Sitting of 31 January 1994

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

    Benefit System
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to improve the operation of the benefit system.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): We are continually improving the operation of the benefit system. Over the past two years, the time taken to process claims for most key benefits has been reduced by an average of 30 per cent. and output per member of staff has been increased by more than 20 per cent. For the future, I announced last September the one-stop programme to improve customer service and value for money even further.
    Mr. Flynn: Has the Secretary of State noticed that the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill is only the latest in a long series of salami cuts in the income of people on invalidity benefit? If the benefit were still being paid under the same conditions that operated in 1979, each single person on invalidity benefit would receive an extra £35 a week and each couple would receive an extra £47 a week. Are not a Government who scapegoat the sick in that way nauseating, weak and hopeless?
    Mr. Lilley: If long-term sickness benefit were available only to the number of people receiving it under the last Labour Government, expenditure would be halved. We have allowed it to double in 10 years and to treble in 15 years. We want to ensure that, in future, money is focused on those who are genuinely unable to work because of sickness or disability and that it does not go to those who are able to work and who should be helped back into work on the back-to-work benefits. If the Opposition wish to revert to the old system, from where will they get the money?
    Mr. Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very strong feeling about the extent to which some people are receiving benefits to which they are not legally entitled? The extent of that was demonstrated by my right hon. Friend's announcement last year that he intended an initiative to save as much as £500 million worth of benefits that were being drawn wrongly. What success has my right hon. Friend had in reaching that target and what steps is he taking to prevent fraudulent claims so that money can go to those who are genuinely entitled to it?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is widespread resentment among people of all parties and none, and particularly among those on modest incomes who are striving to support themselves and to pay their taxes. They feel that some of their taxes are being misused and abused by those who are defrauding the system. I set a target last year for the Benefits Agency of identifying and stopping £500 million worth of abuse. I am happy to say that it exceeded that target and it is well on the way to matching a higher target this year. That will be welcomed by everyone who has at heart the best interests of those who genuinely need help from the benefits system, as well as the best interests of the taxpayer.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Does the Secretary of State intend to review payments to the 1·5 million families who are dependent on income support, in the light of the report published today by NCH Action for Children? According to that report, the £4·15 a week that is deemed sufficient to feed a child is 30 per cent. less than what was spent by Victorian workhouses in 1869, when it was £5·46. Is that not a disgraceful decline in our standards with regard to feeding our children?
    Mr. Lilley: For several reasons, that does not ring true to anyone, not least because there is no sum designated specifically for food within the income support system. The sum given is available for parents to decide how they should spend it in the best interests of their families. I believe that the hon. Lady is referring to a figure that might have been implicit in the supplementary benefits system. However, she is somewhat out of date with regard to the reasoning behind the press release. Her allegation that people would be better off if we returned to the Victorian workhouse system discredits the hon. Lady.

    Occupational Pensions
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average value of an occupational pension in 1979, and in the latest year for which figures are available.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): It is estimated that, at 1991 prices, the average value of occupational pensions was £41.90 per week in 1979 and £63.30 per week in 1991, an increase of 51 per cent.
    Mr. Greenway: Are not those figures a matter for congratulation? Will my hon. Friend confirm that more than 70 per cent. of all recently retired pensioners now have an occupational pension, compared with 50 per cent. of all pensioners in 1979? Will he confirm also that the Government will continue their caring Conservatism and look after pensioners on the basic pension, as they always have done?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only did the average income from an occupational pension grow throughout the 1980s but, as he says, the percentage of pensioners who have an occupational pension has also grown to about 70 per cent. of recently retired pensioners. My hon. Friend is right also to draw attention to the importance of state provision of the basic pension. Our policy remains to maintain the value of the basic state pension and to encourage additional provision on top of it.
    Mr. Frank Field: The whole House notes with pleasure the figures that have just been given, but do the Government share the Opposition's concern over the fact that it appears that millions of former pensioners in occupational schemes and in the state earnings-related pension scheme have been badly advised to opt out of those pension schemes? Do the Government regard that as a serious development? If so, what do they intend to do?
    Mr. Hague: The extent to which that might have happened has not yet been determined. As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury have asked the Securities and Investments Board to undertake a review. If such bad advice has been given, the Government will take it extremely seriously and will look to the Securities and Investments Board to come up with proposals to remedy what has happened.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my hon. Friend confirm the amounts over and above inflation to be paid to pensioners to protect them from the imposition of VAT on fuel?
    Mr. Hague: Yes. My hon. Friend draws attention to an important point. In the forthcoming uprating of the state pension, 50p per week will be given to single pensioners and 70p per week will be given to couples over and above the normal uprating in order to give extra help with VAT on fuel.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now abolish the Child Support Agency.
    Mr. Lilley: No.
    Mr. Hain: Will the Secretary of State respond to the detailed and devastating indictment of the operation of the Child Support Agency by a victim, one of my constituents, Mrs. Carol Jenkins? She showed that the pre-Christmas changes that were announced by the Government were mere window-dressing. Many families are still suffering chaos and heartache. The operation of the CSA is contrary to natural justice in that it is retrospective and overturns court orders, some of which were implemented seven or eight years ago. Has the time not come to wipe the slate clean and abolish the Child Support Agency, which is turning thousands of ordinary, decent men and women into a new oppressed class?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman seems unaware—I hope that he is becoming aware and will pass on my answer to his constituent—that the changes that were announced before Christmas, in rapid response to the investigations that were carried out by the Social Security Select Committee and that, in some respects, went rather further than it recommended, are to be introduced into the House shortly. I hope that they will come into force on 7 February. Obviously, when they do so, those who are affected by them will appreciate the benefit.
    As for scrapping the agency, that would deprive hundreds of thousands of women of the prospect of reliable, regular and substantial maintenance. It would mean that men would no longer be expected to fulfil their obligations to their children and that taxpayers would have to pay sizeable sums, which the Opposition are not yet prepared to promise to meet. I thought that the hon.
    604
    Gentleman was a supporter of the feminist tendency within the Labour party. He seems to be backing the male chauvinist wing now.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend accept that I and many others welcome the changes to the Child Support Agency which he announced before Christmas? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has proposed a disregard of £10 a week, which would cost £340 million on his figures? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that disregarding maintenance paid through the Child Support Agency for income support purposes would give many married women an incentive to separate?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We look forward to seeing whether the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman is prepared to utter that pledge in the House, in which case we can take it seriously, or whether it is in the category of pledges made outside the House which we should disregard entirely. The extra taxpayer expenditure of £340 million proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) would not alleviate one penny of the burden on the absent parent, but it would create an incentive to separate in exactly the way that my hon. Friend suggests. I do not think that that is necessarily the best use of taxpayers' money. We await the opportunity for a supplementary question to provide some clarification from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that in the negotiation, usually at arm's length, of most clean-break settlements, extra allowance of capital is made to the wife to reflect the cost of supporting children? Does he agree that, while there have been useful changes to the CSA regime, they have failed to give full account to the real intention and effect of clean-break settlements land have undermined the good advice frequently given to spouses at the break-up of marriage?
    Mr. Lilley: I would recommend that the hon. and learned Gentleman read the letter from Nicholas Mostyn of the Family Law Association in The Spectator, which considers the issue in detail. He should also consider the ruling in the Crozier case—
    Mr. Carlile: The Minister is obviously missing the point.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. and learned Gentleman may disagree with the judge in the Crozier case, who said that the courts always have the opportunity to take into account the fact that either parent could come back and seek a change, as could the Department of Social Security, if the parent is left on benefit. The courts have always looked to clean-break settlements between husband and wife, but there has never been the possibility of a clean break between parents and childen. Parents cannot divorce their children; nor should they seek, by an asset transfer, to transfer the cost of maintenance to the taxpayer if they have the necessary resources themselves.
    Sir David Madel: When the Child Support Agency draws up an assessment, why does it ask for income details of the second wife when she has no children of her own? Could my right hon. Friend look again sympathetically at the point made by the hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) in the last Social Security

    605
    questions, which is that travel-to-work costs should be considered because it costs a small fortune to commute from Essex or Befordshire to London?
    Mr. Lilley: The second wife's income is taken into account only in the context of setting the protected income. As hon. Members will know, under the proposed changes, the protected income is being raised by £22 per week above the previous level. On reviewing that, I have decided that the information need no longer be given to the first parent when the protected income does not come into play. That will reduce the transfer of information, which caused some stress when it was unnecessary.
    We considered, as did the Select Committee on Social Security, the possibility of taking into account specific costs, but we thought that it was better to leave people with an appropriate share of their income after meeting their burden, and to meet the other costs from that income, rather than specifying each and every cost that they should meet.
    Mr. Ingram: Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to read the recent analysis of the Child Support Act 1992 produced by the citizens advice bureaux in Scotland? While recognising that certain benefits can accrue from the Act, the CABs call for
    "some serious amendments in order to produce a workable scheme that will benefit the family and not merely the State".
    Will the Secretary of State accept that observation and undertake a thorough and urgent review of the Act, and introduce amendments that will take account of the many criticisms that have been raised by the CABs and other groups about the workings of the Act?
    Mr. Lilley: I have not personally seen the CAB Scottish review, although I dare say that my hon. Friend in the Scottish Office has done so. I will look at the review afterwards.
    The Government have carried out our review and we have responded to a review carried out by the all-party Select Committee, and we have gone somewhat further in some respects. We are introducing it before the House and, I hope, implementing it rapidly in February so that the pressure points that we have identified will be alleviated. We want to know from the Opposition—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) failed to respond to this—whether they are sticking by their £340 million pledge, which would not help absent parents at all. Why did not the hon. Gentleman respond? Will the Opposition's other Front-Bench spokesmen clarify the situation? Are they reneging on the recommendations of the all-party Select Committee?
    Mr. Cormack: I welcome the changes that my right hon. Friend will introduce on Wednesday, but I urge him to continue to monitor the working of the agency carefully to ensure that responsible fathers are not unduly penalised and that vast numbers of second marriages are not thereby put at risk.
    Mr. Lilley: As my hon. Friend knows, we keep all our policies under continuous review. We shall try to ensure that the detailed operation of the policy is as sensitive and as efficient as possible, and that as few mistakes as possible —ideally, no mistakes—are made. We hope that the changes that we have announced will meet the pressure points that have been identified and brought to our attention, both by the Select Committee and by individual
    606
    hon. Members such as my hon. Friend. We have done what is right to make the policy acceptable while preserving the basic principle that both parents are responsible for supporting their children, and that the taxpayer should be involved only if the parents do not have the means to do so.

    Child Support
    Mr. Wicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much child support is estimated to be collected in 1993–94; and what proportion of this will represent a net increase in incomes for one-parent families.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): The amount of child support maintenance originally estimated to be collected is £530 million. The actual amount will be lower, but it is not possible to provide an accurate revised figure, since the full impact of the proposed policy changes is not yet known. Similarly, it is not, therefore, possible to estimate the proportion of this amount which will represent a net increase to lone parents.
    It is important to remember, however, that all maintenance paid is of benefit to lone parents as it forms an income that can be used as a stepping stone back to work.
    Mr. Wicks: Is not it the case that only £1 or so out of every £10 goes to improve the living standards of mothers with children? Therefore, is not it the case that the vast bulk of the money goes to the Treasury, and that in reality we have not a Child Support Act, but an Exchequer Support Act? Does the Minister accept that those of us who support the decent principle of parental responsibility will now need to defend the measure against the bad practice that is undermining that principle? Will he reform the measure to ensure that the vast proportion of money goes through to mothers with children, and that we have in reality a Child Support Act?
    Mr. Burt: There are two points to be made. First, if the hon. Gentleman had read the Select Committee report, he would have seen that it found it a perfectly worthwhile objective of the agency from the start to seek to recover payments to support the taxpayer. The report states:
    "The Committee believes that taxpayers have for too long been asked, in effect, to pick up maintenances bills that should have been met by absent parents."
    That is the intention behind the legislation.
    The second, and equally important, point to make is that establishing a maintenance payment early, even if there is not an immediate pound-for-pound benefit, is important. Most lone parents want to go back to work, and they find that what stops them from doing so is not having an income such as maintenance being available from an early date. There was no advantage in their getting that before, but now they can establish that early link of maintenance. When they go back into work as their children get older, maintenance will have been established and that will be an important factor.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that many taxpayers will be pleased to see that the responsibilities are being passed on to absent fathers under this welcome legislation? Does he also agree that it would be more helpful if sections of the media spent less time concentrating on the problems of absent fathers, and more time exposing the benefits to the mothers who are left bringing up the children on their own?
    Mr. Burt: One or two cases are now coming through in the media—there have been a couple today—showing how the CSA can work to the advantage of mothers. There has been an over-concentration on the other side. The media also tend to fail to bring out the fact that in 96 per cent. of all cases in which the CSA is involved, benefit is being paid to the parent with care of the child. That means that, whatever the income or circumstances of the absent parent, the parent with care has been left dependent on everyone else and on the taxpayer. The agency was set up so that it could seek to relieve that burden on taxpayers. We are all happy to pay for children when no one else can, but we all want to ensure that parents live up to their responsibilities.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what responses he has received to the proposed changes to the child support regulations announced on 22 December.
    Mr. Burt: I have continued to receive correspondence from hon. Members and from the public since the proposed changes were announced. The responses cover a wide range of views.
    Mr. Hughes: In considering the correspondence that he has received, has the Minister been made aware of the breaches in confidentiality that the CSA has recently made? Is he worried, as I am, about confidential information being given to ex-partners about income and whereabouts? I have one constituent who is now being pestered by an ex-partner because information was leaked to him by the CSA. I fear, and I hope that the Minister shares my fear, that violence could be introduced into a situation following such leaks of information. Will he put an immediate stop to those breaches of personal liberties?
    Mr. Burt: Like everyone else, the agency operates under the Data Protection Act 1988. Making available information about income is a vital part of what is done. It was done in the courts previously, when the only way to ascertain how much the other party had so as to determine the amount of maintenance was affidavit. There was free transfer of that information. That goes on now and is covered by the Data Protection Act. Whereabouts should not be released. Where that happens, it is wrong. I will take steps to ensure that it does not happen.
    Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is premature to prejudge the effects of the changes that he announced just before Christmas in a swift response to the anxieties expressed in the Select Committee report? Can he give an assurance that once the regulations are in operation, if it is seen that there are still problems—for example, commuter fares within the home counties are a significant monthly expenditure—his Department will be prepared, as part of on-going monitoring, to look again at such problems?
    Mr. Burt: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the policy remained under review. That was always our purpose from the outset. However, I suggest to my hon. Friend that he looks carefully at what the Select Committee said in response to my evidence to it on specific expenses. The desire was to ensure that a certain proportion of income remained with the absent parent. What was an important expense to one was not necessarily an important expense to another. Simply to list a series of expenses that might be appropriate to absent
    608
    parents would run the risk of driving the priority of maintenance to the child back down to where it was under the previous system. That is why we preferred to go for the system that we have now. That explanation was accepted by the Select Committee.
    Mr. Rooney: In drafting the proposed changes, which will be debated soon, and recognising that the assessment of absent parents' income is based on net income, are we to assume that every case will be reassessed following the massive tax increases on 1 April, when all absent parents' income will fall?
    Mr. Burt: It remains open to any party to seek review of the assessment if there has been a change of circumstances. It should be made clear that that form of assistance was not available under the previous system, under which it was much more difficult to obtain a review. The continual raising of the position of the absent parent ignores the importance of the whole system to parents with care of children. It is important that the Government make sure that there is a balance. That is what the Child Support Act 1991 set out to do. Far too many complaints and concerns are raised by people who do not understand the importance of ensuring that parents with care of children receive adequate, regular and reliable maintenance. That did not happen before.
    Mr. Sykes: Will my hon. Friend ignore the carping from Opposition Members and instead congratulate the Child Support Agency on pursuing errant fathers who have no intention of facing up to their responsibilities and prefer the rest of us to pick up the tab?
    Mr. Burt: A less well-known fact about the Child Support Agency is that, unlike the previous system, it has a tracing function. In the past, when full information about an absent parent could not be given, that parent used to go completely to ground, leaving the burden on all the other taxpayers and leaving a parent to care for the child without any support. We now have a system whereby he or she can be traced and about 15,000 have been found, which represents a 90 per cent. success rate. I should have thought that that would merit some support from Opposition Members.
    Mr. Dewar: Do Ministers really argue that the possibility of a disregard should not even be on the agenda for discussion or be examined in the context of present discontents? I have argued precisely that on a number of occasions and that argument was also put forcefully by the Social Security Advisory Committee in its latest report. Has the Minister considered the Australian precedent of introducing a review officer who, in certain defined circumstances, can order a departure from the normal financial formula if that is justified by exceptional circumstances? Will he take it from me that a large number of hon. Members feel that if the present package—due to come before us on Wednesday—is seen as the final word, the system will forfeit public confidence in the most damaging way and also that every system needs a safety net, which has not yet been provided?
    Mr. Burt: The point about the review that the hon. Gentleman recommends is that the Australian system is completely different from ours; it is much more incomplete and far more rough and ready and the right of appeal is not available to everyone. He is asking us to

    609
    substitute a much more imperfect system merely to give a relatively small number of people the opportunity to appeal.
    On the second point, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the disregard that the hon. Gentleman suggests does not relieve the absent parent from any burden, but it increases the burden on the taxpayer by however much he wants to include in the disregard. The hon. Gentleman is reputed to have suggested about £340 million for that sort of payment. I notice that he has not responded to the challenge offered to my right hon. Friend.
    Can the House take it that the hon. Gentleman is giving a pledge in the House?
    Mr. Dewar indicated dissent.
    Mr. Burt: I find myself in some confusion if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to say something inside the House but not to stand by the pledge. The House and the whole country will have noticed his shifty nature.
    Mr. Bates: Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest scandal to be brought to light by the work of the Child Support Agency is that 660,000 of the first 1 million cases involved an absent parent who was not paying one penny in contributions towards their children? Will he ensure that, whatever the changes proposed, they will not affect his and the Child Support Agency's ability to tackle the greatest of all injustices?
    Mr. Burt: It has been a concern to those who have been paying and asked to pay more that the agency is seen to be going after only that group of people. In referring to the expected number of cases taken on by the end of the first year, of which about two thirds of a million will be people who have not paid any maintenance, my hon. Friend seeks to redress that argument. It is clear that we are determined to ensure that those people who have not been paying towards the care of their children do so and that is a good reason why the agency should continue with its work.

