figures are comparable.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will reject the amendment. It is totally impractical, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. However, I hope that the Minister will give some indication of how the Government and all those interested can monitor how the disabled are fitted into the workforce so that when, for some reason or another, they have to leave, they know what are the opportunities for obtaining a job. That is where I believe monitoring is needed. Everyone would agree that some form of monitoring is needed for the security and working possibilities for the disabled. I think that we all support that.
Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can give an indication of the sympathetic and compassionate way in which his department looks at the problem. This Government have a good record of helping the disabled. I do not believe that refusal of the amendment would in any way detract or denigrate from that record with regard to the disabled. However, I hope that the Minister can help us in dealing with this problem.
4 p.m.
Lord King of Wartnaby: My Lords, the noble Baroness spoke eloquently with compassion and concern for disabled people, which I am sure are feelings shared by the entire House. But it occurs to me that the amendment would create an administrative nightmare.
I believe that 90 per cent. of the people employed in this country are employed by firms whose total labour force numbers around 25. The big firms—as they are described —have little problem with these matters. They are able to organise and deal with them. In a practical sense they must bear in mind what the rest of the employees in a great company think if the matter is not treated seriously and properly. But when one comes to someone with five, 10, 15 or 20 employees—I believe those to be the vast majority —and one says, "Now we impose on you an additional charge of 10 per cent. for employing someone", one creates real difficulty.
The problem arises for the small employer. If a way can be found of monitoring the situation and it can be brought to this House in a way that can be understood, go ahead. Having said that, I have only sympathy, compassion and feeling, as I am sure do other noble Lords, for what the noble Baroness said. However, the solution to the problem must be clearly thought out. It is a wonderful idea. Nobody wants to be oppressive to people who are unemployed and who cannot be re-employed because they were sick. But we must consider whether we are getting into a tangle from which we cannot extricate ourselves.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, as she explained the reasons why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State should publish and lay before Parliament an annual report on the effects of this legislation on the employment of people with disabilities and on the level of dismissals connected with sickness or statutory sick pay. It has been claimed that abolition of the 80 per cent. SSP reimbursement arrangements will affect the job prospects of people with disabilities and those with poor health records, and will lead to the dismissal of sick workers. While I can understand and appreciate the anxieties expressed, I must say at the outset that I cannot agree with those claims. The Opposition claimed that people with disabilities would suffer when the statutory sick pay scheme was first introduced in 1983—over 10 years ago—and on subsequent occasions when changes were made to the structure of the scheme. That proved not to be the case.
We do not accept the claim that abolition of the 80 per cent. reimbursement rate will lead to discrimination against people with disabilities or poor health records. Nor do we expect there to be any changes in the pattern of employment of people with disabilities as a result of the change. All the evidence suggests—and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, agrees—that people with disabilities make very good employees and indeed often have a more reliable sickness absence record than other employees.
People with the right attitude to work and who have the necessary skills will always be attractive to employers because those attributes are more important than their past health record. Recent research carried out on behalf of the department by the independent Centre for Research in Social Policy—whose report will be published shortly—indicates that the reduction in SSP reimbursement from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. in April 1991 had no effect on the willingness of employers to recruit workers with disabilities. Their sick absence records are reported to be no worse, and are often better, than those of their able-bodied colleagues. Furthermore, that study detected a more positive attitude among employers to the recruitment of workers with disabilities. That is an important point.
In the Government's view, there are many other factors of far greater importance in determining job opportunities for disabled people. Both this department and the Department of Employment have developed policies to promote the employment of people with disabilities. Disability working allowance, which we introduced in April 1992, promotes greater opportunities for employees with disabilities by providing them with financial support while in employment.
It has been the endeavour of successive governments to increase awareness that disabled people are good employees and have a valuable contribution to make. The Government share the aim of the All-Party Disablement Group of ending any possible discrimination against disabled people. We believe that the best approach is by a programme of education and persuasion, backed up where necessary by targeted legislation.

1207
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that if he is right that the group is breaking off negotiations with the Government, that may not help those people about whom he is concerned. Will the breaking off of negotiations help the people with disabilities?
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I believe it will help. It will draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that Members on both sides of the House of Lords and in another place feel that the argument about persuasion and education is a bogus one because it simply has not worked. We need the same kind of legislation that exists in the United States and elsewhere; that is, to protect the rights of disabled people.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is obviously a decision that the all-party group must make. But it does not seem to me that breaking off negotiations with my right honourable friend the Minister of State will necessarily help the cause of those whose concerns the group aims to promote.
I should point out that nine out of 10 employees work for employers with occupational sick pay schemes which usually pay more than the SSP due. If, as the Opposition are arguing, financial costs are a factor which affects working people with a disability, employers would have already let those employees go. There is no evidence to that effect.
Not only is the amendment not needed, it is also potentially damaging to the interests of those it seeks to help. It would send the wrong message that, far from being excellent employees, people with disabilities needed special monitoring by Parliament. That could serve to undermine our efforts to persuade employers that such workers are well worth employing.
Similar considerations apply to that part of the amendment which deals with the level of dismissals connected with sickness or the payment of statutory sick pay. I should explain that SSP legislation already prevents an employer from ending an employee's contract of service solely or mainly for the purpose of avoiding his SSP liability. In that situation, the law provides that the employer's liability to pay continues until entitlement ends for some other reason—usually when the employee is fit enough to resume working. If that happens, all the employee has to do is to bring the matter to the attention of the Benefits Agency when prompt action will he taken to resolve the issue.
The noble Baroness cited examples given by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. They should be viewed in context. There are about 1.2 million employers liable to pay SSP. At any given time, some 330,000 employees are entitled to SSP. That is a lot of employers and a lot of employees. It is not surprising that a few cases will come to light where an employer seeks to avoid his legal liability whether it be SSP or any other legal liability. The Government condemn such practices and urge the CAB and any other body or organisation which uncovers such malpractice to bring the matter to the attention of the local social security office at once. That will trigger action to have the matter dealt with promptly. The Government do not however believe that the practice is at all widespread.
1208
The noble Baroness claimed that of those whose invalidity benefit had ended because they were fit to work, only 12 per cent. were able to find work. I must tell the noble Baroness that she has misunderstood the results of the study of IVB recipients. Twelve per cent. of the entire sample had found work by the end of the study period, not 12 per cent. of those whose benefit had ceased because they were fit for work. The majority of those studied—80 per cent. —were still receiving IV13. We must remember that in any one year about 320,000 people come on to NB and about 200,000 come off it.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the Spastics Society research that showed, she said, that employers are six times as likely to turn down for an interview a person with disabilities as to turn down a person with no disabilities. That report, which was in 1990, involved sending postal applications for secretarial jobs in London. Two letters were sent for each post—one from a fictional disabled person and one from a fiction non-disabled person, both with similar skills arid experience. I do not accept that the responses to fictional job applications for one particular type of employment in one particular area can be used to represent a nationwide picture of employment prospects for disabled people with a variety of skills. The noble Baroness may be interested in the results of research in 1993 by the Institute of Manpower Studies which showed that from a random sample of almost 2,000 employers in the private sector, more than half who responded to the survey said that they employed disabled workers.
The growth in occupational sick pay over recent years demonstrates employers' willingness to accept much of the responsibility for catering for the short-term sickness absence of their employees. If financial costs were the main consideration, employers would have been inclined to react in the way noble Lords opposite have claimed when the reimbursement rate was reduced to 80 per cent. in 1991.
The evidence that the CABs produced and the evidence of the noble Baroness is anecdotal evidence. I do not believe that anecdotal evidence is a sound basis for primary legislation. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and indeed my noble friend Lord Reay, who brought the matter up at an earlier stage, and my noble friend Lady Elles that we shall be monitoring the effects of the change both in the course of the Contributions Agency's routine visits to employers and by other means such as the feedback that we get from employers, employees and their representative organisations. We have already introduced a procedure to monitor the reasons given by an employer for not paying SSP to an employee and will be scrutinising those reasons closely. The Government will also ensure that the results of monitoring will be made available. I hope that my noble friends will be reassured by what I have said on that basis.
In the light of the assurances I have given about monitoring, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment; otherwise I would ask your Lordships to reject it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, by leave of the House and before the Minister sits down, will he answer one question? Is he saying that the department could not do what the amendment asks?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the case has been carefully made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter as to why the amendment would not work. I have said that the department will monitor the situation. The noble Baroness must accept the Government's commitment to do that monitoring and to make the results available.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. Even if our views around the House are very different, I appreciate the tone of the contributions. We are all seeking the best way forward to ensure that those who are chronically sick and disabled remain in work and can re-enter work. I am sure that we all share that view.
Perhaps I may take up some of the points made by the contributors to our brief debate. To some extent I concede the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the amendment does not go as wide as it would if this were a general Bill about disability. He is right. We are restricted quite properly by the Long Title of the Bill which means that any such report must be based on what the Long Title of the Bill is there to do. But the noble Lord did say—and my noble friend Lord Ashley picked up the point—that instead we could rely on,
"facts as they become known in the ordinary way".
That is precisely the issue. We want to know what the facts are because they do not become known in the ordinary way. If we can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that without proper monitoring by the Secretary of State based on local returns to local offices we will not have those facts known to us, perhaps we can hope that he may join us in supporting the amendment.
I would be entirely happy, if it would bring us the support of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to withdraw the amendment and accept a redraft, provided only that the Government accepted the principle and would come back at Third Reading with an amendment which would give us the information as to whether the provision will worsen the situation of the chronically sick and disabled. I listened hard but to my great regret I do not think the noble Viscount gave us that assurance.
If in future we were to have wider collection, that would be splendid. However, at the very end of his remarks the noble Viscount said:
"I do not believe that anecdotal evidence is a sound basis for primary legislation".
He used that as an argument against the anecdotal evidence. I was the first to say it was anecdotal. I quoted from the CABs. Again, that is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The Minister answered the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. What can we do if we have nothing other than anecdotal evidence to go on? It is precisely because we believe we owe the disabled the integrity of information that we are moving the amendment.
1210
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, quite rightly said that the sacking of the sick in work and the re-employment of the disabled are separate issues. She is entirely right that those are separate constituents but all the longitudinal studies—by Erens and Ghate and so on—for the DSS show that when the chronically sick who go on to become a long-term charge on employers leave work the only opportunity most of them have to re-enter the labour market is with their previous employer. That is where the two groups that the amendment seeks to aid and respond to are conjoined. So while the noble Baroness is conceptually right in practice, if someone loses his job because he is chronically sick—perhaps with repeated asthma or because he has developed multiple sclerosis or mental health problems—his only likely future employer is his past employer. All the statistics show that. If we can help the existing employer to retain someone, that is a much more productive way forward than asking the employer subsequently to re-employ someone whom he has released.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way and for agreeing with some of the things that I said. But would she also agree that, as my noble friend the Minister has said that the Government are prepared to monitor the question of the disabled, it is not entirely a question of the effect of SSP, which is the point of the noble Baroness's amendment? Does she accept that, by withdrawing the amendment and accepting the undertaking given by my noble friend the Minister, that might meet her problem?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the noble Viscount were to say to the House—I invite him to do so in the spirit of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles—that I should withdraw the amendment and that he in turn would bring back an amendment to put on the face of the Bill a clause to monitor the effects both in general of employment patterns for the disabled and in particular, as far as it can be adduced, the impact of the Bill, I would be delighted to withdraw the amendment. I invite the Minister so to do.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may, with the leave of the House, answer the noble Baroness. I do not believe that that is what my noble friend Lady Elles said. My noble friend said that the noble Baroness should withdraw the amendment because I had given the Government's commitment to monitor the effects. There was nothing about bringing forward an amendment of my own.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the noble Viscount is willing to give a commitment that there will be monitoring, what is his hesitation about putting it on the face of the Bill?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have explained clearly and at quite great length why the amendment is unsatisfactory. If she does not understand all that I have said, I am sure that she will be able to study Hansard.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have every respect for the Minister, who on a previous amendment did his best to be helpful. I do not think that he advances his position by appearing to patronise us when we indicate to him that if what he says is correct—I am sure that his integrity is unchallenged in this respect—we should be seeking to bind future Secretaries of State to deliver what he is now offering. If what the Minister says is right and the Government propose to do this, he can have no objection to putting it on to the face of the Bill to ensure that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny. Undertakings are well intentioned but they are not the same as primary legislation and the Minister knows that.
I shall pick up a couple more points and then conclude. The noble Lord, Lord King—I am delighted to welcome him to this debate—made the point, which is well taken, that such an amendment might produce an administrative nightmare for small firms, particularly those with 10 or 20 employees. Under the terms of the Bill there will be no financial problem for them because they are precisely the group aided by the amendment that the Government accepted in principle earlier this afternoon where statutory sick pay will be fully refunded for any employees. The problem should be far less for these smaller firms.
However, my understanding is that at the moment most of the information requested—the reason for leaving work and so on—is already held locally by unemployment benefit offices but, because it is held locally, it is not collated nationally, it is not focused and it is not brought to the attention of Parliament. What this amendment—which is quite simple and not expensive; in fact it is very cheap—does is to focus the information we already have and bring it to bear on the position of the disabled and the chronically sick. If in the process it encourages some firms to adopt better practices and discourages less scrupulous firms from going in for bad practices, that is surely to be welcomed.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, thought that this would send the wrong message to the disabled. He is right; we said in Committee that the disabled in practice have good work records. We are not dealing with their motivation but with the employer's perception when it comes to employing them. The noble Viscount, as I say, said that this would send the wrong message. All I can say is that the disability organisations are fearful about the Bill. If I may say so, it is no use the noble Viscount saying that they are unwise or foolish to be fearful. They are fearful; but their fears would be allayed if they believed that, conscientiously, the information relating to the disabled was scrutinised, monitored and regularly brought before Parliament for survey.
The noble Viscount went on to say regarding the previous legislation—cutting 100 per cent. down to 80 per cent. —that it proved not to be the case that disabled people were laid off. How does he know? There are now three times as many unemployed disabled people as unemployed able bodied people. So how does the Minister know that? I do not know, and we do not know precisely what this amendment would seek to deliver. The noble Viscount went on to say that he did not expect any changes in the pattern of employment. How does he
1212
know whether there will be changes? How will he know if such changes have occurred unless he accepts this amendment?
I am not saying that the amendment would uniquely protect or improve the situation of the disabled and the chronically sick; the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, is quite right on this point. But it may prevent the position of the disabled being worsened if we find out that 100 per cent. statutory sick pay is, as my noble friend Lord Ashley said, the last straw which breaks the camel's back. I appeal to your Lordships on this. This House, far more than the other place, has had an honourable record in protecting the rights of the disabled. In the short time I have been in the House your Lordships have passed amendments to improve the lot of the disabled, for example, in terms of the council tax and in relation to sufferers from Alzheimer's disease. The Government were generous enough to accept such amendments and have passed amendments improving the situation of the disabled so far as employment legislation is concerned.
Your Lordships have an honourable record. I hope that tonight, given that the Minister could not give us the assurances that we seek, you will continue with that record. The disabled are not looking for charity. They are looking for the dignity of information on which we can all make sound public policy. We cannot do that without the facts, and this amendment is simply saying, "Let us collect the information on which either the Secretary of State's assertions are proved to be correct"—which I hope they are—"or the fears of the disability groups are proved to be valid"—which I hope they are not. But we cannot know unless we have the information. It seems to me that that is the very least we owe the disabled. I propose to seek the opinion of the House.
4.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 158.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

David, B.