    VAT (Fuel)
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements have been made to compensate people who rely on wheelchairs and other electrical devices for their well-being, following the introduction of value added tax on fuel.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The cost of electricity for equipment used in the treatment of illness at home, such as dialysis, is met by the local health authority or NHS trust. That does not apply to electrically powered wheelchairs, but around 80 per cent. of disabled people will receive extra help for VAT on fuel through social security benefits.
    Mr. Dowd: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does not he realise that, while compensation for those hardest hit by the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel is inadequate in any case, it strikes those with disabilities especially hard? Is he aware that the department of applied economics at Cambridge university has shown that the average spent on domestic fuel by households that include members with a disability is up to one quarter higher than that spent in a traditional household? Is not it characteristic of the Government that their taxation policies rely on soaking
    610
    those in the community who are least able to bear it and taxing people for the privilege of being able to move around in their own homes?
    Mr. Scott: Help with VAT, including direct help through special payments, exceptional cold weather payments and energy efficiency, will cost about £2·5 billion over the next three years. That, if I may say so, is vastly in excess of anything offered by the Opposition, who were talking of some 50p a week being adequate for those purposes. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned powered wheelchairs, I might add that the average extra cost as a result of VAT for the average user will amount to about 76p a year.
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that planned funding on sick and disabled people for this year will be £16·5 billion? Will he confirm that that is an increase of some 300 per cent. in real terms and is three times higher than the amount that was spent on sick and disabled people in 1978–79? Does not that show the Government's commitment to helping sick and disabled people?
    Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend puts his finger exactly on the point. While I well understand the pressures on both sides of the House for us to do better in meeting the needs of disabled people and enabling them to have a higher quality of life, it comes a bit thick from the Opposition when they failed disabled people in many ways when in office. As my hon. Friend reminded us, we are now providing three times as much help for disabled people as was ever provided by a Labour Government.

    Child Care Allowance
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many additional people he expects to return to work as a result of the recent introduction of a child care allowance in family credit.
    Mr. Lilley: We expect 50,000 families to take up work and be better off as a direct result of the change.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the child care allowance is not only available to those on family credit but to others such as those on disability working allowance? Does he agree that it is a tremendous leap forward in helping working families to get back to work—both partners?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct. As well as a disregard of child care costs in family credit, it is also available in disability working allowance and to some people on housing benefit, as well as council tax benefit. We believe that it will not only draw back into work some 50,000 people—perhaps more if more people than our cautious assessments respond to it—but it will also help some 100,000 families where one parent is already at work and on family credit, perhaps to increase their hours and the standard of living of that family. We think that it is a positive change which has been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Bradley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as the child care allowance is a disregard against family credit, the lowest income families, who already receive their full entitlement to family credit, will receive no help whatever with their child care costs under the scheme?
    Mr. Lilley: In general, those who earn least and therefore receive most family credit are those who work the shortest hours. They, of course, will be helped to work longer hours by being able to meet some of the costs of child support. That is precisely one of the reasons for introducing the changes.
    Mr. Willetts: Does my right hon. Friend accept that nearly half of all recipients of family credit are single parents? Does not that show how effective the benefit is in ensuring that they get into work?
    Mr. Lilley: Absolutely. Although family credit is not exclusively geared to help lone parents, it helps them disproportionately. It will help also married couples where one partner is disabled and unable to look after the children. It is a much more significant change than the rather grudging comments from the Opposition Front Bench. Indeed, it exceeds the request of the Daycare Trust for a £35 disregard by offering a £40 disregard.

    VAT (Fuel)
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the amount in cash per week of the compensation for value added tax on fuel, over and above the general income support increase, for a pensioner on income support.
    Mr. Hague: In April, income support will increase by an extra 50p per week for single pensioners and 70p for couples. By April 1996, the extra for VAT will be worth some £1.40p and £2.00 per week respectively.
    Mr. Pickthall: Does the Minister agree that although most means-tested benefits will be upgraded in April by 3·9 per cent., which includes the 4 per cent. VAT compensation, retired pensioners on income support or those in receipt of invalidity pensions will receive an increase of 3·5 per cent. on their pensions, plus 50p if they are single or 70p if they are a couple? Does he agree that that amounts to 26p extra per week? Can he estimate, for the benefit of the House, how much gas, electricity or solid fuel could be bought by that most needy and fuel-dependent group in our society for 26p, the price of a packet of crisps?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman has got his arithmetic a little mixed up. When considering the 50p or 70p per week extra that will be given to pensioners to help with VAT on fuel, it would be illogical to deduct the extra amount that is also given in income support. All pensioners, whether in receipt of income support or the full basic pension, will receive 50p per week if they are single or 70p if they are a couple.
    The total income support rate for pensioner couples will rise by £4 per week from £95·25 to £99·25, which is an increase of 3·9 per cent. That is a lot more than that received by many people in work. All that adds up to a package which is a good deal more generous than that famously suggested by the Opposition, who said that they could give that help through an extra 50p on pensions.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Investment Priorities
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what are the investment priorities for the Church Commissioners for 1994.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners have accepted the Lambeth report's recommendations that they should seek to maintain a portfolio that is not markedly different from that of other major bodies with comparable responsibilities. That is their long-term priority. The immediate priority is to let newly completed developments and to reduce unsecured borrowing. The commissioners also propose to take steps to adjust the imbalance between prospective sustainable income and likely expenditure.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that full and helpful reply. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the twin planks of an acceptable investment policy should be to maximise returns to pay stipends and pensions and to behave in an ethical Christian manner, will he reflect on the fact that, last year, hundreds of millions of pounds were lost as a result of the Church Commissioners' investment policy and that it has now been decided to increase the rents of the tenants of the Paddington Churches housing association by 20 fold? Those two facts represent a failing in good investment terms and in terms of Christian ethics. If the sums involved had been public money, the Church Commissioners would have been brought before the Public Accounts Committee and would have probably been given a rough time. Would the commissioners agree to let an independent organisation look at their investments, possibly the Ecclesiastical Committee of this House and the House down the road?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will know, going back to the capital losses, that between 1986 and 1989 the value of the assets held by the Church Commissioners increased from £2·2 billion to £3 billion, an increase of £800 million, but that between 1989 and 1992 the value of those assets declined by £800 million from £3 billion to £2·2 billion. They are now in the process of increasing again and the value of the stock exchange portfolio has already gone up this year by nearly £200 million.
    The real difficulty about the change in the underlying value of those assets is cash flow. Everyone is worried that the clergy will be unable to receive their stipends. That is one reason that the yield from the assets must obviously be increased, even through rent increases.

    Pensions
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners what actions are being taken to safeguard the pensions of Church employees.
    Mr. Alison: The commissioners' assets are considerably in excess of pension liabilities relating to service to date of active and retired clergy. Clergy pensions are, of course, non contributory. The Lambeth report made certain recommendations to safeguard, in particular, the provision

    613
    for liabilities in respect of the future service of existing and future clergy. Those recommendations are being actively pursued.
    Mr. Corbyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a guarantee about what the Church Commissioners will do to protect the pensions of those who are employed by the Church at present, because his answer did not do that? Does he accept that the Church Commissioners have gambled away £800 million of their money on inappropriate and daft property speculation, including the Ashford shopping development, which does not even have planning permission, and the Lutterworth development, which is the subject of separate concern? Does not he think that it is time to set up a pension fund so that the pensions of employees and clergy of the Church Commissioners can be guaranteed for the future? Should not the funds be invested ethically, sensibly and suitably, rather than being threatened by property speculation?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has used a pejorative term in talking of gambling away the Church Commissioners' assets. I heard no complaints about the gambling away of assets when they increased by £800 million between 1986 and 1989. I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that the underlying assets are more than sufficient to meet the existing and prospective pension liabilities of clergy who are in post, still active or who have retired. The Lambeth group report, which we are actively pursuing, simply asked us to set up a segregated fund into which contributions could be safely segregated. But there is no underlying threat to prospective or existing pensioners.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received concerning the eligibility for legal aid in the past three months; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I have had 47 letters from Members of Parliament concerning various aspects of financial eligibility for legal aid, some of them relating to individual cases.
    Mr. Barnes: Last year, about 14 million people became no longer eligible for legal aid. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor announced the largest cuts in legal aid in more than 40 years. Is not it a charter for the wealthy, the powerful, the bully boys, the unscrupulous and the exploiters, not to mention the drug industry? Could not at least the £58 million underspend last year, because of those problems, be used to move in a different direction?
    Mr. Taylor: Far from being confined to a small group of participants, civil legal aid is available to 48 per cent. of households. Criminal legal aid has no upper limit if the court thinks that the interests of justice are served by grant of legal aid. There must be some disciplines in legal aid, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that ours is probably the most generous legal aid system in the world. He has the word of the Labour spokesman in the House of Lords, as well as mine, on that.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that legal aid has risen tenfold since 1979? Does he accept, however, that many of us are concerned at the ease with which some defendants in City fraud trials secure legal aid? Those individuals, such as Mr. Roger Levitt, seem to live in substantial homes yet qualify for legal aid. Are they not salting away their assets and then being defended at vast expense to the tax payer?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend returns to that point with his usual cogency. Although I have some sympathy with the general principle that he presents, he will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases. There is no upper financial limit on criminaal legal aid. Legal aid will be granted for criminal proceedings if the court thinks that it is in the interests of justice to do so.

    Police and Magistrates Courts Bills
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement concerning the consultations he has been engaged in relating to the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill [Lords].
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Since the publication of the White Paper two years ago, 11 consultative documents have followed. The reforms have also regularly been discussed by the Magistrates Courts Consultative Council. The Lord Chancellor has taken careful note of respondents' comments.
    Mr. Jones: The consultations were cosmetic; the papers stand virtually unaltered. Does the Minister agree that the proposed reforms give the Lord Chancellor swingeing new powers over the justices' clerks, and ultimately, therefore, over the courts themselves? Does he accept that the proposals in the Bill turn back the practice and tradition of many years, and that there are no friends for this Bill? The hon. Gentleman should think again.
    Mr. Taylor: I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that these proposals leave the accountability of justices' clerks where it has always been: to the local magistrates courts committees, which comprise local magistrates and will be locally administered.
    In some senses, the White Paper is not a very original document—almost all these proposals are already in operation somewhere in England or Wales, with no signs of adverse effects: rather the reverse. They are in place because local people have chosen to put them in place.
    Mr. Boateng: The Minister refers to the local magistrates courts committees. He is well aware that the measure before the other place proposes that the chairmen of those committees should in turn be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. He also knows very well that all parties in the other place, and every Bench up and down the country, have expressed widespread opposition to the proposal, and that the Lord Chief Justice has described it as "chilling".
    Will the Minister undertake to ensure that the Lord Chancellor thinks again about this measure, just as his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has had to think again about his?
    Mr. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor's mind is open, as was said by the noble Earl Fevers in the debate in another

    615
    place. The Lord Chief Justice participated in that debate and did indeed use the word "chilling"; but he made it clear that he supports a great deal of the Bill. The proposal that he called chilling is the one for a legal forum—a proposal that came originally from the justices' clerks themselves.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister recognise that the decline in standards of public conduct referred to by the Public Accounts Committee appears to be afflicting his Department, which is introducing proposals that are universally regarded by our senior judiciary as resulting in the independence of the judiciary being tampered with by politicians? I refer most particularly to the proposals for justices' clerks. Will the Minister ensure that they are not 'brought before this House?
    Mr. Taylor: I am sorry to have to say this twice, but the proposals render justices' clerks answerable to magistrates courts committees—that is where responsibility lies. If the hon. Gentleman claims that the White Paper and the Bill are so friendless, I can only repeat that all these proposals are, as far as I am aware, already in operation somewhere in England or Wales, because local people have chosen to put them there.

    Judiciary (Election)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what further plans he has for the election of magistrates and judges.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Government have no plans for the election of magistrates or judges, and do not consider that elections would provide a suitable basis for appointment or be compatible with the principle of judicial independence.
    Mr. Skinner: Can there be another country in the world like our aristocratic society, with all the incestuousness of freemason-type judges looking after number one? It is like a family circle; they put their friends in as the next in line. Surely, if the Government want to deal with the Roger Levitts and the Ernest Saunders of this world, and with all those other City crooks who are part of the Tory fraternity, the best thing to do is to ensure that the judges are elected. If the Government believe in a classless society, let them put it into practice.
    Mr. Taylor: It is not the purpose of judges to be representative of the community. They are selected for their ability, legal expertise and personal qualities, including the quality of having the ability to relate to people from all walks of life.
    Sir Anthony Grant: While wholly rejecting all the tomfoolery about electing magistrates, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that not everybody is wholly happy with the method of appointing magistrates? Is he aware that a large and increasing number of people are anxious and have the time, the ability and the experience to serve on the bench but are rejected on the ground of age? Many people do not want to be tried by young oiks of some sort but by people with experience. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that there is no question of the disease of ageism spreading to the appointment of magistrates?
    Mr. Taylor: I am not in favour of ageism or oikism or any other ism in this context. As my hon. Friend knows,
    616
    magistrates are appointed from among those who offer themselves for service and the age limit was not set by the Lord Chancellor but by the House.

    Chief Justices' Clerks
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the value of the appointment of chief justices' clerks.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: An increasing number of magistrates courts committees have already appointed a single head of service, in some cases called a chief justices' clerk. I am aware of no such committee returning to its previous management structure.
    Mrs. Campbell: Does the Minister agree with the chairman of the Cambridgeshire magistrates courts committee, Mr. Alex Cook, who has said that the appointment of chief justices' clerks will be an expensive addition to the management tier and that existing justices' clerks will lose status, authority and independence?
    Mr. Taylor: I do not think that I should answer for people's dignities from the Dispatch Box, if that be the line of the inquiry. However, I wish to ensure from the Dispatch Box that the Lord Chancellor and I can be properly accountable to Parliament for the expenditure of £350 million per annum. The appointment or emergence of a chief justices' clerk is not to create a new tier of management but is, rather, the emergence of the head of an existing tier of management who is accountable to the local magistrates court committee. That is the way it should be.
    Mr. Sims: I understand why my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor may wish to alter the structure and administration of magistrates courts, but does he not appreciate that if he puts in charge of local administration people whom he calls chief justices' clerks, the individual justices' clerks in the local courts will feel that they are losing their authority and, in particular, their independence to give legal advice to magistrates? If the task of a chief justices' clerk is simply to be, as it were, a chief executive, why not call him that?
    Mr. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor has never regarded the actuality of the name as crucial, although it has clearly emerged as the preferred name. The chief justices' clerk will not have any say in the advice given in court by an individual justices' clerk. That advice will remain trenchantly independent, and the legislation will say so.

    Children (Court Evidence)
    Mrs. Golding: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of whether courts are taking sufficient steps to shield children while they are giving evidence in court.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The use of live television links for witnesses up to the age of 17 in criminal cases involving violent or sexual offences received overwhelming support. A further research project is evaluating the use of pre-recorded interviews with child witnesses. In family proceedings, screens can be used at the court's discretion. In conjunction with the Children Act 1989 Advisory Committee, I shall be keeping the position under review.
    Mrs. Golding: May I bring to the Minister's attention the recent case of a 12-year-old girl who described her experience in court as the worst day of her life? She was promised screens to protect her, but discovered when she got to court that she had one small screen by the witness box. The judge called her to the centre of the court so that the accused could see her and shout at her, and her home address was given to the court so that the man accused of abducting her could visit her when he was released from the mental hospital. Does the Minister describe that as protecting children in our courts? What does he propose to do about it?
    Mr. Taylor: I have not yet responded to the hon. -Lady's remarks about an individual case, but I am certainly prepared to look sympathetically at that case. I know that, as the vice-chairman of the all-party group on children, the hon. Lady will make sure that these things are watched very closely. I expect that she approves of the fact that a
    618
    child liaison officer has been appointed in each of the 47 courts that have television link equipment. It is planned to make similar appointments in all Crown court centres, and, as I am sure the hon. Lady agrees, the sooner the better.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the continued extension of child video link equipment in courts ought to be welcomed by all hon. Members. Is he aware of the fact that this matter continues to cause great concern to everyone involved in the legal profession, including the members of the Bar Council committees, on some of which I sit?
    Mr. Taylor: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the second annual report of the Children Act Advisory Committee, which was published in December 1993 and raises a number of issues concerning the safeguarding of the welfare of child witnesses—issues which will have the support of all of us.

Rover Group
3.30 pm
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about BMW's acquisition of Rover.
This morning, British Aerospace announced its decision to accept an offer from BMW to acquire its wholly-owned subsidiary, Rover Group Holdings Ltd.
BAe bought the Government's shareholding in Rover Group in July 1988. In accordance with assurances given at the time of the sale, BAe has helped to transform Rover into one of Europe's most efficient vehicle manufacturers. Many factors have contributed to this—notably the management of Sir Graham Day, Mr. George Simpson and Mr. John Towers; the receptiveness of the Rover work force and of Rover's suppliers to changing demands; and the close involvement and valued support of Honda. BAe has played a major part, and has put in very substantial capital investment, averaging £200 million a year.
BAe wants to concentrate on its role as a world player in the defence and aerospace sector, and has been giving consideration to the future of its shareholding in Rover. Late on 26 January, BAe received a formal bid from BMW to acquire Rover Group Holdings Ltd. It was for BAe to take the commercial decision about how to respond to that bid. In particular, it had to have regard to the interests of its shareholders, whose approval at an extraordinary general meeting is still a condition of the deal. But BAe immediately informed us of the bid and, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on an overseas visit, I met the chief executives of both BAe and BMW to discuss their plans.
The reality is that BAe owns two cash-hungry businesses—Rover, and its defence and aerospace activities. BAe could not invest as much as it wanted in both businesses. The sale to BMW will therefore allow BAe to pursue plans for the turbo-prop and regional jet businesses in Prestwick and Manchester. This is good news for the United Kingdom's aerospace industry.
For Rover, the new relationship with BMW offers some significant opportunities. BMW has stated that it will: maintain Rover as a separate enterprise, with its own manufacturing plants and its own design and development capabilities; be able to offer better access to the very substantial funds needed for investment in new models; encourage Rover to build on the progress it has made in developing long-term relationships with its suppliers; and be able to offer Rover additional export opportunities, which should increase volumes. BMW has also stated that it hopes that Rover will be able to maintain and to build on the existing links with Honda.
Those intentions are set out in more detail in a letter that BMW sent to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Today, I am sending a copy of that letter, together with a letter from BAe confirming its strategy, to all right hon. and hon. Members, and I am placing copies in the Library.
BMW is one of the most highly regarded car and engine manufacturers in the world. The fact that BMW is making this very substantial investment in Britain is evidence of the dramatic improvements in competitiveness that have been achieved by the British vehicle industry. BAe and BMW believe that the deal can significantly strengthen
620
Rover and consequently the whole United Kingdom vehicle industry. That should be welcomed by our vehicle industry and by all those who work in the industry.
Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister would agree that he has just made a statement of major significance to British manufacturing industry. He has confirmed the takeover of the last British volume car producer into foreign ownership. Was the Minister present last year when the President of the Board of Trade assured Britain:
"Our motor industry is now in better shape than our European competitors"?
If that were true only a few months ago, can the Minister explain why the last big British car company has today been taken over by one of those European competitors?
The Minister did not talk figures but will he confirm that the purchase price agreed was £800 million? Does he recall that his Government sold Rover for £150 million gross, or £106 million after the deduction of the hidden sweeteners? Does he recall that at that time the National Audit Office, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and the Opposition all said that Rover had been sold too cheap? Now that the company has been bought at five times the price for which the Government sold it, why does not the Minister admit that they were all right? Is not today's deal proof that Rover was sold at a knockdown price to British Aerospace and at a rip-off to the taxpayer? [Interruption.] Does not the Minister and those Conservative Members baying from the Back Benches understand the apprehension felt by Rover's work force today now that they have seen their company sold to BMW, with which they are in direct competition across Europe?
Does the Minister recall that, when the President was on the Back Benches, he backed a management buy-out of Land Rover and justified British ownership on the ground that promises made when ownership moved from British to multinational control had not materalised?
The Minister chose to repeat in the House the promises made to him by BMW. What collateral does he hold to ensure that BMW delivers on those promises? What remedy does he have if it does not deliver on those promises? Will he fill in a gap from that list of promises, which contained no commitment on jobs? What assurance can the Minister offer those currently employed at Rover that their employment is as secure today as it was yesterday?
The Minister acknowledged the valuable contribution made by Honda. The new Rover 600 was overwhelmingly engineered by Honda. Last year, Honda warned that it would be difficult to continue sharing technology and designs if Rover were sold to another manufacturer. Has the Minister noticed the concern expressed by Honda that today's sale negates its attempts to provide a firm future for Rover? Has he held any discussions with Honda, as he has with BMW? Can he give the House any assurance that the sale will not place at risk the valuable partnership with Honda that is integral to the range of Rover models?
The Minister conceded that British Aerospace's decision to sell the whole Rover company and not just the part that Honda wanted to buy had nothing to do with whether BMW is a better partner for Rover and everything to do with BAe's desperate need for cash. Is he aware that, since the start of this year, BAe has already announced five separate redundancy packages totalling more than 1,900 jobs among a most skilled work force?

621
Will the Minister now accept the invitation of BAe's chief executive to sit down to talk with him about a strategy for that industry? Will he accept the Select Committee's advice on the urgency of providing a national strategy for an industry in crisis? Will he do so before he has to come to the House to announce the passage of the British aerospace industry into foreign ownership, as he has today accepted Britain's last volume car manufacturer losing its British independence?
Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the price paid display his total lack of understanding of what is involved in the ownership of a manufacturing industry. British Aerospace has invested more than £200 million a year since it bought the company. It has transformed its performance and the quality of its product. The fact that BMW is prepared to bid £800 million, put in the extra investment and take over the financing costs is a tribute to what BAe has achieved and, more importantly perhaps, to the British vehicle industry and its work force. If Rover had remained in public ownership, I suppose the hon. Gentleman would have expected the taxpayer to go on pouring in money to meet the losses that it would have sustained. In 14 years of public ownership, nearly £3 billion of taxpayers' money was wasted in paying for such losses.
I am happy to pay tribute to Honda's substantial contribution to Rover's achievements. BMW did so in its letter to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, adding that it hoped that
"Rover will be able to maintain and to build on the existing links, both in terms of current and planned joint projects and in terms of the wider synergies between the two businesses."
We share that hope with BMW.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) did not say whether, in his view, the deal was good or bad for Rover and its work force. Is he not aware of the opportunities for increased exports? Is he not aware of the opportunities that will be available to Rover through the extra investment that it will receive from BMW? Is he not aware of the benefit that that will bring not only to the work force of Rover, but to its suppliers, its distributors and its dealers?
Mr. John Butcher: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many people in the midlands and in the Oxford region will be anxious to seek reassurances on the deal. Having heard what he said on jobs, let me press him on the subject of product development and design. For strategic reasons, no hon. Member would wish Rover to lose control of design and future development of products. Has he had any communication from BMW on future purchasing policy and the health of on-going component supply from the United Kingdom into the Rover Group and subsequently, hopefully, into the BMW group?
Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concerns. I assure him that those were some of the points raised in my discussions with the chairman and chief executive of BMW. The letter from BMW to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade states:
"We want to protect that asset"—
referring to the distinctiveness of products and brands—
"and therefore intend to maintain BMW and Rover as separate enterprises each with their own manufacturing plants and their own design and development capabilities."
BMW has also made it clear that it will maintain the purchasing departments. Indeed, it sees opportunities for
622
British component suppliers to gain increased volume, not only through increased sales by Rover, but through increased access to BMW because it recognises that British component manufacturers are very competitive.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that there is some regret that a company that has achieved the success of Rover is unable to find a British buyer that is capable of taking on that success and continuing the investment? Does he accept that members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry who have visited Rover and BMW in the past few months have seen the enormous turnaround that has been achieved in Rover? Does he also accept that tribute should be paid to its management and work force for ending their confrontational approach and introducing industrial partnership, new innovation and working practices which have achieved flexibility and success?
What assurances can the right hon. Gentleman give that consumer interests will be protected and that, as a result of the merger, we will be able to ensure the manufacture of quality cars at a lower price? Will BMW honour its commitments and recognise that, as we produce cars of greater quality and more competitively than Germany, it should not just maintain employment and investment in Britain but increase it?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the achievements of Rover's management and work force, and to the extent to which the business has been transformed since leaving public ownership—and since the Government changed the framework of industrial relations law.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the value of Rover's products. BMW clearly recognises the quality that the company is achieving, and considers the Rover range—both four-wheel drive and conventional vehicles—entirely compatible with its own. It will seek every opportunity to increase sales, not only in the United Kingdom but in important export markets in some of which Rover has so far enjoyed limited distribution.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The House will recognise that an enormous number of hon. Members wish to question the Minister. Questions cannot continue unless hon. Members put them briskly and briefly and the Minister responds in kind; if questions become long statements, I shall have to intervene. We are not in the middle of a debate.
Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister has rightly paid tribute to the huge role played by Honda in transforming a loss-making white elephant into a profitable company. Would it not be regrettable if the negotiations for sale were initiated, and the sale completed, without the consent—or, initially, the knowledge—of Honda? Given that some consider that Rover would have a better future linked to Honda than linked to an ailing German giant, will the Minister take steps to ensure that the link between Rover and Honda is maintained?
Mr. Sainsbury: I do not accept my hon. Friend's description of BMW. It is an extremely successful company, which has maintained its profitability when other car manufacturers have been losing theirs. I assure my hon. Friend that my Department will do what it can to ensure that BMW's wish to maintain the valued links

623
between Rover and Honda is honoured, and that the benefits of that co-operation are maintained for both companies.
Mr. Terry Davis: What is the difference between those assurances and what we were told when the Sherpa van factory was sold to DAF? When DAF got into trouble, the Dutch owners wanted to close the factory in Birmingham, sack all the workers and transfer production to Holland.
Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman may recall that the whole of that enterprise went bankrupt. Factories on both sides of the Channel were in a similar position. Having sought a market-led solution, the British side is now flourishing, without a great investment of taxpayers' money.
Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that both the fact of the takeover and the price that is to be paid constitute a tribute to the excellent achievements of the work force in many parts of the country, including my constituency? Should not tribute be paid to that work force, and to management, for the complete turnaround that has been achieved in a few short years?
Will my right hon. Friend also learn a lesson from the fact that there is no potential British purchaser of this excellent company? Will he now direct his Department's attention to the need to work out why that is so? Will he also ensure that Honda—another company in Swindon—will have a major part to play in Rover's future?
Mr. Sainsbury: Again, I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Rover's work force, including the work force in his constituency. As I have said, my Department will do all that it can to help the relationship between Honda and Rover to continue to work to the benefit of both companies, as it has in the past.
Mr. Stanley Orme: The Minister referred to the excellent work force. What guarantees have been given to the work force that their jobs will exist in future? Thousands of highly skilled engineers are in jeopardy because of the deal. There is no guarantee that they will be employed in future. Quite frankly, the Minister's statement is a disaster for British industry.
Mr. Sainsbury: Quite to the contrary; the right hon. Gentleman should realise that any job is best secured by a company having good products and the money to invest in continuing innovation and product development. That is what the deal gives to Rover, and that is why Rover jobs are probably more secure today than they have been for 20 years.
Mr. John Carlisle: May I declare an interest on the basis that I have had the privilege of selling Rover cars through my company to hon. Members on both sides of the House? Indeed, I have frequently taken inquiries for BMWs from Opposition Members.
Mr. Derek Enright: I would not trust the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Carlisle: Many hon. Members have trusted me.
624
Will BMW preserve the current dealer network and ensure that the excellent deals which Rover has offered, to Members of this place and to people outside, are still available?
Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is BMW's intention that Rover will continue to offer excellent deals to all its customers, whether inside or outside the House.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Minister has told us about BMW's intentions in respect of Rover. What role will the Minister's Department play in trying to obtain commitments which will make the letter from BMW mean anything at all? Has BMW said anything about the continuation of Rover in the part of the market which is in direct competition with BMW—for example, in respect of Rover's 600 and 800 series?
Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will recognise that no company would invest £800 million to bring a business to an end. BMW has made it quite clear that it intends to take advantage of the investment to expand Rover sales and to expand the opportunities for Rover's work force and suppliers. I have every confidence that that is what BMW intends to do, and the £800 million is evidence to prove that.
Mr. Roger Gale: Is not the difference between what we have heard from the Government Front Bench and from the Opposition Front Bench that the Government Front Bench understands the value of pan-European, multinational investment while the Opposition Front Bench incredibly still yearns for nationalisation and subsidy? Will not the deal mean better investment and more opportunity for Rover and for British Aerospace? Is it not a tragedy that, to coin a phrase, "that lot over there" cannot understand that?
Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has made his point very effectively. What we have heard from the Opposition is another demonstration of their failure to understand the nature of modern manufacturing industry.
Mr. Richard Burden: The Minister referred to meeting the chief executives of BMW and British Aerospace. Did he consider the fact that my constituency and the work force at Longbridge first found out about the deal from reports on the radio this morning? Is that an acceptable way of going about things? How would the Minister react if the company for which he worked, which he had turned round and made a success, was sold off over his head and without any consultation?
Does not the Minister accept that the time has now come for workers in Britain to be given proper consultation rights and proper information rights? May I ask the Minister one more time: will he please answer the question and tell us what guarantees he will give and put in place to ensure that the jobs of Rover's work force will remain secure, not next week or next month, but next year and the year after that?
Mr. Sainsbury: I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman, who has substantial manufacturing, including car manufacturing, in his constituency, still seems to think that it is for the Government to offer job security to anyone in industry or in any other form of employment. The job guarantee comes from the effective and competitive operation of a company. The deal will contribute very

625
substantially towards that. It is time that the hon. Gentleman recognised that his work force at Longbridge will have been relieved to know that the ownership of the company is now in the hands of a group which can invest the substantial sums needed for the new model development that is required at Longbridge.
Mr. Richard Page: As it costs hundreds of millions of pounds, if not billions of pounds, to produce a new model today, and as vehicles have to be sold on an international basis, not merely a European basis, in order to survive, manufacturers will have to come together. Is not that even more true for aircraft manufacturers? Do they not need even more resources to produce new models? If they do not have resources, they will go down.
Today's news is good news for Rover and for British Aerospace because it will ensure their ability to survive. Together they would have had a doubtful future, but separate they will stand a chance. Is it not sad to reflect that, if Rover had had today's industrial relationships in the 1970s, it might be doing the buying rather than the selling?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising the international nature of the motor and aircraft industries. He is quite correct to say that the deal offers excellent opportunities for both industries, because it will enable 13Ae, as it stressed in its letter, to devote resources to its operations in Manchester and Prestwick on regional jets and Jetstream which might otherwise not have been available.
Mr. Richard Caborn: Is the Minister concerned that this is the second company in the British aerospace industry that has had to go to BMW to be rescued financially? I refer to Rolls-Royce in respect of the 700 series, the 49·51 deal, and the present deal to liberate cash for British Aerospace and it aerospace sector. Is the Minister concerned that the lack of finance going into British manufacturing is forcing our best companies to sell off sectors or go into partnership, selling certain technology when somebody else brings a cheque? Is that a satisfactory industrial policy?
Mr. Sainsbury: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) said about the international nature of the car industry and the aerospace industry and the fact that both industries are now characterised not only by manufacture in many different countries or by drawing their supplies from many different countries but by many partnerships and international consortia. I expect that trend to continue. The arrangement to which the hon. Gentleman refers between Rolls-Royce and BMW as a manufacturer of lower thrust aero engines is proving to be extremely successful.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is quite erroneous to seek to draw a comparison between the joint venture which was freely entered into between BMW aero engines and Rolls-Royce aero engines to produce the 700 series of turbo fans and the proposed acquisition of Rover by BMW? That arrangement will keep Rover not only a going concern but, we hope, a successful and profitable company, and will free the funds necessary for the restructuring of the
626
commercial aircraft divisions of BAe. In other words, there is much in it for British engineering and the future of British industry.
Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the deal releases opportunities for the aerospace and car industries. BAe, in the letter which it sent to my right hon. Friend, referred to it as an excellent opportunity for the future development of Rover, and it also referred to the deal enabling it to progress plans for the turbo-prop and regional jet businesses. Both elements of the deal should be welcomed by those who work in those businesses.
Mr. Andrew Smith: In view of the enormous achievements of the Rover work force, including my constituents at Cowley, in securing the transformation to which the Minister referred, do not the workers deserve the firmest guarantees on the future of jobs and investment in the model range?
Although I welcome what BMW has said so far on the matter, will the Minister tell us more about the guarantees that he was given? How long will they hold? Will they hold indefinitely? Will he say more about the link with Honda, which has been crucial to Rover's success? What guarantees has he sought? What was he told about the future of the Rover pension fund? That matter is also of enormous concern to everybody.
Mr. Sainsbury: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises and welcomes what BMW said to the work force about accepting the new Rover deal and the assurances that it has given about jobs, as well as the general assurances about its intentions for the business. The business of Rover will continue; the company goes on. The ownership of the company is now in the hands of BMW, which believes—and I agree—that it can contribute substantially to the benefit of the company both in the form of cash for investment and in the form of access to markets. As the hon. Gentleman knows, investment is much needed.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while under this Government the import content of new registrations has reduced, under the last Labour Government it doubled from 28 per cent. to 56 per cent.? Does not that prove that this Government is a true friend of the British motor industry?
Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important point. What we want to see for jobs in this country, not only directly in the industry but in its suppliers, is more cars being produced. Indeed, that is what we have seen in the past year: when the rest of Europe's car industry was in deep recession, output in the United Kingdom car industry increased. I believe that this deal will provide an opportunity for further increases.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Does the Minister accept that today's statement is a symbol of the collapse of British capital in funding British industry? That said, the company purchased today is not the company that was sold five years ago. If the alternative must be that it is sold to the far east or within Europe, the creeping "Japanisation" of British manufacturing industry must be halted. If we do not succeed in building a European-based mass-market manufacturing industry in terms of vehicles, frankly, there is no future because the United Kingdom and other countries in the European Community will never be able to compete with the far east. Will the employees of