Addington, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Airedale, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Desai, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Dormand of Easington, L

Aylestone, L.

Eatwell, L.

Barnett, L.

Ennals, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ezra, L.

Birk, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Blackstone, B.

Fitt, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Foot, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bottomley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bridges, L.

Glenamara, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Carter, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Haskel, L.

Chappie, L.

Healey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hollick, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Howell, L.

1213

Hunt, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Jay, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Jeger, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Rea, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kagan, L.

Richard, L.

Kennet, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

[Teller.]

Kirkhill, L.

Rochester, L.

Listowel, E.

Russell, E.

Lockwood, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Longford, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Serota, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Mallalieu, B.

Stallard, L.

Mar, C.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Meston, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tenby, V.

Milverton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mishcon, L.

Varley, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mulley, L.

Wharton, B.

Nathan, L.

White, B.

Newcastle, Bp.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elibank, L.

Addison, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elles, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Elton, L.

Arran, E.

Ferrers, E.

Astor, V.

Flather, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gainford, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Beloff, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Birdwood, L.

Geddes, L.

Blatch, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Boardman, L.

Gisborough, L.

Borthwick, L.

Goschen, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gridley, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Haddington, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Halsbury, E.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Cadman, L.

Harvington, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Henley, L.

Carnock, L.

Hesketh, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Holderness, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hood, V.

Chesham, L.

Hooper, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Howe, E.

Clark of Kempston, L

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cockfield, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Coleraine, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kenyon, L.

Courtown, E.

Killearn, L.

Cox, B.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Cranborne, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Kitchener, E.

Davidson, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Leigh, L.

Denham, L.

Liverpool, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Long, V.

Dormer, L.

Lucas, L.

Downshire, M.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

1214

[Lord Chancellor]

Renton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Marsh, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Merrivale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mersey, V.

Saint Levan, L.

Middleton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Savile, L.

Monson, L.

Selborne, E.

Morris, L.

Selkirk, E.

Mottistone, L.

Sharples, B.

Moyne, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Munster, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Slim, V.

Newall, L.

Stewartby, L.

Norrie, L.

Stockton, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Orkney, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

[Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Sudeley, L.

Palmer, L.

Swansea, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Swinfen, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Peel, E.

Torrington, V.

Pender, L.

Trumpington, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Vivian, L.

Prentice, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Pym, L.

Wakeham, L.

Quinton, L.

[Lord Privy Seal]

Radnor, E.

Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Young, B.

Reay, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Rees, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Monitoring of impact of Act on women. —The Equal Opportunities Commission shall include in its annual report consideration whether this Act has had an impact upon the employment of women.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lord, in Committee I proposed an amendment to the effect that the Equal Opportunities Commission should have an obligation to publish an annual report on the effects of the Bill (when it is an Act) on the employment of women. The noble Viscount was not disposed to accept that amendment, pointing out that the EOC issues an annual report anyway. I replied, at col. 930 of the Official Report, that I was well aware of that since I was a member of the EOC for some six years. What I was seeking, however, was a specific commitment to monitor what happens when the Bill is on the statute book.
The House will know from the debate that we have just had that we have been particularly concerned about the possible effect of this Bill on vulnerable people. We have received briefings from NACAB, which has been referred to on a number of occasions, including in the previous debate, which appear to indicate fairly clearly that many vulnerable and poor people do not get their entitlement now when employers can claim back 80 per cent. of what they have paid. A great deal of that avoidance of payment occurs in smaller firms or firms of the less reputable kind—and there are some of those. The people who are thus disadvantaged and deprived of their rights are often those in low-paid or relatively casual employment.

1215
Those are the very people who are likely to be disadvantaged by the disappearance of the wages councils, to which my noble friend Lady Hollis referred yesterday. I cannot help it if certain noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, do not like our constant references to the wages councils. However, the fact remains that they were intended as some form of protection for the poorly paid and they no longer exist as a result of government legislation. Wages for those people are therefore likely to be lower than ever.
Furthermore, women are vulnerable in the sense that they may need to take maternity leave and can suffer from maternity-related illnesses. That may give some employers an incentive to discriminate against their employment as, if such employees are away through illness, employers will in future have to foot the whole bill themselves without recovering anything from the Government.
Incidentally, I see from the most recent report about work-related illnesses that is available from the Health and Safety Executive that staff with a higher risk of particular illnesses include:
"teachers, for whom the reported stress and depression caused by their work was four times the average for other occupations; nurses, who reported a high risk of back problems caused by their work, amounting to three times the average for other occupations; and clerical workers, for whom the reported risk of headache and eye-strain caused by their work was over twice the average for other occupations".
It will be noted that those are all occupations in which women predominate in the workforce. That is also true for the industries that were formerly covered by the wages councils and industries where there is a great deal of low pay and casual and part-time work.
Therefore, there seems good reason to look at the way in which this legislation will affect the employment of women. The Bill is a new departure. For the first time, employers will have to bear the full monetary risk of sickness as well as having to bear the cost of replacements while people are ill, which they have always had to do. I know that it is claimed that they will have lower NI contributions to pay; nevertheless there could well be a temptation not to pay (particularly for less scrupulous employers) if they are not getting any reimbursement from the Government.
We therefore feel that there is a case for monitoring what happens once the Act is in force. We have accepted what the Minister said in Committee and that the EOC has to issue an annual report anyway. The new amendment therefore stipulates that the annual report should in future contain information as to the effect of the Bill on the employment of women. It does not impose any burden on the Secretary of State or require a special report from the Secretary of State to Parliament, but it writes into the Bill a role for the EOC and therefore some means of monitoring whether the employment of women is affected by this new legislation.
As we said in the previous debate, there is no means of knowing now exactly whether or not the legislation will have an effect. We accept that there is a degree of uncertainty about that. It seems to me that that is all the more reason to have some mechanism in place for
1216
monitoring the legislation, and the appropriate mechanism for monitoring the employment of women appears to be the EOC. I hope therefore that this time around the Minister may feel disposed to accept our amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, in the unfortunate momentary absence of my noble friend Lord Russell, I should like to express support for the amendment from these Benches.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there is no evidence to suggest that the introduction of the SSP scheme in 1983 or any subsequent changes to the scheme have had an adverse impact on the employment of women. Indeed, the percentage of women employees grew from 41 per cent. of all employees to 47 per cent. between 1979 and 1992. I acknowledge that those figures include both full-time and part-time employees. But even if we measure the number of full-time women employees in 1984 against the number in 1992, the growth rate is about 15 per cent. There is no evidence there that SSP has affected women's employment prospects.
I should also remind the House that all the indications are that the job prospects of women are likely to continue to grow. The Institute of Employment Research at Warwick University has produced projections of women's employment trends: o the end of the century. Its research suggests that total employment will increase by about 2 per cent. up to the year 2000. Women are, however, estimated to increase their share of total employment by around 4 per cent. during the 1990s. Furthermore, projections from the Department of Employment suggest the proportion of women in the workforce will continue to grow. Women are projected to account for more than 80 per cent. of labour force growth by the year 2001.
The Government are confident that the changes in this Bill will have no adverse impact on women's job prospects. On the contrary, all the evidence suggests that the employment opportunities for women have increased steadily and will continue to do so. There is no evidence to suggest that they have been or will be affected by measures such all the availability of SSP. As I said in Committee, the amendment in any event is unnecessary. Under Section 56 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 the Equal Opportunities Commission is already required to publish an annual report on its activities during the year.
Each report shall include a general survey of developments during the period to which it relates in respect of matters falling within the scope of the commission's duties. The EOC, therefore, already has the ability to include reference to any legislation which may have had an impact on women's employment prospects if it so wishes. The precise content of the commission's annual report, however, is a matter for the commissioners, not the Government. It would be open to the EOC to publish its views on this or any other matter at any other time or to seek a meeting with Ministers. In my view, to prescribe the activities of the EOC in the way suggested would be inconsistent with

1217
its statutory independence to decide for itself how best to achieve its aims and objectives in whatever way it considers appropriate.
It should be for the EOC to decide what it wishes to include in its report. We do not want to go down the road of the Government prescribing in an Act of Parliament what should be included. Therefore we do not consider the amendment appropriate. I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has great experience of these matters. She was a member of the commission. I hope that with that explanation she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am disappointed that the Minister does not feel able to accept our reworded amendment. It is true, as he said, and as I accepted in Committee, that employment among women has increased. I hope that it will go on increasing. But, as I said earlier, this is a new departure. For the first time employers are being asked to bear the full weight of SSP, whereas previously they were at least able to claim back 80 per cent. We have no idea how that will affect employment in the future of women or vulnerable groups such as the disabled whom we discussed on a previous amendment.
I note that the Government are confident that the scheme will not have an adverse impact upon the employment of women and expect the employment of women to increase. I hope that they are right, but we cannot tell at this point. It is true that the EOC has the obligation to produce an annual report, but it is an annual report of a general nature covering all aspects of its work. I do not think that the EOC would have objected to this nudge from the Government and Parliament in the direction of its paying special attention to the effects of this piece of legislation.
However, I do not believe that there is much point in pressing the amendment to a vote at this stage. I can only hope that what has been said on both sides of the argument this afternoon will prompt the EOC, which of course watches what happens in relation to such matters, to pay attention to this area when it makes its report after the Bill has been in operation for a year. I hope that it will pick up the tabs and tell us what has been happening in the intervening period. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In The Title:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1994
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th January be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the regulations introduce changes to the child support scheme. As the
1218
House will recall, the Child Support Act 1991 was introduced because of the growing concern about the lack of proper financial provision for children whose parents live apart. Nearly 1 million lone parents and their children were dependent on income support. Three out of four received no regular maintenance at all. The old system of obtaining maintenance through the courts or DSS offices was slow, uncertain and led to low and often inconsistent settlements. It was clearly not working.
The basic principles behind the new system are that both parents should be responsible for maintaining their children where they can afford to do so. The taxpayer should have to help only where parents do not have the means to support their children. Those principles have wide support. But we recognise that there have been genuine concerns about the way the new system is working in detail. We have, therefore, conducted a thorough review of its operation, considered all representations and studied the thoughtful and balanced report of the all-party Social Security Select Committee which was unequivocal in its support for the basic principles of the scheme. We accept the main thrust of the Select Committee report and have acted on the majority of the changes that it recommends on the calculation of liability. Where we have decided not to act on its recommendations we have done so for good reasons. We shall be responding to the report in detail in due course.
We agree with the Select Committee that it is better to leave absent parents more financial choice to meet other demands on them rather than try to incorporate into the formula a whole range of specific costs like travel to work, visiting first families and debts. We also accept the Select Committee's conclusion that there is no sensible way in which the capital value of past settlements could be reflected in current maintenance assessments, even if that were thought desirable. The formula already reflects the consequence of settling a house on the former partner in that the absent parent's costs of rehousing himself and any new children are deducted pound for pound from his assessable income, so reducing his maintenance bill.
As well as introducing some important changes to child support arrangements the regulations also make some technical drafting improvements designed to ensure that our original policy intentions are fully achieved. We propose that the changes will take effect from early February and will affect the way in which child maintenance payable by absent parents is worked out by the Child Support Agency.
The Child Support Agency works out how much an absent parent pays as child maintenance by using a formula. This formula is necessarily detailed as it has to be able to deal with the complexities of people's individual circumstances in a fair and equitable way.
The formula takes into account such things as the cost of looking after children and whether the parent with care or the absent parent has more than one child. It also takes into account the income of both parents, allowing for tax, national insurance and essential expenses such as rent or mortgage costs. There are

1219
various other elements which make up the total amount of child maintenance. We propose that three of these elements will change.
First, there will be a change to the maintenance requirement which is the amount of money required to provide for the day to day needs of the child or children for whom the child maintenance assessment is being made. It is made up of several parts. One of these parts represents the care provided by the parent with care of the child or children. The proposed change recognises that this need does not end suddenly but reduces gradually as the children grow older. Accordingly, the new measure provides for the amount to be reduced by 25 per cent. when the youngest child reaches age 11, and by 50 per cent. when that child reaches age 14.
Secondly, we propose to amend the part of the assessment known as the additional element. When essential expenses are deducted from an absent parent's income, he or she is left with "assessable income". Where the absent parent has income left from his assessable income after paying the basic maintenance requirement he is required to pay 25 per cent. of that balance in additional maintenance. We propose to reduce the rate of this deduction to 20 per cent. where there are only two children to be maintained and to 15 per cent. where there is only one child. The rate will remain at 25 per cent. where there are three or more children involved. This recognises that extra expenditure on children, over and above their basic needs, is not likely to be as high for one or two children as it is for three or more and will moderate the very high amounts that some absent parents are expected to pay.
Thirdly, I turn to protected income. Protected-income provides that an absent parent retains enough income after paying maintenance to meet his daily needs and that of any second family. The aim is that absent parents should be better off after paying maintenance than they would if they received income support. We propose that the level of protected income be substantially increased. Absent parents will now keep a minimum of £30 above the level of help they (and their new family if they have one) would receive if they were on income support, instead of only £8 as at present, plus 15 per cent. of any other income instead of 10 per cent.
We also propose to streamline the calculation of housing costs in exempt income. Exempt income represents the income which the parent keeps for his or her own personal expenses. It includes housing costs. From the date these regulations take effect the full amount of premiums on an insurance policy intended to discharge the mortgage on a parent's home will be allowed in the calculation of the parent's exempt income where the mortgage does not exceed £60,000.
We also wish to provide for a significant extension to the current arrangements for phasing in the higher awards under the new scheme. Absent parents with second families or care of a child for at least two nights per week and with an existing court order or written maintenance agreement, whose maintenance assessment is over £60, will have any increase in their liability phased in over a period of up to 18 months in six-month steps of £20, or 25 per cent. of the difference between the old and new liabilities if this is higher.
1220
These new arrangements will help absent parents to adjust to their commitments over a period of time, while gradually increasing the amount that they pay.
I am sure your Lordships will recall the debate held on the charging of fees for the services that the agency provide. We now propose that where a parent with care is in receipt of income support, family credit or disability working allowance and the absent parent is making regular payments direct to the parent with care the Child Support Agency will not make a charge for the collection fee to the absent parent.
The regulations also provide for a child support officer to be able to use a deduction from earnings order for "interim maintenance assessments" issued in cases where the absent parent refuses to give the Child Support Agency proper information to calculate maintenance.
Current regulations lay down charges that bailiffs may make when levying distress in order to collect child maintenance. The Child Support Agency is anxious that a person's goods are only distrained as a last resort. The changes we propose will allow bailiffs to charge £10 for requesting payment of the debt by letter and also reduce the daily charge for a walking possession agreement to 10 pence per day.
A further minor change that affects only absent parents whose liability is modified as a result of a protected income calculation is introduced by these changes; in these cases an assessment must: increase by at least £5 or decrease by £1 before a change has effect on the amount of maintenance he pays.
I believe this package of modifications to the child support scheme meets the major anxieties expressed and at the same time preserves the basic principles of the Act. It has not, of course, met all the recommendations made by critics of the scheme. It is understandable that some absent parents will continue to be dissatisfied, even after these changes have been made. But in framing social legislation it is Government's responsibility to balance the needs of all concerned.
We should not underestimate the extent of the massive task the agency faces to implement these changes, which are likely to cause some difficulties and delays in the normal day-to-day business of the agency. The changes aim to ensure that all parties—children, parents with care, absent parents, second and step families and taxpayers—are treated fairly.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he not deal with the important constitutional points relating, to the word "transitional", which have been raised specifically and drawn to the attention of both Houses by the highly admired Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have not formally moved the regulations. Perhaps when I reply to noble Lords who are to speak on them I shall be able to answer the noble and learned Lord. I beg to move
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th January be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committed.]—(Viscount Astor.)
4.57 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, as a so-called absent father, I wish to intervene for a couple of minutes in order to make two points. First, I object most strongly to being so described because I spend some three-and-a-half months of each year with my 12 year-old son. During that time his mother is the absent parent. It is wrong that fathers who spend as much time as I do with their children should be so described.
Secondly, the formula under which the sums are payable by so-called absent parents is so intricate and complicated that I cannot begin to work out what I should be paying, which is far less than I am paying. Several barristers to whom I have spoken have said that it is possible to work out the sum only if one has a specially programmed computer. I do not know whether the new regulations will make that easier; I believe that they will make it more difficult. However, it is a serious criticism of the Act and the regulations made under it that the formula should be so unspeakably complicated.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to say only a few words about the regulations. I do so because I have had quite a bit of correspondence with various people up and down the country. I have sent copies of some of those letters to the Minister and he has been good enough to reply. In my view, the replies have not been entirely satisfactory. I thank him, however, for replying and for the résumé of the amended regulations he gave me.
The Minister will be aware that in spite of the regulations, there are still very grave concerns among so-called absent parents. I say "so-called" because often they are absent through no fault of their own. Indeed, they would like to be present with their families. During the Bill's passage through this House, I moved a number of amendments which would have corrected the situation.
There is still widespread anxiety. I must tell the noble Viscount that there was a meeting with parents, mainly fathers and their new partners, at Burghfield. The meeting was packed. The new regulations were found not to be satisfactory. Those attending the meeting were able to convince their Member of Parliament of that fact and I hope that he will put further pressure on the Government.
Clearly, the amendments will not meet the point put by so-called absent parents—I have to use that description —because they will still find themselves in grave financial difficulties. Indeed, they will still find that the new partner of any second family, usually the wife, will be expected to contribute through her income to the previous family, although the reverse does not appear to be the case. I may be wrong, but so far as I can see the income of the new spouse of the caring family is not necessarily taken into account when the assessment is made. I hope that the noble Viscount will clarify that point.
I cannot vote against the amendments because they are an improvement. But they do not go far enough.
1222
What the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I said during the passage of the Bill has come all too true. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, warned time and time again in the watches of the night that the Government would regret the Bill and that it would be another poll tax fiasco. However, as I said, I cannot vote against the regulations because they are an improvement.
A point made to me time and time again by fathers, in particular, who have maintained, and who are prepared to continue to maintain, their children is that sometimes they are refused access to their children. Very often, that is against a court order. In due time the Government will have to take that into account. The Government cannot say to fathers and parents that they must be responsible for their children if they are unable to take an interest in them and play a part in bringing them up if they wish to do so. Many fathers are being prevented from doing that. It is a factor that the Government will need to consider in due course.
5.4 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lords, Lord Kilbracken and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for their extremely helpful contributions to the debate.
When I was a boy, my parents used to take me to the zoo. In those days there were few restrictions on feeding the animals. One day I remember a large crowd enjoying feeding the hippopotamus. I had with me nothing larger than peanuts. I picked up a peanut and to my intense five year old pride, my throw landed right on the middle of the hippopotamus's tongue. But the hippopotamus simply kept his mouth open waiting to be fed. When I look at these regulations and I compare them with the size of the problem which they must meet, I begin to understand how that hippopotamus felt.
Today we are debating only small grievances. We are debating the regulations and the Select Committee report. We have an Unstarred Question on 9th February when we shall be able to debate the possibility of changes in primary legislation. In the time that I have been in your Lordships' House, I have never received correspondence on any subject on the scale on which I have received it on this matter. I believe that I have now received something in the region of 300 letters. Even in the last week of October when, as some of your Lordships will know, I was involved with another piece of business which received a great deal of attention, the single largest item in my post-bag related to the Child Support Act. Since the announcement of these regulations, that flow of correspondence has shown no sign of easing.
Indeed, the department is becoming overwhelmed. It wrote to me recently saying that it hoped the explanation would reassure my constituent. I ask the department to note that this matter is so serious that even mere Lords are being written to in large numbers.
The universal criticism is that fathers simply do not have enough money to meet the demands made on them under the Act. Mr. Burt's replies that the more that individual claims for expenses are recognised, the further the child slips down the list of priorities is a fair

1223
point. But I hold to the old-fashioned view that politics is the art of the possible. You cannot get from people money that they do not have.
I give your Lordships one example of the way in which the cost is worked out. I have received a letter last week from a representative of a communications company in Dorset. His monthly income is £1,500 of which he pays £330 income tax and compulsory deductions, national insurance, superannuation, new tax increases, and so on, which amount to a total of £699. Under the formula he will pay £476 which will leave £325 per month for the wife and one child of his second family. Therefore, for an average 50 hour week with no overtime, he is left with £81.25 per week with which to house, clothe and feed his family and to meet the not inconsiderable costs of going to work. He asks why he should go to work and I cannot answer him. I hope that perhaps the noble Viscount can do so.
Of course fathers must contribute. All the people who have written to me agree that fathers should contribute and the vast majority of them are already doing so. The question is how much they should contribute. I propose three yardsticks to indicate when the burdens have become excessive: first, when they move people to emigrate, and so far I know of one case of emigration caused by the Bill but it may not be the last; secondly, when they make people give up their job because they would be better off on benefit, which is clearly not in the public interest; and thirdly, when they break up second marriages, causing great unhappiness to the people involved.
At the beginning of this Session the noble Viscount said to me—it was in private and I am grateful to him for permission to quote it—that people are having second families at the state's expense. I understand what he is saying. I also understand the state's concern. However, the state is misleading itself if it thinks that it can get out of fathers enough money to prevent the state from having to pay anything for second families. If the noble Viscount is concerned with reducing the state's share, that is a legitimate concern; but if he wants to reduce it further, he should look in the way that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in the Budget in the direction of building upon that very welcome concession on child care. That is a much better way of affording second families than trying to charge fathers what they do not have.
In that context I should like the noble Viscount to give an assurance that it is no part of the Government's purpose to tax second families out of existence and that it is no part of back to basics to ensure that everyone stays with their first wife. I expect the noble Viscount to have no difficulty in giving such an assurance. However, if he does give me that assurance, it must follow that, if the Act is breaking up second families, it has been overdone and is in need of amendment.
I turn now to the regulations. First, we have a concession on phasing which is welcome as far as it goes. It is the concession that Polyphemus made to Odysseus that he should be the last devoured. It is not much use unless you find, as Odysseus did, that Polyphemus is out of office before the time comes. Secondly, there is an increase in protected income. My
1224
criticism is that it is not targeted. It goes to every family regardless of how many unavoidable expenses they have that they cannot get out of. I merely ask the noble Viscount whether he thinks that the protected income would be sufficient to pay for a season ticket to work from, say, Newbury. Alternatively, would it pay for someone who needs a room—and the cost of an extra room can be very great—for work at home in London? I believe that the answer to both questions must be no.
Thirdly, we have a new taper which is regressive, means that the proportionate burden on the poorest increases. There is also a further point which I hope the noble Lord will seriously consider. The latter can be potentially disastrous for people on family credit, which is assessed only once every six months. Therefore, if you lose some of the income upon which your family credit was assessed and you do not receive any more for six months, you may be in a very bad position. If that is not to cause severe hardship, there must be an ex gratia payment to those who lose as a result.
The concession on fees is welcome as far as it goes. I should be grateful if the department would make its policy consistent on accepting payment of fees in instalments. However, I do not see why there should be any fees at all. A great many of my correspondents have found that the fee amounts to adding insult to injury. I understand that feeling and sympathise with it. There are also certain points which are not included in the regulations but which were referred to in the Select Committee's report.
I hope that the Minister will look again at paragraphs 81 and 82 of the report, which deal with step-children. Step-children, like Mount Everest, are there; you cannot say that they are not entitled to maintenance, because they exist. There is a severe difficulty, if you think that you can rely on the absent natural father, in bringing up, say, four children together, with two of them on one income level and two on another. That can be most invidious.
There is also a phasing problem which I should like to see the Government address. It is one to which the Law Society has also drawn attention. Many people who have written to me are paying the expenses of their natural children and also their step-children because the second wife's children are not coming on stream in the Act until 1996. Therefore, until then the man is clobbered with the cost of supporting two families. If the Act is to last in any form, that is an anomaly which should surely be put right.
I heard with pleasure what Mr. Burt said about the new form involving naming the father and making it clear that the authorisation of an assessment and the naming of the father and authorising pursuit are separate. He said that a few offices were still using copies of the old form. I trust that Mr. Burt—in whom I have in some ways a great deal of confidence—has by now put a stop to that practice. Judging by the noble Viscount's smile, I trust that I shall hear that the answer is yes.
I turn now to one of the biggest problems, that of overthrowing settlements. Here again, I should like to quote from a letter that I have received:

1225
"My divorce from my ex-wife took place before the Child Support Act or Agency was even thought of. With the full agreement of my ex-wife and myself … we made what we both, at that time, believed to be a full and final settlement and agreement … in which I relinquished my share of the equity in the marital home, with the intent that my ex-wife would realise from the proceeds of this house a substantial sum of money which would then be used for the benefit of both herself and our children. To be now faced with a completely new form of legislation which goes in the face of our Court Agreement, and of which we could not have had any prior knowledge, seems to us to be absolutely unacceptable in a democracy. As I say, I believe the Act is fundamentally misjudged … but even bearing this in mind, I can at least appreciate that people currently getting divorced at least have these facts in front of them and can make their own judgments about their courses of action. For myself and my wife, this unfortunately is not the case, and our entire financial future is now jeopardised by the Act".
That couple's chances of continuing their second marriage depend entirely on the readiness of the Government to accept paragraph 82 of the Select Committee's report on the housing costs of stepchildren. So at least one real marriage depends on that point; it matters.
The noble Viscount repeated today the argument put forward by Mr. Burt to the Select Committee that it is impossible to find a way within the formula to assess the value of capital settlements. I very much hope for the sake of the noble Viscount that he is wrong in that respect. However, if he is not wrong, I believe that he has shot himself not merely in the foot but somewhere very near the heart.
In the first place, the Government are wrong to think that capital settlements are entirely reflected in the absent parent's housing costs. Capital settlements cover many things. Some of the most complicated -involve business debts; for example, where a husband and wife have been running a small business.
There is a serious point involved here; namely, the argument that the man who has a capital settlement and is paying under the Child Support Act is suffering a kind of double jeopardy, for both of them were settlements that were meant to be full and sufficient by themselves, without the existence of the other. It is fundamentally inequitable that anyone should have to face both. Therefore, if it is impossible to feed capital settlements into the formula, in the case of past settlements it must mean either that retroactivity must go altogether and the Act must not apply to people who have already reached settlements or it must be possible (by primary legislation, if need be) to reverse the judgment in the Crozier case and allow them to back out of the settlement.
As with most other things, I have met a case among my pupils. She said—it was "she" and not "he"—that if the capital settlement in her case were overset it would cause grave dismay, and that she would be happy to renounce all the maintenance under the Act if only she could keep the capital settlement. That is a judgment which it seems to me she had the right to make. I do not see why the state should insist that she cannot do so. Before the noble Viscount raises the point, she was not living on benefit. As she was a student, by definition she could not have been living on benefit.
In the case of future settlements, if they cannot be fed into the formula the husband will not make capital
1226
settlements. That may be a cause of great distress to the wife because often in a divorce what she wants most is to hang on to the roof over her head. That matters more than any recurrent income which she is often perfectly happy to go out and earn. If we cannot feed capital settlements into the formula, the effect of continuing to apply the Act will lead to a large increase in the number of the homeless, which might cause some distress to Sir George Young.
None of this seems at all fair. We in this party are committed to a fundamental review of the Act, but if it is true that we cannot feed capital settlements into the formula we might have to begin discussing among ourselves whether what we ought to be considering is not the fundamental review of the Act but its repeal. When I say that in his own interest the noble Viscount should try to convince me that he is wrong, I mean what I say. Mr. Frank Field said on the radio that this would not be the last change in the Act. I agree with him and that is where we begin the next episode—discussing possible changes in primary legislation—on 9th February.
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side of the House firmly believe that parents may divorce each other but not divorce their children. Therefore, we believe it is right and proper that absent parents should make an appropriate contribution to their children's maintenance in terms of their income, any responsibilities they may have towards their first family and any responsibilities they have incurred with their second family, provided always that the safety and well-being of the first family is safeguarded.
The Labour Party supports the principle of the Child Support Agency. However, like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we have argued from the beginning that it is deeply flawed and must be radically reformed. Our complaint is that although these regulations are welcome, they do not go far enough, as my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon quite rightly said.
As it stands, the CSA too often impoverishes second families without floating first families off poverty. Children in second families are hurt—we have the evidence for this—and children in first families are not helped. The only beneficiary is the Treasury, which requires the absent partner—usually men—to support two families on earnings that will not stretch far enough. The plain fact is that even with good will all round, men on below average earnings cannot always support adequately two families. To require them to do so pushes both families, and the children of both, onto the poverty line. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, we will explore this matter more thoroughly in the Unstarred Question next week.
Tonight I believe it is appropriate to look instead at the current criticisms of the Child Support Agency and to ask how far the changes in regulations address those criticisms. The criticisms are broadly threefold. First, it is said that the Act is harsh and even threatening to the parents with care. Those parents are usually women. Secondly, it is said that the Act is harsh on the absent parent—usually men—especially if he is part of a

1227
second family. Thirdly, it is said that the activities of the agency are too often seen as unreasonable and are judged to be aiming at the soft targets of parents who are already paying, and that its administrative arrangements are inflexible and overbearing.
I turn to the first criticism which concerns the situation of parents with care, who are usually women. Some of the early fears that were expressed by organisations such as the National Council of One Parent Families with regard to the threat of violence and compulsion to reveal names appear not to have materialised. I pay tribute to the sensitivity of the agency on that score. There are continuing fears but our initial fears have not been fully realised. Nonetheless, the Act remains harsh on parents with care on at least three counts. First, there is no disregard—these regulations do not address that point—in that a woman receiving maintenance loses, pound for pound, income support until any such maintenance floats her off income support levels or family credit altogether. On family credit such a woman, if she were going to work, would retain £15 a week. I am not at this point arguing that there should be a disregard but that the Government recognise, in the words of the Social Security Advisory Committee, that there is a case to be looked at.
Secondly, there is a real problem for the parent with care that if the maintenance comes from the absent parent and he is on just below average earnings, his contribution may float her almost exactly off income support. As far as I can see, a caring parent with two children—one below 10 and one above 10—will receive both income support plus about £2.30 a week if the absent partner is earning about £19,000. That may replace income support but it will not improve her standard of living. It will not float her off poverty. Indeed, she may be worse off. The Minister, Alistair Burt, said in another place on 2nd December that,
"many lone parents will no longer have to rely on income support as their main source of income".
That is true, but it is irrelevant to those parents as their income will be no higher than it was on income support. Indeed., by losing passported benefits such as free school meals, free prescriptions and dental care, they may be worse off. These regulations do not address that crucial matter.
Thirdly, I wish to re-emphasise a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. If the woman—if it is a woman—is in part-time work and on family credit, that family credit is determined for six months at a time. If there is any faltering in the flow of maintenance payments because the absent parent becomes sick, unemployed, or disappears, nonetheless her family credit remains unaltered and she may find her living standards fall catastrophically. There must be a way to overcome what is essentially an administrative problem.
Do these regulations address these three problems for the parent with care: a disregard as recommended by the Social Security Advisory Committee; the problem that a parent on average earnings may not only float the parent with care off income support, but she may still remain worse off because of the loss of passported benefits; and the problem of family credit? No, they do not. These regulations do not improve one iota the
1228
position of the parent with care. The regulations do not go sufficiently far enough to enable any of us to say that the Act is beginning to be satisfactory.
On 2nd December the Minister also stated that there should be,
"substantial benefits for children to be derived from regular payments of maintenance".
Again, that is not true unless those payments float the, parent not only off income support but also constitute at least £7, £8 or £10 a week more than that. I have a final question on this matter. We do not object to reducing the maintenance of the parent as carer with older children where that parent may reasonably be assumed to be in work. However, if that parent is assumed to be in work, that is already taken into account in the calculation of her income. We understand the reasoning behind it, but can we have an assurance from the Minister that that formula will not apply to a parent who cannot go to work, perhaps because an older child is disabled? That is a very specific question which needs a specific answer.
The second cluster of problems associated with the Child Support Agency is that associated with the absent parent, usually the father. Here we accept that the changes in the regulations help him to some degree. They allow for phasing in so that men do riot find their maintenance contributions trebled overnight. They are also to be backdated to when the original inquiry forms were sent out. That is sensible, but it could be argued that a longer phasing-in period—perhaps three years—might be more appropriate.
However, the phasing in does not apply to those fathers who are not part of a second family. It does not apply to single absent fathers. It should. Nor does it apply to those who are currently not paying any maintenance because of a clean break settlement. It should. They too need that time to rearrange their finances in order honourably to meet their new obligations. The transitional arrangements should apply to all absent fathers not just to those with second families.
Do the regulation changes take into account the complaint of many men that maintenance assessment takes no account of clean break settlements, past arrangements or current expenses? All noble Lords who have spoken so far have made the point again and again that they do not. In particular, the clean break settlement which forfeits equity in property —sometimes quite substantial equity—is being ignored. Nor am I persuaded by the report of the Select Committee on Social Security that such capital settlements could not be taken into account. The committee was over-impressed by the difficulties and over-persuaded by the Minister. It should distance itself from that position. After all, the calculations are not very different from those in which capital gains are taken into account on a property which has subsequently been revalued.
In another place the Minister made much of the fact that one of the reasons for not taking property settlements into account was that, alongside equity, mortgage repayments might be transferred, and in turn would be picked up by income support, and on the other side replacement housing costs were taken into account

1229
in the calculations of the absent parent's income. So what? Neither of those two points addresses the issue that there is substantial equity, which may have been amicably negotiated between the partners and accepted by the courts as legitimate, which is now being ignored. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, the result will be that in future the property will become the source of bitter and angry rows. If a parent who is leaving knows that any arrangement over the home will not count as part of his maintenance contributions, why should he leave his former wife in that home? He—and the solicitors—will expect her, quite understandably, if not rightly, to sell that home and share any remaining equity.
The result will be that a woman who may have lost her husband to another relationship and has the burden of bringing up two children singlehandedly on levels of income which are not much above income support level, will now be presented with the problem of homelessness. She will lose her home and have to uproot herself and move elsewhere, throwing herself on the mercy of the local authority which at best, given that it cannot build, may find her a new home many miles from where the children go to school and from their friends. That adds to the problem of a broken marriage and low income the problem of the loss of a home. I cannot believe that the department, in all its ingenuity and with its amplitude of numbers, cannot find a response to that problem.
The Minister has rightly taken a more conciliatory attitude towards some of the other costs facing the absent parent—travel to work, travel to see the children of the first family—by raising the disregard from £8 to £30. That is sensible, but I still doubt whether it will be enough. However, it only protects and benefits those absent fathers who are earning enough to benefit from that disregard; namely, the better off. Those below protected income levels will continue to lose 85 pence in the pound to the first family. Those able to meet the basic maintenance requirement—the better off—will lose only 50 pence in the pound. The best off, who are offering additional maintenance, will lose only 25 pence in the pound and less than that if they have three children. That regressive nature of the formula is unfair and must be amended.
As my noble friend Lord Stoddart, rightly said, a fundamental asymmetry remains. The Minister must comment on that. The earnings of the second partner and of any adult in the household of the absent partner are taken into account in determining the second family's ability to pay full maintenance to the first family. Their income is taken into account in assessing the ability to meet the full income support displacement. What is not taken into account is any extra cost incurred by the second family where that family includes step children and, either the absent father of those children has not yet been approached because the mother is not on benefit or the father himself is on income support and therefore contributes only £2.20. That is not a realistic assessment of the costs of the step children in that second relationship. Therefore, the absent father in that second family is being asked not only to pay
1230
considerable sums for the children of his first family but, in lieu of any support from the father of the step children to provide any compensating offset, to bring up those children. Therefore, he is being asked to support the children of the first relationship and the step children of the second as well as any natural children of that second relationship. Only the very affluent or very altruistic can reasonably be expected to do so. The Minister must tackle that basic asymmetry.
Nonetheless, the position of absent parents, usually fathers, has to some extent been mitigated, but by no means far enough. There is a further set of problems associated with the working of the agency itself. The new forms are welcome and we hope that they may overcome some of the mistakes that have been pilloried in the press in which fathers are accused of having illegitimate children they do not have, putting their marriages under pressure. There have been four such mistakes in five days in January alone.
The main criticism has been that the agency has gone for soft targets. However, as one local DSS official has said, it is undeniable that the name of the game was to maximise the yield, and the staff—all 5,000 of them—were on performance related pay. That meant tracking the men in work, often in the public sector, who were already paying something. The Minister in another place assured the House that more than half the cases identified by the agency—330,000 of 616,000—were not paying maintenance. He used that as evidence that the agency was not going for soft targets. He then went on to confess that in least a third of all cases the fathers were not liable to make maintenance payments in any case. In other words, well over two thirds of those targeted are already paying maintenance. Those were certainly not the feckless, walkaway fathers Parliament believed were to be at the end of the agency's attentions.
Changes in regulations which determine when payments should start are to be welcomed. They may avoid situations such as that reported by the Select Committee on Social Security of a 21 year-old absent father who was asked to pay £65 a week out of a net income of £120. It then took 10 weeks to process that case. As a result he found himself with arrears and a debt of £650, although at the time he was unemployed because he had lost his job. Equally, changes in the arrangements for the payment of fees are sensible, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. The present system is somewhat unreasonable: it is like being burnt at the stake and being asked to pay for the firewood.
None of us is arguing that the old court-based system was always right and that the new agency and administrative formulas are always wrong. Clearly the old court-based system was based on individual cases. That could mean that two individuals in different parts of the country in similar circumstances had different awards made against them. That was unfair. But it is equally unfair that the Child Support Agency, dealing with individuals with very different circumstances, requires them to pay the same when they should pay different amounts. We need to balance the evenhandedness of the CSA with the locally tailored