627
Rover now benefit from the social chapter? Will they benefit from the supervisory board style of management in Germany, which is so detested by the British Government?
Mr. Sainsbury: With productivity in manufacturing industry rising sharply and at record levels, with exports at record levels, and with Britain having been more successful in attracting inward investment than any other country in Europe, I think that outlook is very positive. If we had had the social chapter, I suspect that investment in Britain would not have looked so attractive to BMW.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been considerable investment by British Aerospace in Jetstream aircraft in Prestwick? Given the current difficulties in the marketplace, does he acknowledge that that investment needs to continue? Will he join me in welcoming today's statement whereby the deal suggests that investment will be forthcoming?
Mr. Sainsbury: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there has been substantial investment and, as he rightly points out, there needs to be continuing substantial investment in that important business. That is why I have emphasised, as has BAe in its letter to my right hon. Friend, that the deal is good for aerospace, and particularly Jetstream at Prestwick, as it will provide excellent opportunities for Rover cars.
Mr. John Spellar: Will the Minister take the opportunity of dissociating himself from the sneering, jeering and frivolous attitude of many Tory Back Benchers, especially the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), on what is, frankly, a sad day for British industry?
What assurances has the right hon. Gentleman received that Longbridge and Cowley will not become dispensable satellites of Bavaria in any future downturn in the motor industry? Can he tell us what firm assurances he has secured for the motor components industry which employs many more people than actually work in assembly, especially in the black country? Equally importantly, what assurances has he received about the future of engine manufacture, which is the core of vehicle assembly?
Mr. Sainsbury: What I am happy to dissociate myself from is the attitude of Labour Members who seem to be unable to appreciate the opportunities that the deal will bring to the car industry, suppliers, the component supplies industry and the aerospace industry in this country. They seem to be extraordinarily reluctant to recognise the international nature of those industries. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if the car industry in this country is strong, the component suppliers and the engine suppliers have increased opportunities.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In rejecting the Opposition's knee-jerk xenophobia, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that one of the things which must have attracted the German company was the fact that it would not have German work practices such as the social chapter inflicted upon it? Could there be any better vindication of the stance adopted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during negotiations on the Maastricht treaty than the fact that that German company is now choosing to invest in this country?
Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has made a good point. I notice that the letter from BMW to which I have referred states that, like other German manufacturers, BMW is aware of the major improvements in competitiveness which have been made by the United Kingdom supply base. Factors such as those to which my hon. Friend referred may have contributed substantially to this major improvement in competitiveness.
Mr. Peter Shore: Is not the heart of the matter that all future decisions affecting jobs, investment, exports and other major policies of this great British company will in future be decided, not in Britain, but in Germany according to the interests of that great German company? Does not the Minister consider that that is a shameful sell-out of major long-term British interests for short-term financial gain?
Mr. Sainsbury: It is the marketplace which will make effective decisions on the future of the Rover company and other companies. Rover will be in the same position as businesses all over the world which have British ownership, such as Burger King, Jacuzzi and Hilton, where those who use those companies are not aware of British ownership.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Given that the Labour party is now the party of the European Union, was not my right hon. Friend amazed—if it is possible to be amazed by what the Labour party does—that the spokesperson for the Labour party complained about the sale of Rover to a foreign company? Given also that all Jacques Delors has to do is twinkle his eye for the Labour party collectively to open its manifesto commitments, is not its response to the statement the most dishonest and disingenuous—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not asking questions on subjects for which the Minister has any responsibility. He is abusing the time of the House. I will give the Minister a minute to answer.
Mr. Sainsbury: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can scarcely add to what my hon. Friend has said. I am glad that I do not have responsibility for the matters to which he referred.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is not one of the alarming things about today's statement the fact that we are assured that the deal has the blessing of Downing street —the same Downing street from which the present Prime Minister and the previous one have overseen the inexorable decline in investment and jobs in our manufacturing industry? Is it too much to hope that there will be just one word of regret from the Government Front Bench at the decline of the British motor industry? The whole of our industry now is owned by American, German and Japanese companies. Is the message from the Government that, as long as they remain in office, there is nothing—not the railways, not water, not the broadcasting industry or the motor industry—that is not for sale?
Mr. Sainsbury: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, before he makes another absurd intervention, he might like to study the sales for the United Kingdom car manufacturing industry. He would then recognise how wrong he is to refer to a decline.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Is my right. hon. Friend aware that, in 1977, Rover—previously trading as British Leyland—was described as the weakest motor car manufacturer in Europe? Is he also aware that today's news clearly shows that, in the private sector and subject to the Japanese style of management and production methods which the Labour party opposes so vigorously, it has now become a leading manufacturer and has attracted investment from BMW?
Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend makes an effective point. I suppose that if the Labour party had been in power, another £3 billion of taxpayers' money would have been wasted in losses sustained by an industry in public ownership. As it is, we have a profitable and growing industry whose quality and competitiveness have been recognised by one of the most respected companies in the entire industry.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Is not the decision a kick in the teeth for the thousands of workers who made the enterprise such a successful one? Rover can now compete on quality and performance in the markets of the world, yet this is the time that has been chosen to sell it off to a foreign competitor. Does it not mean that under the Conservative Government we have lost all pride in British enterprise?
Mr. Sainsbury: From what I have heard about the reaction of the work force, they are somewhat more realistic than the hon. Gentleman. They recognise the opportunities that the deal provides for the companies in which they work.
Sir Thomas Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement that British Aerospace wishes to concentrate on its core aircraft business will be greatly welcomed in Greater Manchester, as it would appear to mean fresh investment for both Woodford and Chadderton? May I invite him to ascertain from the company whether it will now seek to reverse the recently announced programme of redundancies, due to take place between now and November?
Mr. Sainsbury: I agree with my hon. Friend that the deal provides significant increased opportunities for the regional jet business at Chadderton, which I know is important to his constituents. I cannot say anything about the job losses, which are always a matter of regret. He and I know that the market for the product has been weak of late. I hope that, as a result of the increased funds that will be available to it, British Aerospace will continue to improve its product, invest in production facilities and meet demand when that demand revives in the market.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Can the Minister explain to the House how it is that Germans think that it is worth while investing in Britain when apparently no one in Britain with money thinks that it is sensible to do the same thing? Were any other bids for Rover invited or received? Has the Minister—if he has not, will he—asked BMW to put in a formal document to Her Majesty's Government the undertakings that are now on the PA wire?
Mr. Sainsbury: As I hope that I have made clear to the House already, job security in any business does not rest in the hands of the Government. It does not even rest in the hands of a business, unless that business can succeed in the marketplace by investing, innovating and providing quality
630
products that the customer wants. It is clear from the reaction of British Aerospace and BMW and their managements and work forces that the deal is perceived as increasing the opportunities for Rover to do just that.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Is not £800 million of foreign private sector money just about the best compliment that could have been made about the turnaround in Rover's fortunes following the past few years? Is it not a fact that 15 years ago no automotive group in the world would have touched Rover, or British Leyland as it then was, with a bargepole? Do not we all know why that was? Is not today's news a fine tribute to the turnaround of so much of British manufacturing industry in the past decade?
Mr. Sainsbury: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is not only a tribute to the achievements of the management and work force of Rover; we can also regard it as a recognition of the achievements of privatisation and the introduction of rational, sensible and fair industrial relations laws.
Mr. Bruce George: As a Rover owner who will not buy any more used cars from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), may I ask whether the Minister appreciates that it is not xenophobic of Labour Members to want to see the retention of an indigenous motor vehicle capability? Is not it bizarre that, while the Secretary of State for Defence has encouraged defence manufacturers to diversify out of the defence industry, British Aerospace is going in the opposite direction? Is it the goal of Conservative Members to see unsuccessful British companies going under and the successful ones becoming subsidiaries of foreign operations?
Mr. Sainsbury: I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman about what constitutes an indigenous industry. For me it is one that operates in Britain, creating jobs and wealth here. The ownership of the company seems not even secondary but far down the line of importance. I wonder whether the ownership of Hilton International, Jacuzzi or even Jack Daniels—perhaps it is not well known that that is a British-owned brand name—makes a difference to the people who work for the companies that produce those commodities and the people who use them.
Mr. David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend's assurances that Rover will remain a separate enterprise are welcome, but does he not think that the escalating costs of German production and the fact that so many German companies are moving their production to Britain means that there is a distinct possibility that BMW will want to build BMWs at Rover plants in Britain?
Mr. Sainsbury: I cannot answer that. However, it is quite clear that BMW recognises the competitiveness of British component suppliers and thinks that there could be increased opportunities for them to supply parts for BMWs made in Germany. That is partly due to lower overheads and wage costs in the United Kingdom compared with those in Germany and is part of the benefit of our not having the social chapter.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Is it not clear that the guarantees and promises that the Minister gave in his statement have become less valuable as he has responded to questions? Will he tell us the force of the guarantees that have been given on investment in aerospace, research and development and job security? Judging from his words, is

631
it not a fact that those guarantees are simply not bankable? Is it not perverse that Conservative Members should claim a success for their strategy when the nature of that success means selling Britain's last wholly owned car firm to the Germans and to our competitors?
Mr. Sainsbury: I fear that the hon. Gentleman's remarks again betray a lack of understanding about the nature of modern manufacturing industry. Even more than that, they betray his total lack of understanding about what happens in a marketplace in which consumers and customers determine a company's success. It is they—if anyone—who guarantee job opportunities for the company and its suppliers.

House Emblem
4.13 pm
Madam Speaker: I wish to make a short statement to the House about the use, and abuse, of the House's emblem, the crowned portcullis. My remarks are cast in general terms and affect all Members equally.
Every Member receives a copy of the Members' handbook, which contains the following passage under the heading "Use of the House Emblem":
"The designs and symbols of the House should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that their use might wrongly be regarded, or represented, as having the authority of the House. The principal emblem of the House is the Crowned Portcullis."
On 29 April 1981 the then Speaker made a statement to the House about a case of abuse of the emblem that had been referred to him as a contempt of the House. He said:
"I wish to make it clear to people outside the House, as well as to hon. Members, that the unauthorised use of the badge and name of the House of Commons is a serious matter."
While he did not take any further action in that case, he added:
"Having given that public warning, I shall not be disposed to take as lenient a view of any future case brought to my notice." —[Official Report, 29 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 789.]
I judge that it is now appropriate to renew that warning. While it is one of the principal duties of the Speaker to uphold the dignity of the House, this is a responsibility undertaken equally by all of us when we have the honour of being elected to this place. Any intended use of the portcullis must be submitted for approval under the rules enforced, on my behalf, by the Serjeant at Arms and the Administration Committee, and no permission will be given if the use could possibly reflect adversely on the House, or be misunderstood.
I hope that I have made abundantly clear the importance I attach to this matter.

Points of Order
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to the ruling that you gave on 26 October in respect of the decision by the Home Secretary to decline to allow the president of Sinn Fein to come to Britain.
You, Madam Speaker, then properly said that it was a matter for the Government and that it was not your responsibility. However, for the president of Sinn Fein, armed with a British passport in which the Foreign Secretary asks all foreign Governments to let him go without let or hindrance and to afford all possible assistance to him, to go to an unofficial body in the United States, but not to be allowed to come here raises the question again. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to consider, not today, but at some stage, whether you could find a way of protecting Members of Parliament so that a British citizen who is not convicted or even charged with any offence can come to this country, as he can travel to America, Dublin, or to any other country in the world.
In view of the importance of the peace process that has begun being completed, I invite you, Madam Speaker, to consider carefully whether this would be the moment to indicate to the Executive that the two Secretaries of State should resolve their differences; one asks every foreign nation to assist Mr. Adams, while the other excludes him from the Palace of Westminster, where he should be allowed to answer questions put by hon. Members of the House.
Madam Speaker: I have given this matter a considerable amount of thought. I recall very well that the right hon. Gentleman raised this matter with me last October. Nothing has changed since then so far as my responsibilities are concerned. I shall simply repeat what I said on that occasion: this is a matter for the Home Secretary, who is not responsible to me for what he does in his official capacity. It is not my intention to comment on any action that he may care to take.
Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any request from the Secretary of State for Wales to seek an opportunity to clarify in the House contradictory statements that he made outside the House? You, Madam Speaker, will be aware that last year the. Secretary of State for Wales was required to appoint a new chair to the Welsh Development Agency, the previous occupant having left in disgrace, and the WDA was enmeshed in a web of fraud, corruption and mismanagement. In the summer, Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe was appointed.
Following months of speculation concerning Mr. Rowe-Beddoe's previous political activities, the Secretary of State for Wales, in an interview broadcast by the BBC in November, said:
"I have no idea what his political affiliations are."
I wish to put this point directly to you, Madam Speaker. It is now clear that the Secretary of State for Wales had received a copy of a curriculum vitae, which featured prominently a political position that Mr. Rowe-Beddoe was holding as chairperson of the Monte Carlo branch of Conservatives Abroad. That post was responsible for gathering—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. If I could have a little order here, I would be able to hear what is being said.
634
The hon. Gentleman is now getting into an argument and putting forward a point of view. Although I am always interested in points of view outside the Chamber, I can listen only to points of order that are for me. Will the hon. Gentleman come to his point of order?
Mr. Davies: Two contradictory statements have been made: first, the Secretary of State for Wales maintained that he was unware of the political affiliations and, secondly, on Friday of last week, the press department of the Welsh Office put out a notice saying that he had received a copy of the curriculum vitae and was aware of the political affiliations of Mr. Rowe-Beddoe. It is quite clear that no right hon. or hon. Member could mislead the House, but it seems to me that that is a clear case of the public in Wales having been misled. I wonder whether you, Madam Speaker, could give guidance, first, on whether you will take it on yourself to ensure that the same strict standards of honesty which you maintain in the House will be maintained outside the House—
Madam Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is now reflecting on the Secretary of State. He must not do that. If he wishes to do that, there are ways and means of doing it by means of a substantive motion. He must not reflect on the Secretary of State. I am sure that he will withdraw that reflection.
Mr. Davies: I am seeking your assurance, Madam Speaker. I am sure that it is the case that—
Madam Speaker: As soon as the hon. Gentleman sits down, I will give him my assurance and let him know what I think about the case.
Mr. Davies: Of course I understand quite clearly that no right hon. or hon. Member can cast any aspersions on the integrity of any other Member of the House. I am concerned because contradictory statements have been made outside the House. I should be grateful if you could confirm, Madam Speaker, that if you receive any request from the Secretary of State for Wales to come to the Dispatch Box, you will facilitate that so that he can take the earliest opportunity to clarify those clear contradictions in his public position.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members understand, Cabinet Ministers and all hon. Members from all parts of the House are responsible themselves for the comments or statements that they make. As Speaker of the House, I cannot be responsible for the comments or statements made by any right hon. or hon. Member.
In direct response to the hon. Gentleman's question, I have not been informed by the Secretary of State that he is seeking to make a statement on that matter. If he wishes to do so, he will certainly be facilitated.
Mr. Rod Richards: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the previous point of order?
Mr. Richards: Yes.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I have dealt with it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the previous point of order?
Mr. Dalyell: No. It is a point of order arising out of Question Time, or, more candidly, a point of curiosity arising out of parliamentary language.
In answer to Question 5, the Minister referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) exceedingly inappropriately, but nevertheless he did, as being a man of "shifty nature". That was allowed. Are we to take it that we can apply any adjective, such as "lying", providing we put the noun "nature" after it and get away with it? That would be an excellent parliamentary device.
Madam Speaker: When the hon. Gentleman reflects on the matter and looks at Hansard tomorrow, he will probably find that that description was a reflection on the policies of the hon. Member for Garscadden and not on him personally. I am very concerned about such matters and that is how I interpreted what was said.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I revert to the matter of the portcullis? Is it not somewhat unfortunate that some years ago the relevant Committee took the decision that the shop downstairs, and I think other outlets as well, were allowed to use the portcullis in their commercial transactions for various bits and pieces of various sorts of commodities? Should that policy not be reconsidered? In view of your animadversions against the improper use of the portcullis, should not the hon. Member who has given rise to the raising of the issue—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie).
Mr. Faulds: I am so grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Should not the hon. Member who misappropriates the portcullis be subject to some sort of penalty?
Madam Speaker: I made it clear when I made my statement that I was issuing a general reminder to the House. I am not referring to individual cases, which, I will tell the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), I deal with, having received advice from the Administration Committee. I have already dealt with the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
As regards the kiosk and the sale of goods from it, such sales are conducted on behalf of the House, with the entire approval of the House.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Further to the earlier point of order—
Madam Speaker: No. I have dealt with that point of order; it can go no further. Once I have given a ruling, the point of order has been dealt with.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order arises out of the statement made earlier today. It affects the authority of the House and it seems to reflect a growing trend. When a
636
major issue of national importance is before the House, such as the sell-off of the Rover Group, the House is addressed not by a member of the Cabinet, but by a Minister of State. The same thing happened last week in the debate on housing, which is another matter of major national importance. I do not intend any disrespect to the hon. Members concerned, but a debate is downgraded if the Cabinet does not send someone of Cabinet authority to address the House. When matters of national importance are raised, surely someone of Cabinet rank should address the House.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the level of the Minister who appears at the Dispatch Box is not a matter for me. I am sure, however, that his remarks will have been noted by those sitting on the Treasury Bench.
Mr. Llwyd: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier this year, the Secretary of State for Wales made a plain statement that he was unaware of the political affiliations of Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe, the incoming chairman of the Welsh Development Agency. It is clear from the evidence available that he well knew at the time what the political affiliations were. Has—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is the same point of order. Having dealt with it, I refused a point of order from a Member on the Government side. The hon. Gentleman is taking advantage of my tolerance and generosity on this matter. I have dealt with it and it must be left there.
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) made a point of order, with which you dealt, but it must be pointed out that the Minister replying today made it clear that the Secretary of State was out of the country—he is in the far east—which is why he was not making the statement today—
Madam Speaker: Order. The House is inclined to get into a bit of a tangle on such matters. The Secretary of State was on the Front Bench at the time, which was why the hon. Gentleman for The Wrekin made that point of order. He wondered why another Minister in the Department should make the statement.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last weekend's press, particularly the Welsh press, contained a statement by the Public Accounts Committee regarding the funding of the Welsh Development Agency and all that has gone on in the investigation that has been conducted there. Can you advise me on how to ask the appropriate Ministers about the publication of the Public Accounts Committee report? What channel should I use to ask my questions?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, I never give advice on procedure across the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member of the House who is rather shrewd and well aware of how to get things done. I shall, however, point his nose in the direction of business questions on Thursday as a way to begin.

Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill

    (Clauses 28, 46, 72 and 77)
    Considered in Committee
    [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair.]

    (Clauses 28, 46, 72 and 77)
      Clause 28

        AIR PASSENGER DUTY
        4.31 pm
        Mr. Andrew Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 1 in page 22, line 26, after "Chapter", insert—
        "but subject to (6) below.".
        The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2 in page 22, leave out lines 37 to 39.
        No. 3 in page 22, line 43, after "aircraft", add—
        "(6) This duty shall not be charged until the Government has presented a report to Parliament on its effects on the economies of the United Kingdom islands, on the travelling public and on the air transport industry and tourism.".
        Mr. Smith: It gives me pleasure to move this amendment, which calls on the Government to submit to the House a report on the full implications of air passenger duty before the tax is introduced. It gives us an opportunity to debate the general principle of the tax in relation to our objections and those of many others outside the House.
        Not only was this yet another tax which Conservative Members omitted to tell the electorate anything about in their election addresses, but it was brought forward with no prior consultation with those most affected, the travelling public, the island communities of the United Kingdom, on whom it has a particularly serious affect, the airline industry or the tourism industry.
        Our call for a report to Parliament is all the more justified because the Government have no mandate whatever for this tax, any more than they have one for the other new impositions and tax increases which they are inflicting on the public. As we all now know, and as the country knows, the Conservatives fought the last election on a false prospectus, as the people are only too aware. Bitter experience has taught them that they can never trust the Conservatives on tax again.
        It should worry Conservative Members that, according to a poll reported in yesterday's The Sunday Mirror, 69 per cent. answered with a resounding no when asked whether they would ever trust the Conservatives on tax again. Three quarters of the poll sample said that tax would be very or fairly important in determining how they voted next time.
        The Opposition are most concerned about the air passenger tax because it will add to travellers' costs. It also risks destroying jobs in the airline and tourism industries, and it will add to industry's bureaucratic costs. It is discriminatory as between air and other modes of travel. It impacts unfairly on the people and economies of the
        638
        smaller islands of the United Kingdom; and its imposition is the thin end of a wedge which threatens to drive the air tax sky high.
        Even at the levels at which the duty is proposed now, there will be an unwelcome impact on passengers and holidaymakers and those on whose jobs depend on providing for them. As Keith Betton of the Association of British Travel Agents said, as reported in The Times of 1 December,
        "the tax would mean higher air fares, lower passenger volumes and a reduction in air services, 'none of which will be to the consumers' advantage'".
        The same article pointed out that the tax on flying will push up fares on some routes in Britain by about 15 per cent., and it is feared that it will lead to the closure of several small airlines. On top of all that, we should note the cost to the airline industry, now conscripted as a tax collector, which will face the administrative burden of collecting the duty.
        Airlines such as British Airways have warned that the duty could prove costly and complicated to administer. Aircraft operators with no business or fixed establishment premises in the United Kingdom will be obliged to appoint fiscal representatives to ensure compliance with the tax regulations, and that may discourage some marginal overseas airlines from flying out of the United Kingdom.
        There are a number of other problems with the administration of the tax, such as the unfair asymmetry between the respective obligations of Customs and Excise and air operators, in respect of late payments and refunds of duty. It cannot be right that Customs should have to pay interest only if delay is due to its own errors, whereas the taxpayer has to pay interest for any reason, even if an error by the Customs causes a delay.
        We shall be pressing these matters further in Standing Committee, but there are a number of other points on the administration of the duty which I should raise now. As I said earlier, the industry has had an inadequate time to respond to these proposals. I have with me a copy of a letter sent to the Paymaster General, dated 27 January 1994, from Sir Colin Marshall, the chairman of British Airways. He points out that he was asked to submit comments on 30 November and to supply them by 31 January. It is clear from the tone of his letter that he was a little taken aback by the fact that the deadline for reply that he was given sees the Government debating this clause on the Floor of the House. That shows just how inadequate the time has been for the industry to respond.
        I take it that the Paymaster General has the letter and the submission with him today. He should tell the House and the wider public whether the Government intend to respond sympathetically to British Airways' sensible and pertinent points. The airline points out that the duty should be accounted for by the airline that collects it. It points that, as proposed, the collection of duty from passengers will be done by the airline selling the ticket, but payment of the duty will be done by the airline carrying the passengers on the dutiable sector. There are no administrative systems for airlines to identify at uplift which passengers are eligible to pay the duty. It would clearly be very expensive for British Airways or other airlines to put such systems in place.
        These are the sort of matters which could and should have been gone into thoroughly if full consultation with the airline industry and all affected had taken place.
        British Airways' second point concerns the timing of the collection of the duty. It says that the duty should be