1231
discretion that the courts could always offer. These changes in the regulations do not yet get that balance right.
The changes in regulations are welcome in so far as they signal the Government's willingness to learn. They are welcome too for the modest gains they offer to those affected. It is worth noting that all the changes have been made in one direction: to aid the absent parents, usually men, who suddenly for the first time find themselves receiving the attentions of social security. They have shouted, loudly and rightly so, and their plight has been somewhat eased. However, the voices which remain silent—we have not heard much about them tonight either—are the women in poverty in the first families whose source of income may have changed from the taxpayer to the absent father but whose level of income is not only not changed but may have been worsened as a result of that activity. That situation we must amend.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I must apologise for intervening at this moment through the courtesy of the noble Viscount, and without having put down my name. The noble Lords, Lord Kilbracken and Lord Stoddart, slipped more decorously into the gap. However, I felt that anything I had to say about the impact of these regulations, and indeed of the machinery of the Act itself, would be sure to be said very much better by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness than I could say it, and so it has proved.
A sure avenue to unpopularity is to say, "I told you so". If we in your Lordships' House today say, "We told you so", it is with a definite purpose. The Act which is now having to be altered by regulations was and is the most bureaucratic Act in the statute book, put forward by the most bureaucratic department in Whitehall; and things have turned out exactly as was prognosticated.
Perhaps I may make two preliminary observations. First, we have had the benefit of a clear exposition of the regulations by the noble Viscount. That shows very clearly the benefit of the affirmative regulation procedure over that of the negative regulation procedure. It is true that the noble Viscount has significantly shied away at this stage from dealing, as a preliminary, with what is before us; namely, the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, to which I shall come towards the end of my observations. However, we must first look back as a warning to what was done and how it was done in the Act.
The Bill was described by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who dealt with it in principle for the Opposition at the time, as virtually a skeleton Bill; and so it was. It ended up as an Act with over 100 regulation-making powers. The noble Viscount has recently written a letter to me stating that the bulk of those were subject to affirmative resolution. I can only ask him to order a recount. We were left with the impression—it was never contradicted—that of those 100 and more regulation-making powers fewer than 20 were subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That was the skeleton, the mode, of the Bill and at its heart lay what has done all the mischief; namely, an
1232
absolutely incomprehensible series of formulae which were to be applied by officials. No one claimed that they were comprehensible to the absent husband or the mother for whom they were intended. Not even a gifted mathematician like my noble and learned friend who piloted the Bill so skilfully was able to satisfy your Lordships that those formulae could be understood. Almost the only thing that can be said in favour of the department putting forward that deplorable Act is that obviously it did not understood the formulae either. If it had, we would not have needed the regulations today.
However, that was only the heart. Surrounding it, of course, was the ulster of the jurisdiction of the courts in favour of officials administering a formula. The noble Viscount said today that the jurisdiction of the courts had been capricious, had shown variations and was unsatisfactory. He is to be complimented on saying that with a straight face because the inference is that the Act itself was satisfactory, uncapricious and consistent. If it had been, we would not have needed these regulations. Nor would there have been the spate of protests which has come about. It says quite a lot for any political managers that they have managed to offend equally the absent fathers and the caring mothers. Both are highly affronted. I would have thought in advance that that was barely possible. But it came about through populous demagoguery at a party conference.
There is another preliminary point to be made. It is very convenient that we discuss a regulation today in the context of the Act itself, arid next week we shall have the opportunity given to us by the noble Earl to look more widely and to include consideration of the point that the noble Baroness today has put so well: are we not largely in the present trouble because our matrimonial law is so unsatisfactory? At the time of the Divorce Reform Act 1969, Lord Hodson, the most experienced matrimonial judge in the kingdom, and Lady Summerskill, who devoted the major part of her political life to women's causes, pointed out that most men's income is quite insufficient to support two families with the result, as the noble Baroness has just said, that both families go down to the poverty line. That is a matter best left, at any rate by me, to be considered next week.
I was dealing with the structure of the Act, but what I said was by no means all in the way of bureaucratic aggrandisement and encroachment on the rights of the individual. The officials were given power, which ordinary citizens do not have, to enter into private premises and to interrogate employers and fellow employees as to the means of an employee.
Then there is the extraordinarily harsh remedy of distraint, self-help. That is carefully safeguarded by the common law, but under the Act officials are able to exercise the right of distraint without regard at all to the common law safeguards.
As if those two things were not sufficient, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, pointed out with great force, we had the extraordinary provision that the confidentiality of Inland Revenue communications was to be breached in the interests and at the suit of officials. I wrote to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, because he replied to the debate on the

1233
Queen's Speech, but my letter was answered by the noble Viscount who disregarded most of the points. However, he said that the provision as to entry into private premises and interrogation of employers and fellow employees, and the breach of Inland Revenue confidentiality, had a precedent or, in fact, two precedents. I offer no prizes as to where those precedents are to be found because noble Lords will readily conclude that they were in Acts which were promoted by the same department. However, one must go behind the Act in order to understand the constitutional implications.
Last week the noble Baroness mentioned the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991, but matters are even worse than she thought. That, again, was an Act promoted by the department. When it was introduced in the other place not only did it have a Henry VIII clause as a crucial provision, but that Henry VIII clause applied to a fiscal charge. The Minister was enabled, by a stroke of the pen, to alter the charge from 80 per cent. to any other figure that entered his head.
However, that again was not all, because that power was subject only to the negative resolution procedure. That, of course, was objected to in the other place and the Government were prepared to concede that it should become an affirmative resolution procedure. Nevertheless, they stuck to the Henry VIII clause and it was only removed by a vote in your Lordships' House against the Government—again, a sign of the wisdom, experience and value of your Lordships' House in constitutional matters.
I have mentioned all that because there is an important constitutional point, as your Lordships know, in connection with the regulations. It occurs with the word "transitional". The Minister may make "transitional" regulations. That is a common word, in fact it is commonplace in such circumstances. Where the Act has not yet been applied, the regulation altering the provisions of the Act could be described as "transitional", but certainly not where the Act has already been applied. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee drew attention to that and the answer of the department was that the regulations could be said to be transitional because the problem they address comes from the fact that some absent parents who had been paying a relatively modest amount of maintenance under a court order were suddenly faced with a substantial increase in their maintenance payment when an assessment was made. In other words, the department is saying: "Under the word 'transitional' we can bring in regulations which will alter what has already been done under the Act". If that is the meaning of the word "transitional", it goes far further than anyone had ever accepted or could for a moment have contemplated.
The question is: what are we to do under those circumstances? It is tempting to say that with such bureaucratic aggrandisement and with such constitutional arrogance we should throw the regulations out entirely. There are two reasons why we should not do so. The first is that, as previous speakers have said, at any rate they ameliorate in some measure the harshness of the Act itself. The second reason is that the matter is
1234
so serious, the claim of the department is so grotesque, that the matter should be considered by the Procedure Committee.
Thus, I do not think that we should throw out the regulations. I have previously argued that your Lordships' self-denial regarding statutory instruments is a weak constitutional convention. The noble Earl, with his great knowledge of constitutional history, has agreed with that. So if we have that kind of claim, the time may well come when your Lordships could condignly throw out some regulation. For the reasons I have given, I did not think it right to go so far today, but a warning shot has, I hope, been fired across the bows of the various warships in Whitehall.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, started us off with a visit to the zoo which he had made as a child. After hearing about his visit, I am glad to note that his first name is not Albert and he did not meet a lion but a hippopotamus, otherwise we might not have been able to hear what he had to say this evening.
Of course, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for her support for the principle that parents cannot divorce their children, and for the support for the principle of the work that the Child Support Agency does. I have been asked a number of detailed questions which I shall now attempt to answer.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, asked about the unusual powers that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments commented on in Part III of the regulations. The provisions apply not only to those cases where no maintenance assessment has yet been made, but also to some cases where an assessment has been made and is in force. The department considers that the provisions can nevertheless properly be said to be transitional because the problems they address arise from the fact that some absent parents who had been paying a relatively modest amount of maintenance under a court order were suddenly faced with a substantial increase in their payments when an assessment was made. Accordingly, had the problem been identified before the Act came into force and any assessments made, the department could have made provision for those cases. The fact that it was only with experience of operating the Act that the problem was recognised does not make it any the less a transitional problem. So the provisions of Part III, which are intended to deal with the problem, are themselves transitional.
It is true that much of the detail of the child support legislation was laid down in regulations. That is a desirable situation as the department can respond quickly if defects emerge by laying amending regulations. I wrote to the noble and learned Lord stating that half the regulations were subject to affirmative procedures and were debatable by both Houses of Parliament. I am happy to have a recount on those regulations and should I be wrong, I shall certainly write again to him. I should point out that all regulations pertaining to the formula are subject to affirmative resolution.

1235
Under the old system, where both spousal and child maintenance were agreed by the courts, there was found to be a marked inconsistency in the level of awards made as a proportion of the absent parent's net income. Processing times varied greatly depending on the type of court which dealt with the case and whether it was made in England or Scotland. Many of the orders made by the courts experienced arrears problems; the powers of the courts in those cases was limited and the use of attachment of earnings orders was not widespread. The agency brings together work handled by the department's local offices and by several parts of the courts system. The Child Support Agency delivers a consistent assessment service by the application of the maintenance formula. Maintenance assessments are reviewed regularly to ensure that the current circumstances of all the parties involved are reflected in the amount of money in payment. The agency also provides an efficient and effective collection and enforcement service.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, mentioned the term "absent parent". The term was subject to considerable debate and was agreed after consultation. It in no way implies that the parent concerned is not meeting his responsibilities; it merely reflects that he is not resident in the same household. The noble Lord also said that the formula was too complex. But the formula is necessarily detailed because it must deal with the complexities of individual circumstances. If it were less detailed it would create greater inequity.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, talked of access to children. Maintenance for a child and access to that child are totally separate issues. The question of access remains at the discretion of the courts and as such is outside the jurisdiction of the Child Support Agency. The noble Lord also talked of the second wife's income being taken into account A second wife will not be asked to contribute to the maintenance of children of a first family. However, she is expected to contribute to the upbringing of her own children of the new relationship. Details of her income are therefore necessary to determine that. In addition, her income is needed to decide whether any maintenance that the absent parent pays can be reduced under the protected income provisions.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked whether we were attempting in some way to tax second families out of existence. A parent's fist duty must be to their own natural children. That duty persists irrespective of changes in the relationship of the parents. Once a parent makes arrangements to meet that responsibility, there is no reason why he should not go on to form a second family. But it is not right that he should expect to do that at the expense of either his first family or the taxpayer.
When any couple—for example, a young couple—are considering starting a family, they must take all factors into account. Many young families do that. High on their list will be the question of whether or not they can afford to start a family. Having said that, the formula makes allowance for any natural or adopted children of a new relationship. The protected income assessment—a proposal your Lordships seek to make
1236
more generous—provides an important safeguard for all second families by ensuring that their income remains above income support levels.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, can the Minister clarify the situation for stepchildren in the second family, particularly where the mother in that family does not enjoy full maintenance from her absent partner?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked a number of questions. Perhaps she will allow me. the time to attempt to answer them.
The noble Earl asked about absent parents being treated too harshly. The noble Baroness said that the agency was going for "soft" targets. In 96 per cent. of cases dealt with by the CSA last year the parent with care was on benefit. Most absent parents enjoy a much higher standard of living. The protected income assessment ensures that the absent parent remains above the income support level. The measure therefore increases the margin above income support that absent parents will retain. The noble Baroness also asked whether it was a Treasury saving exercise. Taxpayers should only have to support children when their parents are unable to do so. That view was strongly endorsed by the Select Committee, which agreed with the Government.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about parents with care being compensated for the reduction in their income brought about by the changes. Most parents with care will receive more maintenance under the Child Support Act than under the old courts based system, even after the changes take effect. Some will have current assessments reduced but for those in receipt of income support—the majority—their benefit will be adjusted to compensate for any reduction in income. Family credit is payable for: 26 weeks and not normally adjusted for changes in circumstances. Changes in maintenance will not be taken into account until a renewal claim is made. Income can move either up or down; some will gain because of the rule and others will lose. Other in-work benefit, such as housing benefit, can be adjusted immediately, minimising the effect on losers.
The noble Earl also asked why there is no help for items such as travel-to-work costs and debts and contract costs. Maintaining their children should be the parents' first priority. Allowing for individual items of expenditure in the formula would be to give those expenses a higher priority than child support. The formula leaves most absent parents with more than 70 per cent. of net income after paying maintenance and allowing sufficient flexibility to meet other outgoings. The proposed increase to protected income will provide a further margin of income to help vulnerable absent parents to meet such costs. The old system of allowing a range of other expenses before child maintenance resulted in unrealistically low levels of award. To start including travel-to-work costs would create pressure for more items to be added to the list of exceptional expenses. The Social Security Select Committee endorsed the decision.

1237
The noble Baroness asked about housing costs of stepchildren. The recommendation runs contrary to one of the fundamental principles of the Child Support Act; that is, that the parents' first responsibility is to their own children. It would be wrong to place the need of stepchildren first.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the noble Viscount consider the case in a letter I received this morning where the father of the stepchildren is dead? There is no other way for them to be maintained.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot comment on any specific case. Obviously I do not know of the case cited by the noble Earl. However, if he writes to me I shall of course reply.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I was trying to use the case to refer to a general principle where the stepchildren do not have any other natural father who is capable of supporting them. Ought not their stepfather to have some allowance for the fact that it must become his duty to do so? It cannot be the duty of anyone else.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me to finish the point I was on, I shall come later to his point.
When an absent parent sets up home with a new family it is right that the natural parents of any step-children should contribute to their housing costs. In some cases this can mean that the absent parent can afford to pay more maintenance to his own children. The formula ensures that where an absent parent cannot afford to pay the assessed rate of maintenance—for example, because of commitments to a stepfamily—then in those circumstances all the housing costs are taken into account and the needs of the step-family are placed before the needs of the first family. It is important to recognise that the formula assesses the ability of both parents to contribute to the maintenance of their children. Any allowances in exempt income apply equally to both parents. Where the parent with care has repartnered and the new partner has children then the committee's recommendations could result in an absent parent paying more maintenance.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister has fully understood the point. He keeps referring to the housing costs. We are not talking about the housing costs. We know that those are covered. We are talking about where the step-children in the second family cannot bring with them any maintenance from their natural father either because he is dead or because he is unemployed or missing. As a result the second father is carrying their care in an honourable and decent way and floating that second family off poverty at the price, very often, of impoverishing his first family. If he were to meet his maintenance obligations on the first family, the second family would be impoverished. Will the Minister address that issue please? We have come back to it twice.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I was about to address the issue before the noble Baroness interrupted me. I
1238
was attempting to say that step-children are taken account of in the formula. Before any maintenance is paid a calculation is done which includes step-children. In some cases step-children can take precedence over the child of the first family. If, for example, the step-children are adopted, they will be treated as natural children.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If they are adopted, my Lords.
Viscount Astor: Yes, my Lords.
The noble Earl asked about the incentive to work. The protected income provisions ensure that absent parents retain enough of their disposable income to ensure that they are always better off than they would be on income support. These amendments mean that absent parents will now keep a minimum of £30 above the level of income support. In addition, they will also keep 15 per cent. of the difference between their basic protected income level and the family's total income. The current provision only provides for the retention of 10 per cent.
The noble Earl also asked about clean-break settlements. We believe that the Select Committee produced a thoughtful and considered report. The all-party committee concluded that there is no sensible way in which the capital value of past settlements could be reflected in current maintenance assessments. The formula already reflects the practical consequence of settling a house on the former partner. In such cases it is likely that the absent parent not able to call upon the equity of the marital home will incur higher housing costs than would otherwise be the case. The absent parent's costs of rehousing himself and any new children are deducted pound for pound from his assessable income, so reducing his maintenance bill.
Moreover, the courts have never accepted the possibility of a clean break between parents and their children, and under the court system parents had the right to seek periodical maintenance for a child or to seek a variation of an existing order following a capital or property settlement. Indeed, it has always been open to the Secretary of State for Social Security to seek such a variation where the taxpayer became involved in supporting the children. This principle has been endorsed in a recent ruling in the High Court—the Crozier case.
It should be remembered that clean breaks are arrangements between spouses. There can be no clean break between a parent and a child. The formula takes account of the practical consequences of property or capital settlements. The Select Committee agreed that it is impractical for the formula to take further account of clean breaks. In fact to do so would amount to double counting in many cases. The Department of Social Security has always had the right to seek a review of child maintenance if the taxpayer is involved. In the Crozier case the judgment confirmed that there can be no clean break between a parent and a child. The judgment also confirmed that there has always been a statutory provision for the Department of Social Security to seek maintenance in these cases if the taxpayer became involved.

1239
There are immense practical problems in ascertaining the actual value of the property at the time of the clean break. There are problems in establishing the amount of equity in the property where there have been loans secured against the property. How is it possible to determine how much of the total equity would have been allocated to the spouse? Even if we were able to overcome these extensive problems, how is it possible to ascertain the amount of maintenance that would have been payable between the date of the court order and the child support assessment had a clean break not occurred? If all this were feasible and the balance was converted into an income stream there would be significant double counting because of the way in which the formula looks at housing costs.
The noble Earl asked me about fees. The purpose of charging fees is to recover the cost of providing the services of making an assessment and putting in place arrangements for the regular payment of maintenance. Under old provisions where the courts may have been involved clients usually had to pay fees to solicitors and other associated court costs. It would not be right to shift the burden from individuals who can afford fees to the taxpayer simply because a government agency now has the responsibility. The noble Earl also asked about forms. The new forms for obtaining the parent with care's authorisation to act were introduced on 12th October 1993. Applications after that date are receiving the new forms and are being processed using the revised procedures.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked why there is no maintenance disregard on income support. Regular maintenance will provide a springboard for parents with care on income support who wish to return to work. A disregard would provide a perverse incentive for them to remain on benefit. The majority of lone parents on income support tell us that they wish to work. The Government have therefore placed the disregards in the in-work benefits which will help considerably in achieving that aim.
The noble Baroness also asked about bonuses for agency staff and about encouraging them to pick on soft targets. Agency staff are paid on the same basis as all other staff employed by the department and its agencies. All are eligible for performance-related pay linked to performance judged against a whole range of individual objectives. There is no direct link between the pay of staff and the amount of maintenance they secure.
The noble Baroness said that the carer element should remain if a child is disabled. The carer element represents solely the care needed by the child, not the cost of his or her upbringing, such as food or clothing. These costs may increase but the cost of physical day-to- day care reduces as the child gets older. The part of the maintenance requirement attributed to the child's own costs will increase at the age of 11.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister has again misunderstood the point. If a child is disabled, the need of the parent with care to continue to care does not reduce as the child grows older. Therefore there should be no reduction in the spousal maintenance
1240
that is associated with the responsibilities of being the parent with care when that child gets older. That was the point. Will the Minister address it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I said that the part of the maintenance requirement attributed to the child's own costs will increase at the age of 11. Where a child is disabled, the parent with care can ask the court to make a top-up award over and above the amount calculated by the formula.
I was also asked about the floaters off income support and the loss of passported benefits. The receipt of maintenance in such circumstances is no different from receiving a new or increased income from another source. We do not believe that maintenance should be treated any differently. Parents with care who are floated off income support will generally still be eligible to qualify for help with National Health charges on income grounds.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is the Minister saying that parents who receive a maintenance award which is pound for pound the same as they would have received on income support will continue to be eligible for passported benefits? If not, why not?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I said that: we do not see that there is any difference from receiving a new or increased income from any other source. That was the point I made.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, so the Minister accepts that such a parent, by receiving maintenance from the father in lieu of income support, will actually be poorer off.
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords. I do riot accept that.
We have listened to the views of people from all walks of life and have paid particular attention to the objective analysis of the Social Security Select Committee. The changes we have made will help a wide range of absent parents and the significant increases to protected income will in particular help those who are less well off.
We shall have a further chance to discuss some of the principles of the Bill during the debate in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, next week; but this package of changes, these regulations, preserve the basic principles of the Child Support Act and balance carefully the needs of all parties: the children, the parents and the taxpayer. I commend them to the House.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, can I ask if he will lend his support to the very modest proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that the vires of these regulations and the general questions arising from them be referred to the Procedure Committee?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not sure how that committee operates. I had understood that the Procedure Committee had a certain freedom to look at what it wants to look at. However, I take the noble Earl's point and I will pass the message along to the appropriate quarter.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if I may help the noble Viscount, if he does not refer the constitutional point to the Procedure Committee, I shall certainly do so. Moreover, I shall raise the point next week on the Local Government (Wales) Bill, where the word "transitional" appears, as it does in almost every Bill these days, to ascertain whether Whitehall generally concurs with the view apparently held by this department that the word "transitional" is sufficient to allow rectification of Acts of Parliament where a mistake has been found subsequently.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

St. Helenians: UK Employment
6.22 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleyrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to ensure greater access by the people of St. Helena to training and work in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This is the first time your Lordships have debated the affairs of St. Helena since the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, whom I am delighted to see is to speak again tonight, asked another Unstarred Question exactly 10 years ago.
I hope your Lordships will forgive a little explanation here, because, although I know that most noble Lords in this Chamber will know quite a lot about St. Helena, certainly all your Lordships who are to take part in the debate, if you ask someone in the street about St. Helena you will find a great deal of mystification over exactly where it is. So for the benefit of Hansard perhaps I could start off by giving one or two facts. St. Helena is a dependent territory of the United Kingdom and has itself two associated territories, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha to which the present admirable and hard-working Governor of St. Helena, who is himself married to a St. Helenian is at present on his way for his annual visit, Tristan da Cunha being even more isolated than St. Helena.
St. Helena has roughly 6,000 inhabitants, all of whom look to the United Kingdom as their mother country. Their ancestors came and settled in an island which had no aboriginal inhabitants and whose immigrating inhabitants had been guaranteed British citizenship by a charter of Charles II in 1673. Unlike almost every other dependent territory, it has no culture except British culture and their own adaptation of that. It has no airport or airstrip and is several days' sailing from any land mass. All these factors add together to show why it is in a class of its own.
We are shortly to have a debate, I am glad to see, on the dependent territories as a whole, but the day is past when the United Kingdom Government had so many of them to look after that it could make blanket rules for them all. They now can and should be looked at individually and no excuse that "We cannot do this or the others will be wanting it too" can hold water.
As I have said, it is 10 years since St. Helena was debated here and rather longer, I think, since it was
1242
debated in another place; but I venture to predict that it will not be another 10 years before it is debated again. Noble Lords who are down to speak in this debate—and I am most grateful to those who have agreed to take part—will see to that. I must tell your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, would very much have liked to have spoken in this debate but, alas, is not yet well enough. Also, the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, rang me last night to say how much he regretted that he could not take part in this debate today.
There are enough urgent matters affecting St. Helena to take up a whole day's debate, even if there are not, alas, quite enough informed noble Lords to fill an afternoon's speaking list. But today I am asking a Question about facilities for training, work experience and jobs off the island; that in effect, largely for the reasons that I have already rehearsed, means in the United Kingdom.
I am not tonight asking about citizenship and the right of abode. That is in the minds of all your Lordships who know anything about St. Helena, and we shall come to it in due course in your Lordships' House, possibly when the affairs of Hong Kong are on a more even keel. Nor am I asking about greater access to the island, although I understand that at least two, if not three, noble Lords will mention the matter this evening. It is time for either a shuttle ship or an airstrip to supplement the monthly calls of the Curnow Shipping Line's "St. Helena", that admirable ship. One of the tragedies of St. Helena is that no one wants to invade it. If anyone wanted to invade it, I am quite sure that there would be an airstrip there within a week and certainly much better methods of communicating with it.
I am merely asking tonight for opportunities for training and work experience for the "Saints", as they call themselves and as I believe they are right to call themselves. In so asking, I know that I am supported by the Governor, the Legislative Council and the people of the island. There is a first-class primary school system on the island. There is, since recently, a very good secondary school, the Prince Andrew school, and while there is room for the upgrading of standards to UK levels in examinations, teaching and so forth, the education system may be regarded as generally satisfactory. And it is worth noting that in a world-wide rating of children being adjusted, or maladjusted, St. Helena is in the very first rank—thus rightly earning its people's sobriquet of "Saints".
There is some work available on the island and, in my view and in the view of others who are qualified to know, there is the opportunity and the possibility for much more. We may turn our attention to that on another occasion. I know that the ODA is investigating this and is indeed taking many steps and taking a lot of trouble over this. There is also work available on Ascension and in the Falklands. What there is not is the opportunity for higher education and training; and that is what the Government must provide. This is particularly so with the phasing out of the work permit scheme for the dependent territories. It is not a complicated matter. There is in place an admirable organisation called St. Helena Link, which was set up by the Government of the United Kingdom and St. Helena

1243
jointly, to offer pastoral care to those coming from an unsophisticated island. There are over 3,000 St. Helenians already living in this country with their own admirable newspaper, an Anglican Diocesan Association, an Official Government representative, a St. Helena Association and an Organisation of Friends.
There is a strong need. I became involved because my wife visited St. Helena at the behest of the Curnow Shipping Company 18 months ago to take an exhibition of contemporary British art there and she ended up organising a local exhibition as well. I am grateful to her for first teaching me about the island and its inhabitants. I am grateful also to all those friends of St. Helena who have instructed me further.
It is our duty as the Parliament of this country, which is the only Parliament which has power in St. Helena, to look after these people, to pay them more attention than we have in the past and to provide opportunities for its young people as they grow up. I now look forward with some optimism to the Government's solution to this not very difficult but, for the 6,000 subjects of that country, extremely important question.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Braine of Wheatley: My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for making it possible for us to have this debate and for introducing the subject in his excellent speech.
I have been concerned about the future of St. Helena—a beautiful island which is sometimes described as the "lost county of England"—ever since I visited it in August 1980. I went there at the request of the then Governor and his Executive Council who hoped that I would draw the attention of Parliament to the anxieties that they felt about British policy and the island's future.
St. Helena has been a British colony for over 300 years. The first "Saints", as the islanders call themselves, came from England in 1659, followed seven years later by refugees from the Great Fire of London. They brought English ways and the Christian religion. When I visited the island there were some 15 churches. For all I know, there may be more now.
In the early part of the last century when we were waging war against the iniquitous slave trade, captured slave ships were brought to the island and the slaves were released there. They somewhat enlarged the population. Then, St. Helena was a fortress, a keypost on the long voyage to India, round the Cape. That was before the Suez Canal was built.
St. Helena's population when I visited was only about 5,000, but it was English-speaking, literate and British in character and allegiance. Alas, when I was there I found many people facing difficulties and beginning to border on despair. Basically, the problem for St. Helena at that time was one of physical communications with its associated dependency of Ascension Island 700 miles to the north—a vitally important place strategically, as the Falklands War was to prove—Tristan da Cunha to the south and, of course, faraway Britain herself.
More recently, there have been some important developments. Since 1991, Cable and Wireless has
1244
revolutionised links with the world network through the earth satellite system. Satellite communications have brought St. Helena into the data transmission age. Moreover, the Falklands conflict demonstrated the importance of the links with all our South Atlantic dependencies: for example, we could riot have waged that war so effectively without access to Ascension.
Then again, the new RMS "St. Helena", built here with British Government aid and operated by the Curnow Shipping Company of Cornwall, is proving to be of very great value in moving goods and passengers between St. Helena and South Africa and between St. Helena and Britain. This year, for the very first time, regular shipping links have been established between St. Helena and West Africa.
What is still needed, however, is a regular inter-island shipping service linking St. Helena to Ascension which is 700 miles away. 1vloreover, what has happened to the idea that was advanced some years ago that St. Helena might have an airport? Is any thought being given currently to that idea here in London?
There is, however, a much more fundamental question which does not seem to have been properly considered in Whitehall; namely, the importance of linking all our South Atlantic dependencies more closely. With the development of very important oil and fishery resources off the Falkland Islands, surely that will soon open up opportunities for St. Helenian labour which has proved its solid worth in development elsewhere. St. Helenians are a literate and pleasant people, British in their allegiance, dependable workers and Christian in their outlook. Surely, thought should be given now to the opening up of opportunities for them in the Falklands where both oil and fishery development on a large scale will undoubtedly promote a growing demand for reliable labour. join the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in asking what thought is being given to the prospect of that happening.
That brings me to the more direct question of the discrimination against these people that British immigration policy has imposed—and here, I speak frankly. If St. Helenians are British, why have the Government here continued to deprive them of the clearest expression of their British ideality; namely, a British passport? What difference does distance or separation by sea really make? It makes no difference at all under American law. Both Alaska and Hawaii enjoy full statehood. It makes no difference under French law: Reunion is a département of France even though it is far away in the Indian Ocean. If the British view is that distance disqualifies, how is it that the Falkland islanders are British citizens—and it is right that they are; thank God that they are—although they are further away from the mother country than St. Helena?
The simple truth is that St. Helenians are not clamouring to become British citizens because they are already British —and always have been British. Yet when their Legislative Council petitioned the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in 1990 for recognition of their inalienable right of entry into Britain, it received a negative reply.