        639
        payable after it has been received by the airline responsible for paying it. That is not an unreasonable request, because, in many cases, the Bill requires airlines to pay the duty before they have received it. That is because of the delay in collecting the tax from agents or other airlines. Such a system would give rise to onerous cash flow difficulties.
        British Airways suggests that duty on domestic journeys should be charged at £2·50 per direction rather than £5 per round trip. It states:
        "if the duty is simply accounted for by the uplifting carrier, there are no systems to identify which leg of such a journey the passenger is really on".
        That would involve airlines in much additional administration. They would have to check the wording on millions of tickets, and that would be costly. BA suggests a constructive way around that.
        British Airways says that all passengers whose journey commences and terminates outside the United Kingdom should be exempt from the duty. That is because of the importance to British Airways and other airlines of passengers who stop over in London or in other United Kingdom cities during an international journey. BA says that one third of its passengers through Heathrow are transfer passengers and that charging duty on them would render BA uncompetitive. It says that it is competing for business with foreign countries by offering stopovers in the same way as some other airlines, such as KLM which stops at Amsterdam. Having to add the duty to the fares of passengers coming through the United Kingdom would damage BA's competitiveness.
        British Airways suggests that all passengers for whom no fare has been charged should be exempt from the duty and says that a number of passengers fall into that category. The obvious ones are the members of staff travelling for duty purposes. For example, crew members have to be in position to operate a service somewhere else. But BA says that there are other free flights for charitable or compassionate reasons. It states that it would seem inappropriate to impose the duty on passengers such as the seriously sick children that the airline carries each year on its "Dreamflight" charters to Florida. Those issues will have a great resonance with the wider public.
        The legislation is indicative of the Government's hurry. It has been rushed without full consultation with the industry, and the full implications of its administration and the unfair and damaging effect of many of the provisions have not been thought through.
        British Airways says that the effective date of the duty should be delayed until at least 1 November 1994 and preferably until 1 January 1995. The Association of British Travel Agents says that tour operators selling short-haul holidays generally have summer brochures running to the end of the season on 31 October. It says that imposition of the duty from 1 October will leave those operators having to pay the duty for a month without having collected it from the passengers. Moving the effective date back a month would remove that problem.
        As I have said, another area of widespread concern in the industry is the discriminatory impact of the tax as between air travel and other forms of transport. I hasten to emphasise that we suggest that it would be better not to impose it on air travel, and not that it should be extended
        640
        to other forms of travel. Plainly, the travel industry must be worried about such an extension. In The Independent of 1 December, Sir Colin Marshall said:
        "The new air passenger duty proposed discriminates against this nation's most successful transport sector and penalises airlines while rail, coach and ferry companies will escape, as will the Channel tunnel. It will mean, in effect, higher fares for virtually everyone at a time when UK airlines have been working hard to keep ticket prices down."
        Sir Michael Bishop, the chairman of British Midland, Britain's second biggest scheduled airline, said:
        "Air travellers in and from Britain do not deserve to be singled out in this way. Why should they be forced to pay more and why should road, rail and sea travellers be exempt? This will make air travel less competitive against other forms of transport and we greet the decision with great anger."
        I await with interest the Government's response to those angry complaints by the industry's leaders about unfairness.
        4.45 pm
        One of the most serious aspects of the unfairness of the tax is its impact on travel to and from the smaller islands of the United Kingdom. If the Government's argument is that the duty is some sort of luxury tax, it is particularly flawed in relation to travel to and from the Scottish islands, Northern Ireland and a number of other islands around the British Isles. In such cases, both for business and family travel, there is often no realistic convenient alternative to air travel. It has been estimated that the impact on prices on those routes will be particularly serious.
        The article in The Times from which I quoted earlier put the possible increase as high as 15 per cent. Surely the Government must see that that would be serious for the communities affected and their economies. In a letter to the Paymaster General, dated 15 December, John Parr, the director general of the Air Transport Users Coucil, said:
        "the Council would urge you most strongly to exempt passengers flying to and from Northern Ireland, the Scottish Islands, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands from liability to the tax. On none of these routes is there any acceptable alternative to air transport for business purposes, so that the local economies are heavily dependent on the provision of adequate air services. Any significant reduction in the latter as a result of the tax would inevitably put frequency—a prime requirement of business flyers —at risk and might even cause some services to be withdrawn altogether. The economic consequences would clearly be extremely serious for the areas concerned."
        In a letter of response dated 13 January, the Paymaster General stated:
        "While I note your argument about exempting all passenger flights to Northern Ireland, the Scottish Islands, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man from the duty, it would be difficult to justify relieving flights in one or more particular areas but not elsewhere. The result of such concessions would undermine the principle of the duty and reduce the revenue to be raised from it which would have to be made good from elsewhere."
        There is no understanding of or even reference to the important point about the economic effect on the livelihood of the islanders, their tourism, economic development and family links and visits. It is abundantly clear that, as elsewhere in the Budget, the Government's desperation to pay the bills resulting from their incompetence counts for everything and the real needs of the economy count for nothing.
        To rub salt in the wounds, in his Budget speech the Chancellor tried to have us believe that the exemption for journeys undertaken on aircraft of less than 10 tonnes take-off weight or with fewer than 20 passengers was somehow intended to help the islanders. When my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) said

        641
        that 90 per cent. of air journeys in his constituency would still be caught by the tax, did the Government have a rethink? Of course not; they just forged on, doubtless feeling that a Government already tainted with so many broken promises need not worry about such details. After all, the Chief Secretary has told the nation that the little promises do not matter. The Opposition believe that it is imperative that flights to the other islands of the United Kingdom be exempted from this duty. We have tabled amendments to that effect and shall return to this crucial matter during later proceedings on the Bill, when the Government will rightly be put under very strong pressure to think again about this duty's very severe impact on the communities to which I have just referred.
        The Government will undoubtedly argue that, notwithstanding its probable damaging effects and its unpopularity, the air passenger duty is being introduced at a modest level. No doubt they will ask what all the fuss is about. In answer, we need only refer to the danger—indeed, on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred to it as the likelihood—that, once the tax is in place, the initial levels will be the thin end of the wedge. What the industry and the travelling public fear is that a Chancellor pressed simultaneously by the fiscal deficit and the need for pre-election bribes on marginal income tax rates will not be able to resist putting the air passenger duty up as part of the process of year-on-year tax increases to which the Conservatives, in breach of all their election pledges, are now committed.
        I invite the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee an assurance that the air passenger duty will not be raised before the next general election. As it is, this tax promises to be just a part of the Conservatives' sky-high taxation. That is why Opposition Members will vote for the amendment and against the clause.
        The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I should like at this stage to make some brief preliminary remarks, although I hope to be called at a later stage so that I may reply in more detail to points raised during the debate, including some of those made by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith).
        The amendment draws attention to the potential effects of the new duty. These and all the other factors were considered when we were deciding to introduce the duty and were concerning ourselves with structure, rates and exemptions. As all hon. Members know, the purpose of the tax is to raise revenue—a matter that has been discussed at length in this Chamber.
        Ms Angela Eagle: I understand that when a tax is being introduced the Treasury examines its effects in particular areas. Can the Minister explain why he and his Department did not see fit to consult the airline industry? This tax came like a bolt from the blue. Why has the subsequent consultation been so quick? In fact, it is ending on the very day on which this clause is being debated. If the airline industry had been consulted, the Government could have been made: aware of some of the difficulties that the details of the tax will create.
        Sir John Cope: No Chancellor of the Exchequer discusses proposed taxes in advance of a Budget statement. The consultation with the airlines and others involved, to which attention has already been drawn, was launched on Budget day with the issue of a considerable paper giving
        642
        further details and inviting general and very specific comments from those most immediately involved. The consultation process has by no means ended. Hon. Members know, although people outside may not be aware, that this is only the first of a series of debates that we shall no doubt have during the Committee stage—to say nothing of Report stage. Indeed, we have already heard that we shall be returning to some aspects of this duty and I can assure the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) that even now the consultation process is continuing.
        Mr. Keith Mans: May I take it from my right hon. Friend's answer that in the coming weeks or months the airlines will have an opportunity to make representations about the way in which the tax will be collected and the date on which it should become operative?
        Sir John Cope: Yes, indeed. Discussions with quite a number of parties in the industry are proceeding and we are open to more general representations from the people affected by the tax as well as from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
        The air passenger duty fits the Government's strategy of shifting the burden, in part, from direct taxation by broadening the indirect tax base and it falls on a sector where expenditure is currently subject to very little indirect taxation because of the VAT zero rating that it enjoys as well as the use of duty-free fuel for international services and all domestic services to which the new duty will apply.
        Mrs. Anne Campbell: I have been listening very carefully to the Minister's comments about low taxation in this area. Can he assure the Committee that the tax will remain at the level at which it is being introduced and will not be raised before the next general election?
        Sir John Cope: We believe that the tax has been set at the right rate, but obviously I cannot give an assurance about future Budgets—nobody could do that.
        This tax brings us into line with many other countries, including some of our European partners. Having decided that such a tax was desirable, we looked closely at how it might best be designed. The results are before the Committee in the form of the Finance Bill.
        Mr. Nigel Forman: My right hon. Friend has indicated that by introducing this tax the United Kingdom will not be putting itself out of line with other countries. I have a great deal of sympathy with that point. Can my right hon. Friend give the Committee a few examples of other countries which have such a tax and the levels at which they levy it?
        Sir John Cope: I shall be happy to do so, though in no particular order. Denmark has a tax very similar to ours; the rate for all international departures is roughly £6·50. In Belgium the amount is £9, depending on the airport of departure. Passenger tickets issued in the Republic of Ireland are subject to a rate of £5. Greece has a departure tax of £15, while in Canada Toronto has a transportation tax of approximately £10. In the United States—for instance, in Los Angeles or New York—the total figure for departure tax, federal taxes and customs fees is about £14. The situation is similar in Japan, New Zealand, Australia and Hong Kong. South Africa's figure is £6, and France

        643
        has an airport tax of £2. One could give all sorts of examples. Obviously, there are differences of detail, including the detail of collection.
        In deciding which way to go, we considered some of those models. We had to balance conflicting pressures. We wanted as much simplification and certainty as possible, and we wanted to impose the lowest possible costs on the Customs and Excise authorities and the business undertakings collecting the tax. We tried to secure the minimum disruption of established patterns and, above all, we sought fairness between the various people and interests concerned.
        Mr. Mans: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again, and I assure him that I shall not intervene a third time in his introductory speech. Can he confirm that in virtually all the countries that he has mentioned as examples of places in which taxes of this nature are imposed most of the funds raised are used for developing the infrastructure of the airline industry and do not simply go into the central treasury?
        Sir John Cope: It varies. Some are straight departure taxes and others are federal taxes or customs fees. I readily acknowledge that some are closer to the example that I gave than others. As my hon. Friend knows, we have always been cautious about revenue being hypothecated to particular cases of expenditure.
        I mentioned some of the factors that we took into account when designing the tax. They also applied—and this is relevant to the impact on the air transport industry —to the exemption of transfer passengers. We were concerned to maintain the international position of the British air transport industry and particularly that of Britain's hub airports, such as Heathrow, and to help the British airlines serving them by preventing the tax acting as a disincentive to passengers changing planes in Britain.
        5 pm
        Mr. Barry Porter: As to international comparisions, do other countries make any exemption or reduction in respect of small offshore islands? If so, have the Government addressed any such examples? If people have no alternative but to leave an island by air, and exemption were given, surely that would not upset the general principle.
        Sir John Cope: I cannot give my hon. Friend an off-the-cuff answer, but I will endeavour to answer his point later.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) made a point that has been raised in correspondence since the Budget, concerning the date of the duty's introduction. Many of the brochures promoting holidays to the end of October 1994 were published before the Budget, and a good number of holidays were sold from them before my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement. Accordingly, he has agreed that the date of the tax's introduction should be deferred to 1 November 1994. It would be unreasonable to expect tour operators to take the theoretical possibility of new taxes into account when entering into the price guarantees that they give their customers. The Government agreed to that special arrangement in 1994 to accommodate tour operators. I am
        644
        sure that my hon. Friend, airlines, tour companies and others welcome that. It also allows us a little more time to prepare for the tax.
        As to the Scottish islands, a number of people seem to have misunderstood my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget speech. Announcing the exemption for small aircraft, he said:
        "This means, for example, that most flights between the Scottish islands will not bear tax."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 932.]
        It was not his intention to relieve all flights to and from, as well as between the islands. He pointed out the consequences of the small aircraft exemption that he was proposing and documents published on Budget day made clear the precise details of the exemption that we had in mind.
        Mr. James Wallace: I do not quibble about the accuracy of that quotation as the exemption delivers exactly that stated, but the impression given by the Chancellor and in informal Scottish Office briefings was that the exemption was meant to cover many more cases. What inquiries were made of airline companies before the Chancellor presented his Budget as to how many people would be affected by the exemption? What estimate did the Chancellor have on Budget day of the number of passengers who would enjoy the exemption?
        Sir John Cope: We made no direct inquiries of airlines or of anyone else outside the Government before Budget day, but a lot of public information was available to us about the number of flights, number of passengers, size of aircraft and so on which enabled us to make a fair estimate of the number of passengers who would be affected.
        I said that there was misunderstanding in some quarters flowing from the phrase used by my right hon. and learned Friend in his Budget statement, but the detail was clear in the papers that we published on the day.
        Mr. Alistair Darling: If the Chancellor was right to give an exemption for travel between islands such as the Orkneys and Shetlands—I do not imagine that aircraft of the size that the Chancellor had in mind are used for the Western Isles—why would it be wrong to exempt passengers who want to leave an island to get to the mainland, which is the biggest communication difficulty? I do not see the reason for the difference in philosophy, unless the Chancellor believes that people want to travel only between islands and never to the mainland.
        Sir John Cope: The effect will differ according to the particular flights that people use. My right hon. and learned Friend gave an example of one effect of exempting a small aircraft from duty, but the reasons went beyond that particular example. As I said, the aircraft affected by the duty do not pay excise duty on the fuel that they use, but most small aircraft—and many below the exemption limit —do pay it. Therefore, the tax will not apply to the smallest aircraft used by airlines. Incidentally, their value added tax position is also different.
        Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman made that point to me in correspondence and it seems a wonderful post facto rationalisation of the situation in which the Government find themselves. The Paymaster General must know from the information available to him that the exemption would apply to the twin-engined Otter aircraft

        645
        and to the Jetstream 31—both of which use kerosene and not avgas. Therefore, the rationalisation that the right hon. Gentleman just offered admits of exceptions. It has all the hallmarks of someone trying to justify an earlier statement.
        Sir John Cope: If the hon. Gentleman will study the words that I used just now and on other occasions he will find that the lines of differential in respect of air passenger duty and the use of different types of fuel are not precisely coincident. Neither is the line of differential of VAT. Nevertheless, my remarks are true for a large number of the aircraft affected, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged.
        We remain of the view that it would not be appropriate to provide exemptions for certain parts of the country. It would be extremely difficult to distinguish between them and would add considerably to the complications of the tax for ourselves and for the airlines. However, there is obviously concern about the position of some services to the Scottish islands, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will continue to consider the impact of the duty on Scottish island routes. I do not want to pre-empt those discussions until the picture is clearer.
        Mr. Andrew Smith: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect those consultations to be complete? It would be helpful if the Government could report the outcome of those deliberations before we vote on the matter in Committee.
        Sir John Cope: I hope to report on those consultations in time for the convenience of members of the Standing Committee.
        I wanted to give the reason for the special treatment of small aircraft. I have mentioned that many small aircraft, including air taxis, use dutiable avgas rather than duty-free avtur, so the argument about the low level of taxation in the air travel industry is not strong. The size criteria for exemption are based on the Civil Aviation Authority licensing requirements, which are taken from European Community agreements. They mean that under existing arrangements an airline which operates only aircraft below those sizes is subject to less rigorous requirements on its financial health than under existing arrangements. Those airlines, therefore, have a different sort of licence from airlines which operate aircraft above the size criteria. Linking those exemption criteria to the CAA licensing regime has the benefit that a large number of operators will know immediately, from the type of licence that they have, whether they will be liable to register. As well as that deregulatory benefit, levelling the exemption means that some of the flights mentioned will be exempt.
        The threshold is sufficiently low to minimise the scope for distortion of competition on routes served by both exempt and taxable aircraft. If one studies the sizes of aircraft and their use on different routes, it is difficult to find any size criteria that have no effect on competition and cause no difficulty. That is not a reason to have no size exemption, but it means that it is difficult to choose one that is perfect in every respect.
        Mr. Wallace: Can the Minister name one airline company in the United Kingdom which flies on scheduled routes in the United Kingdom and whose flights will all be exempt under the proposal?
        Sir John Cope: I will not answer that off the cuff, but I hope to respond to the hon. Gentleman's question later.
        646
        I assure him that there are quite a number of small companies that use only smaller aircraft and will be exempt.
        The take-off weight and seating capacity of any aircraft will normally be determined by the aircraft's certificate of air worthiness, although there is a provision for Customs and Excise to examine such matters.
        In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) mentioned tourism. Most overseas tourists use aircraft only to travel to and from the United Kingdom and will be charged the £5 or £10 rate only on departure. The small number of United Kingdom and overseas tourists who take flights within the United Kingdom will be charged at the £5 rate. Even then, the duty is likely to be a very small proportion of the total cost of a holiday in Britain, so it will not be a significant influence on whether people choose Britain as a holiday destination.
        The air passenger duty is, if anything, likely to have a small but positive effect on United Kingdom tourism. I understand that, among air passengers, three and a half times as many United Kingdom residents go on holiday overseas as overseas visitors come to take a holiday in the United Kingdom. Even if some overseas visitors were deterred from taking a holiday in the United Kingdom, it would be likely that more United Kingdom residents would be deterred from holidaying overseas. Many of those would choose to take a holiday in the United Kingdom, which would be of corresponding benefit to the United Kingdom tourist industry.
        Ms Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman seems to want to have it both ways. A while back he said that the tax was so modest that it would not affect the number of passengers flying in. His Department has worked out the elasticity of those flights and has said that it is very small—only 2·5 per cent., as I recall. He has just argued, however, that people who may have gone abroad for their holiday will now abandon air travel and go instead to Bridlington, Bognor or Clacton. He cannot have it both ways. Does he say that the proposal will either affect or not affect the number of air passengers?
        5.15 pm
        Sir John Cope: I did not say that the proposal would have no effect on the number of air passengers. Nor did I say that it would have a large effect on the tourist industry. On the contrary, I said that it would have a small effect on the tourist industry and, in so far as it had an effect, it would be positive rather than negative for the reasons that I have given.
        Mr. Forman: Have my right hon. Friend and his advisers considered the possibililty that the current rate of tax is so marginal that it could well be absorbed by the companies and not passed on to the traveller?
        Sir John Cope: In some cases that may happen. It is difficult to be sure of the extent to which it will happen because the companies involved are competitive, need to make decisions about pricing and will no doubt make different decisions in different circumstances. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) is right to say that we suggested that the best estimate that we could make was that air travel could be affected by about 2·5 per cent. She should consider that statistic in context: air travel would otherwise be expected to increase by 4 to 5 per cent. a year.