1245
I hope and I trust that this debate will have the effect of concentrating minds in Whitehall. Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to quote from the concluding paragraph of a detailed report that I made to the Government of the day in August 1980, which I entitled St. Helena—A Case of Enforced Dependence. This is what I said:
"The first objective of British policy in our remaining dependencies should be to encourage the maximum self-reliance. But that is only possible where people are given the confidence that they can earn a reasonable living by their own efforts. Too often the difficulties in a 'colonial situation' are inherent in the society itself, in its attitudes and mores. Not so in the case of St. Helena. Its people are hardworking, intelligent and law-abiding. They have proved themselves resilient and adaptable when given the chance. Most of the obstacles in the way of achieving a confident self-reliance lie outside the colony, not within it".
Unhappily, that is still the situation. It must be changed.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for raising this important subject and for his impressive speech setting the scene for this short debate. I also appreciate the knowledgeable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Braine, arising from his experience when he visited the island in 1980. Thirty-six years ago I was asked by the late Hugh Gaitskell if I would visit St. Helena. He had received complaints that that small and distant colony was being neglected by the British Government, and he was anxious that that charge should be investigated and the facts brought to light. I knew little of St. Helena then, save that Napoleon was exiled there, and I was not sure why I had been chosen to go there. Perhaps it was because I represented the Isle of Anglesey in Parliament !
I realised how ill-informed I was when I called at the House of Commons Travel Office to book a flight to St. Helena. After studying some papers, Mr. Buchanan, the official in charge, asked me whether I would call again in an hour or so as he wanted to make some inquiries. When I called, he informed me that there was no airfield on St. Helena and no flight there. He said that I would have to go by sea. So it was that I sailed to St. Helena in the "Braemar Castle" of the Union Castle Line, and spent nearly two months away from the other place. It was a factor I had not anticipated when Hugh Gaitskell approached me, but it was made more agreeable when my wife agreed to accompany me.
I was told then that I was the first Member of Parliament to visit St. Helena, and I realised that I had undertaken a considerable responsibility. The community there gave us the warmest of welcomes, and my stay gave me ample opportunity to familiarise myself with the way of life and the problems of the people. I cannot go into great detail in a short speech, but there are some key points that I should like to make. First, the people regard themselves as British, although they were born and bred in the South Atlantic, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Braine, has just made. If it were a little closer to Britain, it could become an ideal unitary authority in the British local government system without any difficulty! Unlike some who come here, they share the British tradition and its way of life completely.
1246
The inhabitants of St. Helena believe that they are British because they originate from the England of the 17th century. When the Dutch occupied the island, it was uninhabited; the first inhabitants sailed there from these islands, and today, as the noble Lord, Lord Braine, said, their descendants are hurt and offended because the Government refuse to give them the full recognition of a British passport. A report published last August conveys the sense of frustration which exists. It states:
"There is bitter irony that Gibraltar … which has less cause to be regarded as British, nevertheless has received the rights denied to this other island which has a greater and longer claim to the same national identity".
The Commission on Citizenship which has been looking into these matters on behalf of St. Helenians has said that they accept the need for comprehensive immigration legislation although they are very critical, and rightly so, of the British Nationality Act 1981. They say that they are now prisoners on the island, whereas previously they had the right to a British passport. That deep feeling is reflected in the Legislative Council's petition to the Foreign Secretary as recently as 1990 when it said:
"We. the twelve elected representatives of the six thousand loyal, patriotic British people of the South Atlantic Dependent Territory of St. Helena, do hereby again plead on their behalf for the reinstatement of their inalienable rights of entry into the United Kingdom".
The negative response of the Foreign Office was, in my view, quite unacceptable. It refuses to recognise the unique position of St. Helena. It is, presumably for political reasons, more sensitive to the demands of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. For example, I understand that the Secretary of State has power by regulation to permit registration in Gibraltar. I hold the view strongly that the right of St. Helena to a passport is stronger than that of any other British dependent territory. Why do I say that? I do so because the people of St. Helena are not a native population of the island; they were settled there by the British Government. The island was populated by the British Government, and was then used as a fortress by the British Government. It is not a happy story because it was later neglected and forgotten by the British Government.
Notwithstanding all that, the members of the community on the little island regard themselves as loyal Britons. Their resources are very limited, as we know, and they must look elsewhere for employment and the means to live, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made plain. That is why we must thank him for bringing this sad human problem once again to public notice.
During my stay in St. Helena, I formed a great respect and affection for. the law-abiding, friendly and hardworking islanders. They deserve practical assistance today of the type described by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Will the Minister tell us what is the present position of the work permit scheme in relation to St. Helena? If it is to be abolished, we must have a practical and effective alternative. I hope that the Minister will tell us about that and that he will advise his right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to consider carefully the speeches in this debate and produce a more just and compassionate policy for St. Helena.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for raising this debate. I also feel some sense of inferiority as I speak after three noble Lords who have visited St. Helena. I can almost tear up my notes, because the problem has already been explained so effectively. Not having set foot on St. Helena, my interest derives from considerable familiarity with the Falkland Islands for over 20 years, and with St. Helena. I have always been interested in that part of the world, including the Antarctic. My daughter has been to Tristan da Cunha for some months and—wait for it!—in 1941 I saw St. Helena in the moonlight from a troopship. So it is not totally unknown to me.
I do not regard citizenship as being outside the debate, because I believe that giving full citizenship to the St. Helenians would solve many of the problems and probably the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. We are all aware that what was holding up things in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, and now St. Helena, was the fear in Whitehall that the right to a pas sport would produce an avalanche of mass migration from Hong Kong. I say "Whitehall", because, in fairness to my noble friend the Minister, this matter has been going on for decades: certainly two or three. Therefore we cannot hold Ministers, or any particular government, responsible. It is a permanent issue: the idea that if we were to give anyone full citizenship it would cause a conflagration and the United Kingdom would be inundated with people from dependent territories all over the world. I believe that to be untrue.
The questions I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister are, first, will he tell us, or if he cannot perhaps he will kindly find out, what problems have arisen, what difficulties there have been, how many people, or what percentage of the population of Gibraltar, have arrived here as immigrants since they were accorded British citizenship?
Secondly, may we have the answer to the same question in relation to the Falklands? The Falkland Islanders were given citizenship as a result of the invasion. I was there immediately after this. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, rightly said, it is a bit much if people have to be invaded in order to gain citizenship. Will the Minister tell us in respect of the Falkland Islands what difficulties have arisen, what damage has been done and what percentage of the population has arrived here as immigrants that could cause any problem? I believe that no problems have been raised, no damage has been caused and there have been no immigration difficulties.
The Government may believe that by giving citizenship to those in a dependent territory others will demand the same and cause considerable trouble. However, that has been amply disproved by what occurred in respect of Gibraltar and the Falklands. There is therefore no conceivable excuse for saying that the St. Helenians cannot be given full citizenship—which would answer the noble Lord's Question —simply because the same might happen in another part of the world.
1248
Hong Kong is off the agenda; St. Helena. is irrelevant as far as the future of Hong Kong is concerned. Is Whitehall going to scratch around looking for somewhere else to point to and say, "We cannot do that in case someone in the Caribbean or elsewhere makes an immediate demand too"?
I do not wish to extend the debate and I am grateful to previous speakers who have covered the issues so effectively. I merely wish to put on record the fact that we want to know about the problems which arose in respect of the Falklands and Gibraltar. I totally reject the notion that in future the St. Helenians can be tied to some other territory some thousands of miles away. That is completely irrelevant.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, we are grateful to Lady Beaumont for prompting the noble Lord to raise the subject of St. Helena tonight. It has long been a problem island and the islanders' access to the UK is currently being discussed in Whitehall. Therefore the timing of the debate is most apt.
I wish to comment briefly on access to the UK and then raise one or two other matters in which I have long been interested. But before doing so, I should like, with others, to pay tribute to the present Governor, Mr. Hoole, for his enthusiasm and helpfulness. He has the advantage of having a wife from the island and a special access to its hopes and fears.
My first point is that the British Government are under an undoubted and inescapable obligation to help this small dependent territory. They have a similar obligation to other dependent territories left over from our former Empire. There is no possibility of independence in the future for St. Helena and many of the other islands and it has special features which must be taken into account in deciding British policy. Our Government do, of course, already subsidise and help the island, but I believe that more should be done not only now but over the next few years.
I visited the island with my wife some few years ago—it was a visit which made a considerable impression on us—although I had some experience of its affairs when I was in the Foreign Office.
As I indicated, there are unusual features of the island which must be kept in mind and which must dictate our policy. First, it has virtually no natural resources and no port. Going from ship to shore can be a distinct adventure. Persons of my age and that of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, are now put ashore by crane. Many attempts have been made, without success, to develop resources since the flax growing collapsed. There is still some hope for the fishing industry, and en route to the island we sailed through large Russian fishing fleets. Whether their ships remain I do not know, but presumably the fish do.
The island is now served by a new passenger/freight ship from Plymouth or Cardiff which appears to he heavily booked. We have the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to thank for it as she overcame the reluctance of the Treasury to place the order. The noble Baroness asked me to say that she very much wanted to speak in the debate tonight but was unable to do so.

1249
The island has a long history linking it with the UK. It provided shelter and aid to the vessels of the East India Company centuries ago. Every school child knows of Napoleon's connection and Longwood is a potential attraction for tourists from this country and Europe.
There are important ways in which Her Majesty's Government can help the island. The regulation of permits to come to the UK is the centre of our discussion tonight. That was put most clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton. The present quota is soon to expire but there are strong reasons for it to be extended.
Islanders are of course employed on Ascension and the Falklands. This is a comparatively new development. The development of the oil industry in the Falklands may one day provide further opportunities. But these outlets are no substitute for a closer connection with the UK after which the islanders understandably hanker.
There is now a secondary school on the island which was built after a miserly correspondence with London for over 20 years. In fact, it was only the prospect of a naval visit by His Royal Highness Prince Andrew that caused Her Majesty's Government to yield. Pupils from this school will make it easier for islanders to be usefully employed here and contribute to their economy and our own. Large numbers will not be involved. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
The second way in which we can help is the provision of an airfield. This has been a hobby-horse of mine for many years. There are difficulties, not only of cost (which have been exaggerated) but of air safety. But they are not insurmountable. A golden opportunity was missed when construction plant which was returning from the Falklands could have been put off at St. Helena to contribute to the building of the airfield.
An alternative is being considered—to provide a boat shuttle between St. Helena and Ascension from which long distance air services could be available. But I do not believe that this would bring a benefit as great as a direct air service. Such a direct service could attract tourists and from not only the UK but also France in particular.
The Minister, I am sure, knows the problems only too well. But in the long run a direct service would reduce the present subsidies to the island and give the population a chance of all-round advancement. I know that the subject has been under close review but I hope that the Government will see the value of an ambitious step forward now rather than the false economy of a more modest sea shuttle. Seven hundred miles between St. Helena and Ascension or Angola is a long journey. St. Helena is also dependent on South Africa, for example, for medical emergencies. The subject of the airfield is a complicated one for which we do not have sufficient time this evening. However, I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, returns from his future visit he will give his impressions of that controversy. A direct service must be established one day. Why should that not be done in the last years of this century?
7 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, will forgive me for daring to take part in this well-informed debate without any first-hand knowledge of the island, or, indeed, of the South Atlantic. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, suggested, that is an omission which I intend to put right in 16 days' time. In the light of the noble Lord's speech, I hope that the important crane which could hoist the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, or the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will be available also for me.
This country's continuing responsibilities to the few colonies which remain have been the theme of the speeches of many noble Lords. This debate concentrates on the particular problems of St. Helena. As I read history, in the past the island seems to have been relatively rich in natural resources but now, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said, natural resources are sadly scarce as, for other reasons, are human resources. I suppose that one reason is the extensive employment of the Saints in the Falklands, on Ascension and aboard the RMS "St. Helena", for which Her Majesty's Government deserve great credit.
For those reasons, in my opinion and that of all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, Great Britain has a duty to find some way out of the vicious circle whereby a lack of skills is undoubtedly frustrating development. At the same time, that same lack of skills deprives the inhabitants, the Saints, of the opportunity to use fruitfully their own natural abilities or to acquire new skills or improve them, by being given the chance to visit this country.
If, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested, the Government remain determined to bring to an end the present scheme of work permits, we must press them hard to propose a constructive alternative, which I hope my noble friend Lord Henley will be able to provide. In my opinion, that would give enormous encouragement to the people of St. Helena who at present, to put it mildly, feel rather left out.
I hope that my noble friend can give encouragement as regards three matters. First, is there scope to put still more emphasis, within the considerable total of aid which Britain continues to provide to the island, on technical assistance, skills training, and so on, and on other means to create and keep in St. Helena the human resources essential for the island's development? I purposely said "create and keep" because I understand that bright young pupils at Prince Andrew School are acquiring skills and their education is good. However, the experts are asking what that education is for. One such expert concludes:
"The talented go away, get qualified; … come back; … rediscover the pitiful money they will earn and go off again".
Therefore, I ask the Government what incentive they can suggest to make it more worthwhile for the bright and energetic, when they return, to remain on the island and to contribute their skills towards its development.
I ask Her Majesty's Government to give urgent consideration to the consequences of bringing to an end the present system. I give one example of its importance, not only to St. Helena but also much more widely. Nearly 40 years ago a young man named James