        647
        Even if we are right about the 2·5 per cent., it means that there will be a slower rate of growth in the number of air passengers rather than a decline.
        I find it slightly surprising that the Labour party should be so adamant about the matter because I have had drawn to my attention a copy of the report of the London Policy Forum. I understand that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was the chairperson of the economic working party of that organisation. It suggested a few months ago, just before the Budget, that it thought that
        "a tourism tax should be considered."
        It seems that it was already in the process of accepting that a tourism tax might have some validity even before the Budget. The proposal was made in September 1993 by a leading member of the Labour Front Bench finance team —or at least in a document issued by an organisation of which she was the economic chairperson.
        The same document also states that
        "Labour will consider introducing an airport tax such as that levied in many other countries."
        I do not say that in moving ahead and introducing such an air passenger duty we have built on suggestions made by the Labour party—that would be going too far—but we are not unique in looking in that direction.
        Mr. Wallace: Clearly, the Treasury's researchers have not yet come up with an airport tax such as they have proposed in the plethora of policy documents that we Liberal Democrats seem to put out. [Interruption.] The Paymaster General is welcome to have a look; if he finds any such reference, I shall be unpleasantly surprised.
        I am concerned about the impact of the tax on the Scottish highlands and islands. Both this proposal and the proposed tax on insurance premiums remind me of occasions when former Chancellors—certainly Lord Lawson, and, I believe, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont)—announced the number of taxes that would be abolished with great flourish in their Budget statements; now, the Government are introducing new taxes.
        As the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) pointed out, there has not been much consultation, if any. Perhaps the Government thought that the fact they had not imposed VAT on passenger transport—there had been considerable speculation on that possibility before the Budget—the ground might have been softened for the introduction of some other transport-related tax.
        I do not think that the general concept of an airport tax will get the adrenaline going and prompt the raising of placards outside every airport—although the islands are an important exception. It is common experience for a traveller abroad to turn up at the check-in desk and discover that he must pay airport duty before he can leave. Although this is not the most sinister of taxes, it is important to watch out when any new tax is introduced: it may start at a modest level, but once in place it can easily be increased without the debate and scrutiny that we are being allowed in this instance.
        The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) may well share the anxieties expressed by Jetstream Aircraft Ltd., which is in his constituency. The tax is being introduced at a time when the airlines' figures could scarcely be described as buoyant. A rate of growth such as that mentioned by the Paymaster General would certainly bring a smile to the
        648
        faces of airline executives, but I know that, in recent months, the traffic level has stagnated—or, at any rate, has not risen to the extent suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
        The tax also comes at an unfortunate time for the aircraft industry. If the airlines are in difficulty, and are not sure how the tax will affect passenger numbers, they may understandably defer decisions on investment in new aircraft, which would feed through into the manufacturing industry. That, in turn, would affect companies such as the one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ayr—at a point when the aircraft manufacturing industry has not, by any stretch of the imagination, been going through good times.
        The amendment has provided a useful peg on which to hang a debate about the impact of the duty on the economy of the islands, and remote parts of the mainland of Scotland. As the Paymaster General said, the Chancellor spoke in his Budget statement of air traffic between the islands, and—in the strictest sense—the proposed exemptions reflect that. However, the impression I gained at the time was that the Chancellor was conferring a much larger benefit, and similar vibes came from the Sottish Office.
        The Paymaster General said that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland were continuing to consider the impact of duty on the Scottish routes. I hope that he meant that the door had not been shut on the possibility of a future extension of the exemptions: perhaps he will even announce such an extension in this debate. My arguments, added to those of the hon. Member for Oxford, East, may help to persuade him. There is a good case for such a move. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has received representations from a number of sources in the airline industry, as well as from local authorities and many others who are concerned about the economy of the highlands and islands.
        Mrs. Ray Michie: I agree that the Chancellor appeared to be very bountiful to the Scottish islands when he dropped the exemption proposal into his speech. A good deal of confusion was caused: we all thought that flights from the mainland to the islands, as well as flights between the islands, would be exempted. I was concerned to find that that was not the case.
        In fact, there are very few inter-island flights—at least in my constituency. The Paymaster General should appreciate that return flights from Glasgow to Islay and Tiree already cost £100 and £124 respectively. The extra tax will impose a considerable burden—not on tourism; these flights are a lifeline for the islanders.
        Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend has made a number of important points. I know that she has been at the forefront in putting her constituents' case: her constituents and mine will be particularly affected by the tax and, indirectly, by any downturn in tourism.
        My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the exemption, as it stands, will not apply to a large number of people. I suspect that the overwhelming majority will be in my constituency, and I am thankful for small mercies; but I should like more to be helped. If any airline in Scotland has an idea of the likely impact of the exemptions, it must be Loganair, which has many years' experience of serving the

        649
        Scottish islands. It estimates that about 20,000 passengers will benefit—only a small proportion of those who travel to and from the islands.
        Once the tax is introduced in the autumn, it will apply to the Dash 7, which flies to the Isles of Scilly; but, in a Scottish context, it is likely to apply only to the Britten-Norman Islander, which carries eight passengers —or nine, if someone sits at the front with the pilot.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) pointed out, a return ticket from Glasgow to Islay or Tiree costs about £125. The proposed tax constitutes a significant increase. The Paymaster General may not know quite how expensive it already is to travel to the Scottish islands. When people book their tickets to Orkney and Shetland at the travel agent, they are surprised at the cost. It is very expensive compared, for instance, with the cost of crossing the Atlantic.
        I have here an airline ticket from Orkney to London, and the return from London to Shetland—for which I need not pay, courtsey of the Fees Office. It cost £447. Anyone who travels regularly within Europe would think that an exceptionally high fare—and the Government now propose to add duties to fares that are already extremely high.
        We are not talking about travel for pleasure or convenience; we are talking about lifeline services which are an essential part of island living. To travel across the country rapidly, it is necessary to go by plane. I well remember the first time that I submitted a car allowance claim after becoming a Member of Parliament in 1983. I had travelled from my constituency to London on the ferry. I wrote down something like "9/10 September, Orkney to London". Someone from the Fees Office telephoned me and asked, "Was this a return journey, Sir?" I said, "Has it ever occurred to you how long it takes to travel by car from the Scottish islands to London?" If I always travelled back and forth by car, I would probably spend all my time on the road; I would seldom be here.
        This is a serious point, however. We cannot simply hop on to a high-speed train or other means of public transport; airlines are crucial to livelihoods and island living. If the Government had sought to impose such a duty on train travel, commuters for whom trains are essential would be jumping up and down all over the country.
        It is also important to emphasise that the flights about which we are concerned are very price sensitive. Passengers who travel through highlands and islands airports are more likely to pay their own fares. They do not rely on businesses to pick up the tab. They often comprise families who are travelling to visit relatives or to conduct their own family business.
        5.30 pm
        There is also much price sensitivity in respect of businesses in the highlands and islands. The very nature of business in the islands involves narrow profit margins. Those businesses cannot readily stand extra impositions. In addition, flights are very expensive for people who wish to visit the islands as tourists. The duty will be an added disincentive.
        With regard to the tourism argument and the general imposition of air passenger duty, the Paymaster General said that what we might lose by way of people not travelling to the United Kingdom would be made up in respect of people from the United Kingdom not travelling abroad. However, those people will certainly not travel to
        650
        Orkney and Shetland, to the Western Isles, or to Tiree or Islay if they have to pay the duty. It seems that we are going to suffer the full cost of the duty with none of the benefits.
        Many people travel from my constituency to Aberdeen for hospital treatment. Although routine operations can take place in the islands, many people have to go to Aberdeen to have operations or to be treated as out-patients. Obviously, the air ambulance would be used for emergencies and that service is exempt from the duty. However, I am concerned about people who have to travel to Aberdeen for medical treatment on the scheduled flights. I often travel with such people on a Monday morning and sometimes travel with patients as they return to the islands on a Friday evening.
        In a written reply, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
        "It is not expected that Orkney and Shetland health boards will require to purchase many tickets"—
        although my experience does not necessarily accord with that.
        "Any additional costs would be more than offset by the 4·5 per cent. increase in funding for the NHS in Scotland which my right hon. Friend has announced for the next financial year."—[Official Report, 16 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 892.]
        That may be so, but that funding was meant for health care. It was not meant to go on a circular journey back to the Treasury through air passenger duty. The money that will be lost will be lost to health care in the islands.
        Perhaps the Government should examine the impact of the duty on their own pocket. The responsibility for the highlands and islands airports is about to be transferred from the Civil Aviation Authority to the Scottish Office. However, those airports are recipients from the public purse. If their passenger levels show a sizeable decline as a result of the duty, that will do them no good.
        I am also concerned about the fact that the duty could lead to anomalies. Loganair has announced recently that it is restructuring its operation. During the past six weeks when travelling from Glasgow to Kirkwall and from Kirkwall to Glasgow, I turned up at the airport to board a Jetstream 31 which was the scheduled plane for that service. That plane has 18 seats, so I would not have been expected to pay the duty when I booked my ticket. However, I was told at the airport that, for operational reasons, I had to fly on a Shorts-360 which has 36 seats.
        If the air passenger duty had been in place, I imagine that someone would have been standing on the tarmac demanding £5 from everyone before they could board the plane. I would probably have had the £5 on me. However, someone may have been returning from holiday with only £5 for the taxi fare from the airport into Kirkwall. That person would have had to spend his taxi fare before he could board the plane.
        I may be taking things to extremes, but there is a potential anomaly. That anomaly is perhaps less likely as the Jetstream 31 is being withdrawn from that service. However, there will still be an anomaly in respect of passengers travelling from Kirkwall to Wick. Some of those journeys will take place on the eight-seater Islander aircraft which will be exempt from the duty. Others will be undertaken on the Shorts-360 and people will have to pay. A tax depending on the time of day one travels and on which plane the operator provides does not fulfil the criteria for the kind of taxes that should appear on the statute book.

        651
        The Liberal Democrat amendment which was not selected extended further than the islands. It would have taken account of remoter areas from which travellers possibly could catch trains. Although one cannot take a train from Campbeltown, I suppose that one could take a train from Wick. However, the distances and travelling time would be great. We should consider mainland airports in remoter areas where, like many islands airports, air travel is essential.
        I want to consider part of the Government's response. The Paymaster General referred to the criteria relating to the CAA licensing requirements. In a letter to me last week, he said:
        "all holders of this type of licence will immediately know they need not register for the duty."
        I asked the Paymaster General a question and I look forward to the answer. I do not know of any operators of scheduled services in the United Kingdom who would be fully exempt from the duty. Some will be partially exempt, but will have other services that will attract the duty.
        The Paymaster General said that the Government do not want to disturb the airline operators. However, Loganair has made representations to the Treasury about the duty. It is clearly not terribly upset about the possibility of having some flights which might attract the duty while a greater number will be exempt. The operators believe that the extended exemptions are far more important for the viability of their businesses than any additional administrative difficulty in respect of being able to distinguish between the two types of flight.
        Sir John Cope: Not many scheduled airlines will qualify wholly for the exemption as it stands, although Suckling, which flies from the constituency of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), is one. Most of the air operators who do not run scheduled services will be below the limit. Those operators, of whom there are more than 100 including air taxi operators, will be below the level and will automatically be exempt as a result of the exception about which we are talking.
        Mr. Wallace: I was careful and deliberately used the word "scheduled". I accept the Minister's point about unscheduled services. People may use an air taxi to travel from A to B or, for example, from Cambridge to London. That service is not a lifeline service, but people who use that service will benefit from the exemption. However, for people in my constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute and of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), those flights are lifeline services and they will not receive the benefit of exemption. I am not saying that the exemption should be withdrawn and I can see the administrative benefit. However, if people receive the benefit of the exemption on convenience flights and air taxis while the benefit is not extended to lifeline flights, that highlights a considerable anomaly and unfairness.
        Sir John Cope: The hon. Gentleman should not forget what I said earlier. The people who use unscheduled services do, for the most part, pay VAT on their travel.
        Mr. Wallace: I accept that. However, they will still benefit from this exemption while those who are not using the services as convenience services will have to pay the duty.
        It has also been said that there may be anomalies elsewhere and other areas might call for a similar
        652
        exemption. Where might that happen? I understand that the planes which currently service the Isles of Scilly would all fall within the exemption.
        The same arguments apply to the Isles of Scilly as would apply to the Scottish islands in respect of lifeline services. The Paymaster General should say which other parts of the country depend on those services as lifeline services before he says that people all over the country will jump up and down, claiming that they want a similar consideration.
        What would be the result of the concession? Again in correspondence, the Paymaster General said:
        "The result of such concessions for all regions would undermine the concept of the duty and reduce the revenue to be raised from it, which might have to be made good from elsewhere."
        In a written answer to me, he mentioned £2 million as the likely loss of revenue. Indeed, £1 million was mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute, but it was not clear whether that was in respect of one-way travel. Therefore, if we are talking about traffic in both directions, it might be £2 million. For heaven's sake, if the country's economy has reached the stage at which the Government cannot withstand the loss of £2 million, we are in a far worse state than any commentator has led us to believe.
        Mr. Andrew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that £2 million would do incomparably greater damage to the islands than it could possibly benefit the Government's finances?
        Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member for Oxford, East has taken the words out of my mouth. Seen from the perspective of the Treasury, £1 million or £2 million—I will not say that it is irrelevant—is peanuts, but, from the point of view of the highlands and islands economy, it is a considerable amount. The withdrawal of that amount could have a serious economic impact. I hope that such matters will be taken into account when the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider the likely impact of the duty.
        Jetstream estimates that, according to available information—that is, an ABC flight guide and Department of Transport statistics—the revenue would be £380 million in a full year, which significantly exceeds the Government's estimate. I understand that the Government estimate revenue of £115 million in the first part year, £330 million in 1995–96 and £335 million in 1996–97. I understand also that the figure of £380 million excludes charter operations. Allowing for the fact that there appears to be the possibility of greater revenue than the Government have estimated, the loss made by extending the exemption for the islands' routes would be more than made up if the other figures prove to be right.
        Jetstream argues that if the Government exempt all turbo-prop aircraft, that would account for only 9·6 per cent. of revenue. For example, the limit up to 69 seats amounts to about £36·6 million, whereas a limit of 70 seats and over amounts to about £347 million. The contrast shows that there is considerable room for the exemption to be extended so that the economies of areas that depend on air travel as a means of earning a livelihood and living can be properly taken into account.
        I am grateful to hear that discussions are still going on, and I very much hope that we can persuade the Paymaster General and his right hon. Friends to make modest

        653
        extensions of the exemptions—modest in terms of the impact on the Treasury, but very important indeed for people who live in the island areas of Scotland.
        Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) emphasised the serious aspects of the proposed tax and outlined the realities of island life. He said that many people's incomes depended on air travel. The proposed tax will affect people in the islands far more than it will affect anyone else in the United Kingdom.
        The hon. Gentleman's words contrast with those of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who spoke on a purely political basis. He said that, yet again, the Government are raising taxes. However, the Labour party continually stresses that it wants to spend more and more. That would inevitably lead to higher taxation. The hon. Member for Oxford, East made some valid points, but, if he wanted to be seen to be serious, he would not have made some of his opening remarks.
        I shall concentrate particularly on clause 28(3), which refers to clause 29. Clause 29(1)(b) refers to the 20-seat limitation. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and discussed the effects of the 20-seat limit on Jetstream aircraft and flights to the islands and the Western Isles. I, too, remember the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech. He said that most flights within the islands would be covered by the exemption in the Finance Bill.
        5.45 pm
        The aircraft that are used in the islands range up to about 70 seats. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider raising the 20-seat limit. I recognise the licensing issues and that perhaps there is logic in determining the 20-seat option, but there is room to move towards the Chancellor's intentions in his Budget.
        Ms Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps the best way of dealing with the problem of travel between the islands and the mainland and between islands is to exempt the routes rather than mess around with the number of passenger seats?
        Mr. Gallie: No. My preference is certainly to change the limit on the number of aircraft seats. Jetstream is located in my constituency, and I am very keen to promote the interests of turbo-prop aircraft. That is the basic reason for my opinion. Island services are provided by turbo-prop aircraft. We have an opportunity now to do some good for the islanders and also for Jetstream Aircraft in my constituency.
        A 30-seat limitation would benefit the sale of Jetstream 41s, but a move to a 70-seat limit which included exemptions for advanced turbo-prop aircraft would be important to the islands and to the United Kingdom's manufacturing base.
        The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that a change from the Jetstream 31 up to the Shorts 360 involved a tax change. Perhaps that would be an inducement not to buy Shorts 360s and to spend a bit more on Jetstreams.
        I should like my right hon. Friend to acknowledge what I have said and to make a commitment to continued consideration of the matter.
        Ms Eagle: We are considering just one of the 12 tax increases of the Budget—a tax-raising package that the Chancellor, in evidence to the Treasury Select Committee,
        654
        admitted is the equivalent of a 7p increase in basic income tax. Taken together, the increases amount to the largest tax increase in British peace-time history—
        The Chairman: Order. The Committee is debating amendment No. I, with which we are taking amendments Nos. 2 and 3 specifically on the airport tax.
        Ms Eagle: I was about to come to the question of airport taxes. When we are dealing with individual taxes, it is important to consider the general taxation background.
        The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me her thoughts. However, I am chairing the Committee, and I would be grateful if she went straight to the subject of airport tax.
        Ms Eagle: I can assure you, Mr. Morris, that I have absolutely no ambition in that direction.
        When we consider new taxes, we need to examine why the tax is levied, the way in which it is levied and whether it is the most sensible and efficient way of collecting money. I shall make some comments on each of those points.
        The tax is being levied because of Tory economic mismanagement which led to a sudden scramble for revenue at the last minute. When we look at some of the administrative details and the way in which the tax was imposed, we see that all of the arrangements were made at the last minute. As to the administrative details of the collection of the tax, the lack of consultation before the announcement of the tax led to the promulgation of administrative arrangements which have caused many anomalies, some of which we are discussing today. Those anomalies need to be ironed out if the tax is to be efficiently and effectively collected and if it is to impact fairly on all those who pay it.
        Why should airline travel, and no other form of public transport, be singled out when considering tax increases? Naturally, the airline industry has pointed that out in its reaction to the way in which the tax is levied. Indeed, while I do not say that we should tax other forms of public transport, it seems odd that the airline industry, out of all the systems of transport to get from one place to another, has been subjected to this tax.
        When the Government announced the tax, and it was expected that value added tax might well be put on public transport, I received petitions from bus operators and representations from Mersey Rail expressing concern about imposing VAT on public transport. There was a great sigh of relief when VAT was not extended to public transport. Then the airline industry was hit with the sudden announcement of a new airline tax, even though it is set at a low level at present.
        Administrative arrangements are in the process of being put in place. My colleagues on the Front Bench have expressed concern that the scope of the tax will be increased in the years to come and that what we have now is the thin end of the wedge. We should bear in mind that, when value added tax was introduced, it was only a modest tax. In the past 15 years, its scope has been extended 14 times, and the level has increased from 8 per cent. to 17·5 per cent. The potential of VAT as a revenue-raising measure has been milked by the Government in a desperate search for cash.
        As the Government continue to mismanage the economy and fail to balance the books, what guarantee do

        655
        we have they will not regard this airport tax as yet another way of increasing revenue in their desperate search for cash for the Treasury? We have had only one comment from the Minister on this matter. When he was asked whether the scope of the tax would increase in the years ahead, he made the usual coy Treasury comment that he could not possibly say what the Treasury's tax plans would be in the future but he thought that the tax was levied at a reasonable rate at present. All I can say is that we must look at the precedent of value added tax to see what sort of guarantee the Minister's assurances give us.
        Why is the tax being levied? Obviously it is being levied to raise revenue. It seems to be a minor way of raising revenue. Indeed, some of the administrative problems that it will cause hardly seem worth the revenue that it will raise. Scott Grier, the managing director of Loganair, one of the airlines that will be affected by some of the exemptions in the tax, said that the exemptions were arbitrary and unrealistic. I refer to the loophole which exempts passengers on aircraft with fewer than 20 seats and weighing under 10 tonnes. Of course, that exempts executive jets. It was sold in the Budget statement as an attempt to ensure the viability of flights and services between Scottish islands.
        Several of my hon. Friends have eloquently demonstrated that that argument is fallacious. Indeed, only 10 per cent. of passenger journeys between the islands, and between the islands and the mainland, will be exempt. I associate myself with the comments made earlier about how this tax threatens island life and lifeline services. The Government must look seriously at that matter.
        Unlike the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), I believe that the Government should look carefully at exempting routes, rather than attempt to levy the tax based on the size of an aircraft. Methods of avoiding tax are becoming increasingly ingenious these days. Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I suddenly had a vision of people taking seats from larger aircraft so that they could qualify for the exemption. People cannot avoid paying tax on routes and the Government should look seriously at exempting routes rather than using aircraft size.
        The complicated nature of the administrative burdens in collecting the tax were captured impressively by a British Airways memorandum which was sent directly to the Minister by Sir Colin Marshall, the chairman of British Airways. In that memorandum, Sir Cohn not only regarded the tax as unfair, which we would expect an airline to say, but made it clear that the application of the duty and the administrative arrangements which the Inland Revenue is in the process of working out will be very expensive for airlines to put into effect because they involve the development of entirely new systems.
        The collection difficulties identified in the memorandum are interesting. Currently the Revenue is planning to collect the duty from the airline or the agency which sells the ticket, but payment of the duty will be made by the airline carrying the passenger. People who travel with any regularity on either charter flights or ordinary flights know that those two agencies are not always the same. At present, airlines do not have a system of identifying at take-off which passengers will be eligible to pay the duty if they have not already paid it. Therefore, British Airways
        656
        suggests that the duty from airlines should be collected from the airline carrying the passenger rather than from the agency selling the ticket.
        British Airways also suggests that duty should be payable after the airline has received the duty. The administrative arrangements of agencies which sell tickets and places on airlines are such that in a large number of cases the airline will be liable to pay the duty before it has received the duty from the agency selling the ticket. That may cause financial problems, especially for smaller airlines. It is unlikely to affect British Airways to any large degree, but smaller airlines in the market could have significant cash flow problems accruing from that administrative arrangement.
        One of the more difficult and hard-to-justify arrangements announced by the Chancellor in his Budget statement is the idea that the £5 or £10 duty, depending on whether one is going to Europe or further afield, should be levied only on the outward flight, not on the flight back. On a flight, whether one is going out or coming back is never identified. The tax discriminates against those people who have one-way or single tickets, as presumably they would have to pay the duty on each flight rather than just on their outward flight.
        It discriminates also against those who use automatic ticketing which, I am told, never involves a return ticket. Perhaps the Government should consider levying a £2·50 or £5 charge on the flight each way rather than simply attempting to do so on the outward flight. The way in which aircraft and ticketing systems operate means that it is often difficult to identify whether a passenger is flying out or coming back. The computer systems and the extra work which would be needed to try to identify that fact are not justified by the yield which the tax is planned to give to the Revenue.
        6 pm
        The Paymaster General asserted that there would be no significant effect on tourism. I attempted to point out to him the fallacy of his argument. On the one hand, he was saying that not many passengers would be deterred from using air flights after the imposition of the duty, while on the other hand British citizens would stay at home and holiday here rather than go abroad. That would thus be of benefit to the tourist industry. After considering those arguments, I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman can have his cake and eat it. Either there will be a significant effect on the number of people who use aircraft journeys, in which case the duty and the yield of the tax will go down—that is involved with price elasticities—or people will continue to use flights and presumably also fly out of the country to go on holiday.
        It has been said that a £10 duty does not seem to be too much for a single person, but it is different if one is flying out with a family. Obviously, the larger the family, the larger the duty to be paid. In the midst of the on-going depression when money is tight, I do not believe that duties of £40 or £50 at an airport for a family holiday are insignificant. British Airways has estimated that it will cost passengers £75 million a year, and I do not believe that that is an insignificant cost.
        The Paymaster General expressed his wish that airlines would not seek to pass on the cost to passengers, and that they would try to absorb the cost of the tax. That does not seem to be happening according to the reactions of airlines which I have read. Almost all airlines—except Virgin, I

        657
        believe—announced that they will be passing on the tax directly to their passengers in prices. That is yet another cost which will go directly on to the consumer.
        The entire tax seems to have been hastily thought up and badly worked out in detail. The administration problems in the way in which the revenue is currently planned to be collected are particularly irksome, and contain anomalies which disadvantage particular groups. I believe that those problems need to be looked at again in some detail to see whether some of the anomalies can be ironed out to allow the tax to be more efficiently administered.
        The economic mismanagement of the Government and the massive deficit which loomed before them meant that they were scrambling round for new ways of raising revenue. They came up with this one at the last minute, but clearly they did not do enough work to ensure that they had a reasonable, fair and well-administered tax with the minimum administrative burden and cost of collection. I do not believe that we have that yet.
        The Government's motivation for introducing the tax is somewhat more sinister than they have so far admitted. This is one of those taxes which could be increased significantly. I do not believe that all of the administrative burden is being put on to air travellers merely to collect £350 million, which is the estimated yield of the tax in three years' time. I believe that there is a hidden agenda. There could be some significant increases in the scope and the level of the tax in the years to come.
        The Government should try to iron out some of the anomalies in the administration of the tax. If possible, they should give us an assurance that they will not widen the scope of the tax. However, we know that assurances on the scope and the level of taxation—both direct and indirect —tend not to be worth the paper they are written on when they are given by the Government.
        Mr. Forman.: I rise briefly to support the clause and to oppose the Labour amendment, and I do so for a number of reasons. I was one of those who helped to write a pamphlet on the problems of London in the 1970s, when I first came to the House. The pamphlet was called "Maybe it's because we are Londoners" and I wrote it with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and other colleagues.
        At that time, we canvassed the idea of a tax or duty similar to that which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has decided to introduce. I can see no objection at all in principle to such a measure, for the obvious reason that it contributes to the broadening of the tax base, which is worth doing in itself. Over a period, the broader the base of tax from all sources, the more likely it is that one can get to a lower rate of tax and also to a simplified structure. Those propositions tend to go together.
        As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General said in his opening remarks, the duty is very much in line with what other countries do. There is nothing outlandish or strange about a duty which is matched by Denmark, Belgium, Ireland, Greece, Canada and the United States, to mention just a few examples.
        Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: In Belgium, for example, the duty applies only to international flights. The difficulty that is faced by British Airways is that it has a substantial domestic operation. British Airways has to meet the infrastructure costs of its whole operation, and it will be placed at a disadvantage compared with the Belgian
        658
        state-owned airline, Sabena. Will not Sabena have to satisfy only the international aspects of the tax rather than the domestic ones which British Airways will face?
        Mr. Forman: Whether that is a weighty concern depends on whether the tax itself constitutes a significant extra burden upon industry. I was moving on to make the point that I do not think that it does constitute a significant extra burden. I suspect that much of the tax or duty will be absorbed by the operators.
        Mr. Hoon: We have heard that Sir Colin Marshall of British Airways has said that he feels strongly that the duty is unfair. Has not he also said that he is concerned about the effect that the duty will have on the competitive position of British Airways?
        Mr. Forman: A number of hon. Members know Sir Colin well, and they will know that he bats vigorously for his industry. I could say, "He would say that, wouldn't he?" I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right to put excessive weight on that argument. It is perfectly understandable that Sir Colin should defend his corner as the boss of British Airways, but my judgment is—we will see whether I have been proved right or wrong in a few years—that it will be quite easy for all of the major airlines to absorb such an increase.
        I am glad that my right hon. Friend made it clear that the Chancellor has agreed to delay the full introduction of the measure until November 1994. That is sensible, because clearly one would always want to avoid anything which resembles a retrospective effect. It is likely that any administrative complexity which might flow from the introduction of the duty will have been sorted out by that time because of the extra time which has been made available. I believe that my right hon. Friend is right to resist the lure of hypothecation in this, as in other areas. That way lies extra complexity for any tax system. It makes it much more difficult to sustain public support for the tax system if people can pick and choose the taxes that they want to pay on the basis of the purposes for which the money will be used. My right hon. Friend was right to resist that.
        The burden of the debate this afternoon has been about the extent and nature of the exemptions that are to be allowed. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was eloquent on that subject. I understand that. The difficulty is that with a relatively small measure such as the air passenger duty, which will not raise a large sum of money, if we introduce many exemptions we will find precisely the sort of problems that we experienced with other aspects of our tax structure. We would have a narrow base because of the exemptions. There would be extra complexity, which costs the fiscal authorities and the private sector money. On the whole, it is not advisable.
        I declare an interest in the matter. The Committee will know that I am the parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Accountants. It is clear that the only people who would benefit from the introduction of a new duty that was excessively complex are those in the tax advice and accountancy profession. I am sure that those for whom I speak in that regard would not regret that, but it is not a good principle of tax policy that one should introduce too many exemptions in a new tax.
        Mr. Brian Wilson: How many accountants does the hon. Gentleman think that it would take to work out the effect of excluding the Scottish islands from the air passenger duty?
        Mr. Forman: My short answer is, too many. The real reason why it is important to keep the tax structure for this or any other duty as simple as possible is that extra costs are incurred by both the public and private sector if there are too many exemptions.
        I was amused by what the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said about the rather John Cleese possibility of changing the number of seats in a given aircraft. However, simplicity is something to which my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury should cling. I hope that they will not go too far down the route of making detailed exemptions.
        Mr. Wallace: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that, even on the Treasury's figures, £2 million out of an estimated annual take of about £350 million is very small? Indeed, far from seeing any administrative difficulty the airline companies believe that it is important to allow exemptions. As parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland, my comments are motivated entirely by constituency interests, not by regard for the accountancy profession in Scotland.
        Mr. Forman: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that his colleagues in the accountancy profession will note it also.
        Mr. George Walden: I simply wish to back up my hon. Friend's point. He is right about the question of complexity. One could also add that if one exempted a particular area, within that area would live people who are well off, not so well off and downright poor, so we would be into the business that we are already in on a macro scale in universal benefits of giving tax exemptions to well-off people.
        Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend makes a good point that strengthens the thrust of my arguments. I do not wish to add to it.
        Certain exemptions are already allowed for in the Finance Bill. Will my right hon. Friend say what is the justification for exempting, for example, transfer passengers? He mentioned that exemption in his speech. If we are to take a clean approach, that also needs to be justified.
        This extra duty will constitute a small proportion of the total cost of the relevant sums of money spent by people on flights. Even if one takes the example of trips to the islands, which have already been mentioned, £5 in the case of United Kingdom flights is a small proportion of the more than £100 that was mentioned. As most of the journeys are essential and people plan for them, it should be possible for people to meet that cost. I see the air passenger duty as a fair, sensible tax which is likely to be absorbed by the operators in any case. If all that it does in terms of deterring extra travel activity is slow down the rate of growth of foreign or domestic travel, that is not anything about which the Committee should be unduly worried.
        Ms Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is warmly recommending the tax to the House. He says that it is fair and sensible. How does it square with his Government's promise at the election, and no doubt his
        660
        promise to his electors, to cut taxes? How does the introduction of a new tax that will affect his constituents square with his promise and his party's stance as a party of low tax and tax cuts?
        Mr. Forman: That has already been made plain on several occasions by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and others. I am happy to add to their arguments by simply saying that the priority, as the hon. Lady must know, in the two Budgets of 1993 was to restore public finances. Regrettably, that made it necessary to increase taxation by both introducing new duties such as the air passenger duty and increasing the impact of existing taxes. I regret that, but it was the responsible course to take. You would consider me out of order, Dame Janet, if I followed that argument too far.
        Mr. Derek Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman look at schedule 6(8) on interest payable to the commissioners? Does he agree that such provisions will require horrific bureaucracy and, indeed, a contribution from the profession that he represents? Already, it is not a simple tax. The collection of this minuscule amount of money is simply not worth the candle. Even the hon. Gentleman's argument that it will reduce the public sector borrowing requirement seems nonsense.
        While the hon. Gentleman is reading that schedule, will he comment on the clarity of the English? I do not think that it would win a plain English award.
        6.15 pm
        Mr. Forman: On the latter point, I am very much in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, one of the representations made by the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was about the lack of clarity in far too much of the legislative drafting. That is a point on which hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree.
        On the point about the money raised, £350 million is a useful sum even in the context of the PSBR of towards £50,000 million. The Treasury should not regard that as inconsequential any more than it does the other new measure under the insurance heading, which we shall debate later.
        In conclusion, the measure is sensible. It will have little impact on the volume of travel. Many of the arguments put before the Committee tonight by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman and others constituted a degree of synthetic indignation. I was interested to see that some of the measures, or similar measures, have already been canvassed by Opposition Members.
        Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: The air passenger tax and the insurance premium tax that we are to discuss later are classic examples of the reckless fiscal opportunism of the Government as they flounder in the deficit that their economic incompetence has run up. Opposition Members might not be too worried if the air passenger duty represented the only tax increase in the Finance Bill. We should want to amend it nevertheless, but we would not be so worried about it. The new duty must be seen as part of the whole tax package—the biggest tax hike in British history.
        People have said that the air passenger duty is a small tax, but we must bear in mind that in the past the imposition of new taxes has been the first stage. It has been