1251
Johnson came from St. Helena to Britain with his young wife. They took jobs as domestic servants. Unless there is an effective replacement for the existing system, people like that young couple will be excluded from Britain after next year. It would certainly have been a pity if those two people had been kept out.
A few years after his arrival, James Johnson began his studies for the priesthood while his wife worked to support them and his young son. After ordination he returned to St. Helena. He came back to this country and in 1985 he was consecrated as the Bishop of St. Helena. That reversed the usual trend of Christians because he became the first Saint to turn into a bishop! No doubt that is a rare example. Very few will come here as domestic servants and end up as bishops.
That illustrates a different but important point. If such people are firmly kept out of Britain, it will be a deprivation for them. It will be a deprivation also for a number—I know riot how many—of people in this country who are growing old, whose health is failing and who long for the caring help which, in my observation, a number of the Saints are willing to give. They may not fit easily into the exact requirement for skills which the Government lay down, but they can give to the old and the ill the care that they badly need.
I hope fervently that the new provisions, which I understand the Government are considering, will include those who cannot qualify easily under the scarce skills requirement. The Government should offer not only training leading to an occupational skill and work experience to increase industrial and commercial expertise and improve knowledge of English, but also the opportunity for unskilled people to acquire not specific skills but to give freely, as many already do, of their natural abilities. The offer of such opportunities would bring new hope to hundreds of men and women still living on the island.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Beaumont of Whitley, for giving us the opportunity to speak on this extremely important subject.
I justify my qualification to speak on two grounds, one of which is extremely thin and one of which is not so thin. An ancestor of mine on my mother's side was the officer who escorted Napoleon to the island of St. Helena. It is my ambition to escort a Minister of the Crown to St Helena and keep him in the fortress there until he makes up his mind to do something about this matter.
The other reason is that I bear the burden of being the chairman of a committee of which two extremely distinguished members have already spoken; that is, the South-West Atlantic group, of which my fellow committee members are my noble friends Lord Braine of Wheatley and Lord Buxton of Alsa.
I am speaking last in the debate not as a result of a cruel and overbearing Chief Whip, but because I generally choose to speak in this position for the very good reason that noble Lords who speak before me usually say precisely what I want to say so much better
1252
than I could possibly say it. Today's debate, which has been superb up until now, is no exception in that regard. I should like to make a few simple points. I agree and follow all the comments made so very well 'by other speakers. Indeed, it has been a most excellent and moving debate. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind with precision what has been said.
However, I should like to stress one point. I have studied the problems for some years now. Ai we all know, the island of St. Helena is one of the interests of the committee that was formed by myself, my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa and, above all, by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in 1981. The committee has taken an interest in the island for the whole of its existence.
It has now become absolutely clear that an airport on the island would generate revenue in several directions. It would reduce the United Kingdom subsidy which is presently essential to maintain the population. Such a development must be good for the United Kingdom and, above all, good for the Saints. It has been a delight to listen to the contributions to the debate. I thank all those who have taken part.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, I apologise for intervening in the debate. However, I hope that noble Lords will understand why I have done so. I did not realise that the noble Lord's Unstarred Question was tabled for today, and I had very much hoped to be able to listen to the debate. However, by great good fortune I have been able to hear it. I visited St. Helena about 15 years ago. Like other noble Lords, I went there on a cruise ship. I wish that the crane about which my noble friend Lord Holderness spoke had been there then because I fell in the water as I was going ashore and got myself thoroughly wet. However, the island was so nice when I eventually got there that I forgot about the incident. I did a great deal of walking—as I could in those days—so it did not matter.
My daughter now lives in the old house where brought up my family. It is a small Cotswold estate with a number of cottages which need to be looked after. Two St. Helenian families are there taking care of it. They are magnificent people. I believe that they are a fair sample of the people who live on the island. It seems very likely that in a small community—indeed, I believe that someone said that about 6,000 people live there today—people tend to be alike. For example, if they are good at something, then they are all good at it. It is only when size comes into consideration that some people are perhaps not quite so good as others.
However, I want to say that those people are quite magnificent. They look after the estate, they help in the house and are extremely good-tempered. do not know how they manage to do all that complicated estate work, which includes the maintenance of drains, and so on, because they have not had the necessary training and experience. But they have taken to it. They are: good people. I believe that everything possible should be done for them. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord

1253
Beaumont, has raised the Question. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give him some very satisfactory answers.
7.14 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for raising the issue this evening and, in particular, for the background that he gave to the House. I must confess that I know very little about St. Helena, apart from the fact that Napoleon died there. But I suppose that everyone knows that. The reason that I am addressing the issue from this Dispatch Box is because it refers to,
"training and work in the United Kingdom",
among other issues. Regrettably, as I said, I have never been to St. Helena. However, when I realised that an Unstarred Question had been tabled about the island I looked into the matter to see what I could find out. I have learnt that the island which lies in the South Atlantic was governed by the British East India Company from 1673 and came under the direct control of the British Crown in 1834.
Your Lordships will have heard from other noble Lords with a great deal more knowledge than I have much about the history of the island. But, at general elections, the population returns by an overwhelming majority the party that advocates retaining close links with the United Kingdom. The economy depends on economic aid provided by the British Government. As we have heard, the island's main economic activities are fishing, the rearing of livestock and handicrafts. As other speakers have said, the population consists of about 6,000 people. I understand that 2,516 males are in employment but, surprisingly, only 909 females. Perhaps there is not much opportunity for female employment on the island.
It would also appear that there is unemployment on the island with a large part of the population being forced to seek employment overseas. As noble Lords have already said, there is no airstrip. Perhaps that is very unfortunate. If there was an airstrip, there would probably be greater opportunities for development and thus for employing people in St. Helena itself. I understand that some of the population seek employment in neighbouring Ascension Island. It is a dependency of St. Helena and is an important communications centre. That island has no indigenous population, but is inhabited by British and US military personnel, as US forces occupy the airfield which is used as a tracking station for guided missiles. Clearly that island does offer employment to some people from St. Helena, but whether it is sufficient, or the right kind of employment, I simply do not know. Presumably the type of work carried on there would demand a fairly high level of technological skills. Whether such facilities for training exist on St. Helena is, perhaps, a part of the debate. From what other speakers have said, it looks as though the facilities for such training are simply not there.
As I understand the situation—and this has been referred to by other speakers—the work permit scheme operating in the United Kingdom is being phased out for
1254
dependent territories, including St. Helena. That phasing out was announced in 1991 and takes full effect this year. I am informed that the quota was reduced to only 30 permits in 1993. I support the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in attempting to secure for St. Helenians access to training schemes. It is a small population and one entirely dependent on British economic support; one, moreover, where the population would appear to be very loyal to this country and very intent upon retaining the links. I believe that parties with a different viewpoint—including the Opposition party at the last general election—desire to break the link and to develop a greater degree of autonomy. However, those views were rejected repeatedly by the populace and now the parties advocating such policies appear to be virtually moribund.
It is unfortunate that the Government should have chosen to phase out the scheme for dependent territories such as St. Helena. As a result of the debate, I hope that the Government may feel that they are able to reconsider the situation. I understand that the debate is primarily about access to training and work in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless many speakers have passionately made the case for the whole issue of citizenship and the issue of passports to be considered by the British Government. In particular, I refer to the statement made by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn based on his enormous knowledge of the island and his reference to the frustration that St. Helenians feel because they believe that there has been declining interest in their fate on the part of all British Governments. As a result of the contributions made to this evening's debate by noble Lords with a great deal of expertise in the area, I hope that the Government will feel disposed to look at that issue, even though it is not part of the "training and work" as mentioned in the noble Lord's Unstarred Question.
7.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, unlike others, I have still to visit St. Helena, nor have I even seen it, but nevertheless I will take up the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Morris to escort me —or one other Minister of the Crown—to St. Helena. I have to say that I am very tempted by the offer. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, say that he was away for some two months 36 years ago. Whether my noble friend the Chief Whip would allow me to be away for two months with my wife in the 1990s is another matter.
I also noted that my noble friend Lord Holderness is to visit the island in 16 days' time, and I wish him well, certainly with his arrangements for access and the celebrated crane. We would be most interested to hear the noble Lord's views on his return.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was asking particularly about training and work matters and not particularly about citizenship, access or other matters. Other noble Lords—I think perfectly properly—have ranged considerably wider and I intend, first of all, to address the particular points of the noble Lord, Lord

1255
Beaumont, and then, if noble Lords will allow me, to deal briefly with just some of the other points that have been raised.
In recent years citizens of St. Helena, along with those from other dependent territories, have been able to come to this country to take lower-skilled work under a concession within the work permit scheme. This quota scheme is open to all dependent territories; there is no specific quota of permits for St. Helena. In practice, each year 150 of the 200 permits available were taken by Hong Kong and the remainder almost exclusively by St. Helenians.
In 1991 a review of the longer-term position of this special dependent territories quota scheme involving relevant government departments concluded that the quota was anomalous and inconsistent with British immigration control in so far as permits were granted for jobs where the skill level was below that required under the normal work permit scheme rules. It had never been intended that the quota scheme would continue permanently. Therefore, on 24th July 1991, following consultation with all appropriate colleagues, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Employment announced that this concessionary arrangement would end in 1995. In order that the dependent territories should have time to adjust it was agreed that the quota would be phased out so that the numbers available to St. Helena would be reduced from 50 to 45 in 1991, 40 in 1992, 35 in 1993 and 30 this year, the last year of operation of the quota. In recent years the quota available to St. Helena has not been fully taken up, suggesting that it is possibly of declining value to the island.
Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government recognise that St. Helena has a special relationship with this country and in particular that it is the only dependent territory in receipt of budgetary aid. Consequently, discussions have been held between the government departments involved to consider the likely impact of the ending of the quota scheme on St. Helena with a view to lessening its impact. We realise that the loss of the quota scheme will have an effect on the economy of the island and on the opportunities available to its citizens. There will be some loss of income and it may increase the sense of isolation which St. Helenians already feel. We have therefore been looking into ways in which St. Helenians might be helped to benefit from opportunities in this country which would help individuals and the contribution they make to the economy of the island.
Officials in my department, the Department of Employment, in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and in the Home Office have been discussing how the training and work experience scheme operated by my department might be adapted specifically to accommodate the needs of St. Helenians. Following consultation with all concerned, Her Majesty's Government propose to introduce, on a pilot basis, a special arrangement to help St. Helenians benefit from the training and work experience scheme. This will allow St. Helenians to come to Britain to gain valuable skills by undertaking training or work experience which is not readily available to them in their own country.
1256
In view of the generally lower skill level of people on the island, St. Helenians will be able to qualify for permits for training or work experience at a much lower level than is normally permitted. They could, depending on the opportunities available to them, spend up to four years training towards vocational qualifications, or up to two years gaining valuable work experience while working with British businesses or other organisations. I should also emphasise that St. Helenians will continue to be eligible under the normal rules of the work permit scheme where they do have higher qualifications arid skills.
I should like just to deal briefly with some of the points made by my noble friends Lord Braine and Lord Buxton and by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, relating to citizenship. The British Nationality Act 1981 established the principle that British citizenship should be confined to those with close ties with the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Dependent territory citizens would have their own citizenship. The extension of entitlement to British citizenship to Falkland Islanders and Gibraltarians, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Buxton and others, has been due to very peculiar and particular circumstances and is not to be taken as establishing a precedent for citizens of the other British dependent territories.
Under the 1981 Act the majority of Falkland islanders already possessed British citizenship by virtue of descent and the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Amendment Act, which was introduced as a consequence of the special circumstances of the 1982 conflict, extended British citizenship to BDTCs with a connection with the Falklands who did not already possess that status. Those British dependent territory citizens with a connection with Gibraltar are entitled to registration as British citizens because Gibraltar is a European territory of a European Community member state, and therefore they are United Kingdom nationals for the purpose of Community treaties. I would argue that the case of St. Helena, as compared with Gibraltar, is somewhat different. But I understand the very, very strong views that have been expressed by several noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Braille and Lord Cledwyn, and my noble friend Lord Buxton among others. Certainly, I shall take it on myself to pass on those very real concerns to both my noble friend Lady Chalker and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
May I just say a word or two generally on St. Helena and our aid? I do not think that it is the case, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, put it, when talking about the situation some 30 years ago, that we could say that they are forgotten by our aid, or by the United Kingdom Government. Our aid programme is running at a level of about £9 million a year. That consists of aid for development projects, budgetary aid" training and manpower assistance and an annual subsidy for the shipping service. I am certainly grateful for the kind remarks of my noble friend Lord Holderness on that particular point.
Within its development programme the St Helena Government have been giving priority to strengthening

1257
productive capacity, in particular in agriculture, fisheries, forestry and the initial activities leading to the creation of the St. Helena Development Agency. But, certainly, I hope that the points made by my noble friend Lord Holderness about any development programme being designed to encourage people to stay there rather than to acquire skills elsewhere and then leave and stay away will be taken on board by those concerned. But I would hope that that figure of £9 million a year will be some indication of the measure of our commitment. St. Helena, as I said earlier, is unique among our dependent territories in still receiving budgetary aid support to cover the gap between domestic revenue and recurrent expenditure.
Turning to the question of an island shipping service, or shuttle, raised by my noble friend Lord Braine, I have to say that despite considerable efforts over the past four years, including the extensive use of specialist consultants, we have been unable to identify a vessel for the proposed shuttle service that meets the technical requirements at an economic cost. Suitable vessels not requiring disproportionately expensive conversion or operating charges are in very short supply; but I do have to say that our efforts are continuing and we are still in discussion with the St. Helena Government on the way forward.
Perhaps I may say just a word or two about the air service raised by several noble Lords, or the idea of an airport. We are aware of the interest that has been expressed by a private company in the development of an air field and a regular air service. Obviously such a project would carry considerable financial risk. The capital and recurrent costs which the British taxpayer would be expected to fund through the aid programme could be very high indeed. So far my understanding is that only one proposal for the development of an air
1258
field on St. Helena has been made to the Government; neither we nor the St. Helena Government have any knowledge of the existence of several competing, well researched schemes, as has been argued.
Any proposal for the development of an airfield on St. Helena would have to come from the Government of St. Helena and have its clear support. I also understand that there is currently a division of opinion among some islanders as to whether there should be an airfield. While some see such an airfield as being of benefit others see it as leading to a permanent change in the island's character and existing way of life.
I understand that later this year the St. Helena Government proposes to canvass opinion on the island on this particular matter. If the St. Helena Government were to make an official proposal about an air service we would certainly consider it on its merits, but that would need to involve very close scrutiny of both the technical and financial aspects of the case.
Perhaps I may return to the specific question which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, raised and which I believe has generated a very useful and frank debate. We recognise the unique relationship that St. Helena has with this country. Our purpose is to replace the quota scheme, which by and large simply provided for the employment of domestic staff, with something which has the potential to offer more in providing opportunities for citizens of St. Helena to develop themselves. I hope that the special arrangement that I have outlined today, and which I am pleased to say has been welcomed by the St. Helena Government, will be of general benefit to the economy of the island as a whole and will help it in due course achieve greater self sufficiency.
House adjourned at half past seven o'clock.