        661
        the foundation on which increases could be built in following years. So in opposing the new tax this evening, we are aware that the 3 per cent. could be greatly increased in the years ahead. Given the shambles of the finances of this country, and the difficulty that the Chancellor will have in meeting the targets that he has set himself, it is more than likely that the tax will be increased in the future.
        As many of my hon. Friends have said, there was no mention of the tax, or any new tax, in the Conservative election manifesto. All the talk was of the opposite—of reducing taxes. First, we are annoyed and concerned that the tax has been sprung on the electorate when no mention was made of it.
        Secondly, we are concerned about the fact that there has been no consultation about the tax. My hon. Friends have described the many problems in the legislation that are a result of not consulting the airline companies. Now they are being consulted but they have been told that today is the final date. The Government cannot even get the consultation date right and I hope that we can have some sort of assurance about that.
        Sir John Cope: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here when I spoke. I said that today is not the final date for consultation. Of course, it is not—it is not the final date for our discussion on the Bill; discussions with the airlines and other interested parties will continue.
        Mr. Chisholm: I thank the Minister for that assurance, which is what I was going to ask for. I hope that the comments of British Airways and other companies will be taken into account.
        Not only was there no consultation but this must be the first new tax in recent history which was not even mentioned during Ministers' speeches on the Finance Bill. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury spoke for more than half an hour, but he did not mention this or the other new tax that he is about to impose. As far as I know, the only mention of the tax was a paragraph from the Chancellor in his Budget statement.
        Hon. Members have referred to the way in which the tax was introduced. I would not like to accuse the Chancellor of being deliberately misleading about the Scottish islands. Perhaps we should put it down to the casual inattention to detail that has become his hallmark. However, his remarks have had a misleading effect and were not the only announcement in the Budget to do so. I can think of a direct parallel. Just as 90 per cent. of families on family credit cannot get the £28 that was emphasised in the Budget, so 90 per cent. of flights to the Scottish islands will not be able to claim the exemption which was suggested—to say the least—in the Chancellor's Budget statement.
        The effect of the tax on island communities must be one of the main concerns of Opposition Members—not merely the Scottish islands, but the Isle of Man, the Channel islands and many others. The vast majority of flights to those islands have to be made by large aircraft. It seems strange that the Government are prepared to grant exemptions for people who dart from one island to another when most people on the islands are more concerned about visiting the mainland.
        The amendment tabled by the Opposition asks—at the very least—for a report on the effect of the measure on island communities. Perhaps the best solution is to exempt flights to certain destinations. In the first instance we are asking for a report because once again the Government
        662
        appear not to have researched the effect of the measure on island communities. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) mentioned that many businesses in those islands have rather low profit margins and that the tax would seriously affect them. It will also affect ordinary people on the islands and those wishing to visit them. The report is one of the major demands in our amendment and I hope that the Government will consider it sympathetically.
        Apart from the islands there are other concerns. Several routes in this country do not make a profit and one or two others make only a slight profit. Some of those routes may be put under threat if additional costs have to be borne.
        The possible effect of the tax on the tourist industry is another worry. In many ways we are already a less attractive destination because of other costs—or so I am told by the travel industry—and the tax could therefore have a disproportionate effect on tourists who come here from abroad. One would have thought that the Government would at least have done some research on that subject and borne it in mind when presenting this legislation.
        The tax will also affect British families who want to travel abroad. If it were the only extra expense that they had to bear as a result of the Budget we would not mind too much, but the average family will face an enormous increase in their tax bill in April—£12·50 per week for a typical family. This tax is another burden; a family of five will have to pay £25 extra to visit a European Community country and £50 extra if the destination is not in the Community. We must bear in mind the effect that that will have. Many people may not go abroad, as the Government have acknowledged by suggesting that there will be a 2·5 per cent. reduction in holidays abroad.
        Finally, I am concerned about jobs. What effect will all the other tax changes in the Budget have on jobs? They will directly affect the airline industry, but will also have an impact on the tourist industry, among others, because they will take demand out of the economy and thus contribute towards making this Budget the most deflationary in the past 60 years.
        I am worried about the cumulative effect of the measure on employment and particularly on the airline and tourist industries. I hope that the Minister will give me some assurances when he replies to the debate. He has said that he will listen to what people say and I draw his attention to the long submission from British Airways, which contains many detailed suggestions. For example, British Airways has said that the tax will be very expensive to implement—an expense over and above the tax. If the tax must be pushed through, the Government should consider implementing it in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
        The Minister has already been asked about the possibility of future increases in the tax by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). Can he state firmly that he has no plans to increase the tax next year or the year after? That may reassure one or two people, but I have my doubts about it reassuring many more.
        Mrs. Anne Campbell: I support the amendment. I must preface my remarks by saying that I find it surprising that people will have to pay an extra charge to get away on holiday or business trips at a time when more people than ever before are totally fed up with

        663
        the Government and would like to get away from this country and a Government who are imposing extra taxes that they had not expected.
        My hon. Friends have referred to a number of anomalies. The difference in charges is particularly peculiar. For instance, if the members of a family of four go on a skiing holiday and choose to fly to Salzburg they will have to pay £40 in airport tax, but if they fly to France they will have to pay only £20. That seems a little odd, and the Government should reconsider it.
        Another problem is that people who land here unintentionally and have to stop over will have to pay the tax. It will not merely hit people who are trying to get away from this country to drown their sorrows abroad in places where they can relax; people who come here unintentionally because they are diverted will also have to pay, and that seems unfair.
        Several hon. Members have asked whether the tax will remain at a fairly low level. Significantly, the Paymaster General could not assure us that the tax would not be increased before the next general election. He gave me the usual answer that he was not able to predict what future Budgets would bring. Perhaps that illustrates the point that was so ably made on Second Reading: the Treasury's advice to Ministers is always that, when a new tax comes in, start it at a low level, nobody will object, then raise it later. With the present state of the country's finances and our large public sector borrowing requirement, it is likely that future Chancellors—or even the present Chancellor —will choose to raise the tax again and again and, in the present financial climate, see it as an easy means of raising money.
        6.30 pm
        Airlines lobbied hard against the imposition of VAT on flights. I suppose that there is a certain amount of relief that that has not happened, but British Midland said that it had won the battle but lost the war. That is a recognition that, having got as far as imposing the tax, it is open to be raised in future Budgets, and that airlines might pay just as much in future as they would have done had VAT been imposed.
        Much has been said about whether airlines will be able to absorb the tax. British Midland estimates that it will cost it between £17 million and £20 million if it tries to do that. It has given no indication that it intends to do so. Virgin Atlantic Airlines is the only airline to have indicated that it may well absorb the tax. Even then, the estimated cost to it is some £15 million. That is by no means an insignificant amount.
        The overall impression of the tax, as with so much of the Budget, is of a series of rather fiddly and complicated small taxes that have been added in a rather ad hoc way, quite against the trend of previous Chancellors—at least the previous two—who attempted to simplify the taxation system. That has not been continued by the present Chancellor. We now have a sophisticated and complicated taxation system that would be difficult to untangle by a future Labour Government. Perhaps that shows that the Chancellor has a certain lack of detail and finds it a rather difficult subject. I suppose that the issue whether the Chancellor is up to the job will be raised at some stage.
        Much of the airlines' concern centres on the method and the cost of collection, so let me now look at the question of domestic flights and how the system will work. It has
        664
        been suggested that airlines are charged £5 on the outward journey and nothing on the inward journey. The problem that I can see is this. If I fly from Stansted to Edinburgh, how is the airline supposed to know whether I originated in Stansted on an outward flight or Edinburgh on an inward flight? There will be much bureaucracy for the airlines in identifying and distinguishing ingoing and outgoing passengers.
        That is not all, because a passenger flying from Edinburgh to Heathrow and then Istanbul will pay £10 in Edinburgh and, as I understand it, nothing at Heathrow. But a passenger flying from Edinburgh to Heathrow and then to Paris will pay £5 in Edinburgh and nothing at Heathrow. A passenger travelling from Edinburgh to Heathrow on the return journey will pay nothing. There will be a number of passengers, all on the same flights, some of whom will pay £10, some £5 and some nothing at all. There will be a great deal of confusion, bureaucracy and administrative muddle in trying to levy the tax in the best possible way.
        A further anomaly is this, as people in my area will find. I like to use my local airport whenever I can—it is not always possible—but if I decide to take a trip to Edinburgh and fly from Stansted early in the morning and decide to come back at a time when there is no convenient flight to Stansted I might have to fly to Heathrow instead. The problem is that I will not qualify for the £5 internal domestic flight, and would have to pay £5 from Stansted to Edinburgh and another £5 from Edinburgh to Heathrow. That is not a fair system.
        In its detailed submission, British Airways asked that domestic passengers be taxed at £2·50 on each leg of the journey. Although I am not convinced that that will make life easier for it, it seems that it will be much fairer for the passengers, particularly those people in my part of the world who may wish to use Stansted but find that they are unable to do so because of the inconvenience of the timing of the flights.
        BA made a number of detailed points in its response to the Government's consultation. Despite the fact that it has been done in a great hurry, I think that BA's submission has been well thought out and its points are worth noting. One of its suggestions was that all passengers whose journey commences and terminates outside the United Kingdom should be exempt from paying the airport duty.
        I should like the Paymaster General to consider that point carefully and perhaps tell us in his reply whether he would consider amending the legislation, as drafted, to include that point. I think that BA is trying to make the point that the legislation distinguishes between transfers in the United Kingdom and stopovers. BA competes with airlines such as KLM, which offers stopovers in Amsterdam. On a number of flights, BA offers stopovers in London. The Dutch Government do a great deal to promote tourism to Amsterdam. BA is naturally worried about the adverse effect on its flights and also on the tourist trade in London if people who stop over in London are charged the tax.
        Another point that BA made was that United Kingdom hotels are already more expensive than elsewhere in Europe, particularly at the bottom of the market, and that the £10 airport tax will add considerably to an already rather expensive hotel bill.
        My hon. Friends have mentioned that there should be exemptions for passengers for whom no fare has been charged. I should like to endorse that, particularly for

        665
        airline employees who have to travel to start their work, but perhaps more seriously for the many charity flights that are carried out by BA, which has a number of flights in which it takes seriously sick children on holidays in different parts of the world. It would be extremely sad if those children were to be charged an airport tax.
        I do not know enough about the highlands and islands to join in the argument about how the tax will affect journeys in that region. I have listened carefully to that argument, however, and I agree that exemptions should be offered on journeys to certain destinations rather than on small aircraft with a certain number of seats.
        The argument between direct and indirect taxes was rehearsed earlier. I find it a little surprising that the Government always argue in favour of indirect taxes by claiming that there is an element of choice as to whether people pay such a tax. They argue that income tax, a direct tax, is not so easy to avoid. I accept that I can choose whether to turn on my heating and whether I should pay VAT on fuel. The Government have used that argument in favour of the airport tax, but it does not apply in the highlands and islands.
        Passengers will not be offered a choice as to the size of aircraft in which they may fly. They may turn up at the airport to find that they are booked on a 40-seater aircraft rather than a 20-seater one; they will therefore be subject to the airport tax. It is extremely unlikely that any airline will be able to offer a passenger the choice between a 20-seater or a 40-seater aircraft in order to allow that passenger to exercise choice about paying the airport tax. That lack of choice invalidates the argument in favour of levying an indirect tax rather than a direct one.
        The cost difference for a family of four who fly to Salzburg rather than to France will be enormous. British Airways has argued that the £5 band could be extended for the entire European economic area and not just to countries within the European Community. That would be an infinitely sensible extension.
        The Government could eliminate an unnecessary expense for airlines if they deferred implementation of the tax until after the holiday season. The reason behind that is simple: it would save airlines and tour companies the unnecessary cost of reprinting their holiday brochures. I hope that the Government will consider that argument.
        Mr. Forman: Does not the hon. Lady realise that implementation of the tax is being deferred until November 1994?
        Mrs. Campbell: The airlines have made it clear in their submission that that deferral is not long enough. They would like implementation to be subject to a further delay to encompass the entire holiday season, because some of their brochures have been printed up until the end of December.
        Airlines should be compensated for the cost of collecting the tax on the Government's behalf. Whatever means the airlines choose, the tax will be expensive to collect. It has been suggested that the tax should be levied on the ticket rather than collected at the airport. I thoroughly endorse that argument because of my recent experience in Japan, when I had to queue for some time to pay the airport tax.
        If the tax is to be collected at airports, it will be necessary to erect a barrier at which people will have to queue. That means that airports will be faced with the
        666
        additional expense of building a barrier and other necessary infrastructure. Barriers will cause congestion and great annoyance, because, as one of my hon. Friends has already mentioned, imagine how someone will feel who has spent his last £10 of English currency on a taxi to the airport only to find that he must find another £10 to pay the airport tax.
        I believe that the tax is unnecessarily complicated. It is a niggling sort of tax which will be difficult to administer and collect. I hope that the Government will take my arguments on board. When the Paymaster General replies to the debate, I hope that he will make it clear that he will consider them.
        6.45 pm
        Mr. George Stevenson: I should like to speak in support of amendment No. 3, which is part of the clutch of amendments that we are now discussing. I support the demand for a report to be made on the effects of implementation of the tax which the House could consider before its imposition.
        I am sure that all hon. Members, irrespective of their opinion of the airport tax, would agree that we have already had sufficient experience of the Government imposing taxes which were simply not thought through. The Government had to backtrack on the poll tax, for example, at immense cost to the public purse. I know that the House has considered the principle behind the airport tax, but we should think carefully before moving down that same path.
        Mr. Hoon: Flight path.
        Mr. Stevenson: Yes, indeed. I hope that any problems with the airport tax will not be on the same scale as those caused by the disastrous poll tax.
        If hon. Members just took a cursory glance at the valid points made by the travel industry, they would be bound to share some of its concerns. I am sure that they, too, would then call for a full report to be made on the effects of the tax, which could be considered by the House. We could then avoid a repetition of expensive past disasters. Hon. Members should consider the amendments carefully before we embark on a course that could lead to further expense on the public purse and force the Government to backtrack.
        I appreciate that the principle behind the tax has already been accepted, but it simply will not work because of its massive impracticalities. The Government have already accepted that the tax is bound to damage the travel industry. They estimate that it might lead to a 2·5 per cent. reduction in business, but I know from people who work in the travel industry that that is a serious underestimation. Those people believe that the estimate has more to do with the Government's attempt to show the tax in a favourable light than with reality. The Government must consider what that tax burden will do to an industry that is desperately fighting to attract more tourists to our country.
        Mr. Forman: Is it not implicit in what the hon. Gentleman is saying that we are discussing estimates of damage to the industry? Nobody knows what it will be, and nobody will know reliably until there is empirical evidence. Is it sensible to have an amendment that says that duty should not be charged until the Government have presented a report on the effects of that duty? Unless the duty is charged, we cannot know the effects.
        Mr. Stevenson: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me, so I might as well sit down and rest on the laurels of what he has just said. He admits that nobody knows what the effects of the duty will be. The Government are imposing a serious tax which, by the way, they did not mention in their manifesto. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman told his constituents about it when he asked them to vote for him. I should like to see a copy of his election address saying, "I intend to support the imposition of an airport tax". He says, in support of the Government, that the tax will be imposed when the Government have not a clue about its effects. Having sat on these Benches for two years, I am sure that the Government do not know what the heck they are doing. But when Conservative Members say that they accept that, I should have thought that it would lead the hon. Gentleman to the conclusion that he should support the amendment.
        Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman has wilfully misunderstsood the point that I sought to make. How can he expect the House to take seriously an amendment that says:
        "This duty shall not be charged"—
        which means levied—
        "until the Government has presented a report … on its effects"?
        Clearly, there is a logical inconsistency because we can reliably know the effects only once the duty has been in operation for a year or two.
        Mr. Stevenson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's further intervention. If the Government have no idea about the effects of the tax until it has been imposed, how can they assume that the damage to the industry will amount to only 2·5 per cent.? The hon. Gentleman seeks to argue all the way down the yellow brick road on which he has embarked and, the more he intervenes, the more he makes the case for me. If he would like to intervene again, I should be only too happy to allow him to do so.
        That the tax will dramatically increase airlines' costs is beyond doubt. However, exactly what those costs will be in pounds and pence is another matter.
        Mr. Terry Dicks: I apologise for arriving late. The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. For the life of me I cannot understand—neither can the airlines in my constituency at Heathrow—why the airlines should be responsible for collecting the tax. Abroad, either the airport authority or the Government collect it.
        Mr. Stevenson: I share that view. However, that situation is perfectly consistent with the Government's policy of imposing a tax, getting others to collect it, and then blaming them for it. I do not simply make a party political point on that.
        If an airline were to say that it could specifically identify the cost of the administration systems that the tax will impose on it, I should be dubious about that. But if the travel industry, and airlines in pariticular, said—as they do —that the tax would impose serious additional costs on them, I would accept that because the ticketing, monitoring and administrative implications of the Government making airlines into unpaid tax collectors are very serious.
        I have studied the Bill and done what I can to examine the arguments. I have looked at the research done both by the industry and by the House of Commons Library, but I can find no reference by the Government to the significant costs that will be imposed on airlines as a result of the tax.
        668
        That is another good reason why I hope that we can persuade the Government to take a step back on this. They can maintain the principle if they wish, but they must not go ahead and impose the tax when they do not know its effects, particularly on our airlines. Conservative Members may say, "He would say that, wouldn't he?", but it seems to be sheer common sense. If the Government do not know what effect the tax will have, why step off the cliff edge? Conservative Members may step off the cliff edge if they wish, but taking the airline industry with them would be going too far.
        Mr. Dicks: Another nonsense about the tax is the fact that it is imposed only on travellers who go by air. Why is it not imposed on those who go by boat or through the channel tunnel? The airlines feel that it is grossly unfair.
        Mr. Stevenson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall come to that point in a moment. The more Conservative Members intervene, the more I recognise that they will be joining us in the Lobby in support of the amendment and I look forward to continuing this exchange there.
        Only recently, the President of the Board of Trade said that he was determined to cut a swathe through regulations and burdens on industry. Yet within a few days the same Government returned to the House and said that they intended to impose another burden on industry. This burden is unnecessary, impractical and will prove very damaging.
        The industry has described its reaction to the proposal as "resigned pessimism". Is there any wonder? I have discussed the additional serious but unnecessary costs that will be imposed on the airline industry as a result of this tax, but there may be another way of looking at the matter. The airline industry had better establish a system to impose the tax now because it will not be long before the Government impose VAT as well. Some members of the Government may be saying privately—a secret agenda has been mentioned—that if they can get the airlines to put in the systems now it will be nice and easy when they come to impose VAT on them.
        I understand that the Government intend to embark on "educational visits" to the industry by October 1994. I should be grateful if the Government would explain what they intend to do on those visits. Do they intend to educate the airline and travel industries or—dare I suggest it—to seek a little education themselves? If so, and if they learn about some of the difficulties faced by these industries and about some of the problems that the tax will entail, will the Government be prepared to admit that they have got it wrong in some ways and that they need to examine the problem a little further? Will they compile a report and put the issues to the House in the proper manner?
        7 pm
        I would certainly welcome any comments by the Paymaster General on the purpose of the educational visits. I hope that they will not consist of officials embarking on a propaganda exercise on behalf of the Government. I hope that this will be a two-way process in which the Government confront some of the problems that will result from the tax and that they will be prepared to consider their findings carefully.
        Mr. Peter L. Pike: On these visits, might not the airlines point out to the Government the dangers of overseas airlines moving to use Frankfurt and other airports instead of airports such as Heathrow?
        Mr. Stevenson: There is indeed a distinct danger of that. In other parts of Europe the collection of such taxes is the responsibility of Governments, so the administrative burden does not fall on the airlines. Such a move might well be attractive to certain airlines, the more so if this proves to be the thin end of a wedge. Although the tax may be only £5 or £10 today, before we know it the figure may be £15 or £20. I should like a clear commitment from the Minister that the Government have no intention of increasing these taxes once they are imposed. That is the feast that we can expect—
        Mr. Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that his Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), would give a commitment that if his party ever came to power it would get rid of such taxes?
        Mr. Stevenson: Any Conservative Member who talks about trust on taxation is on very thin ice. I am prepared to debate the principles of taxation with any Conservative Member but I fear that you, Dame Janet, would not allow me to today. In any case, the hon. Gentleman's intervention added not one iota to our debate.
        Under the Government's proposals, journeys that start outside the United Kingdom will be generally exempt from the tax, provided that people re-embark on flights departing from United Kingdom airports. In other words, someone who starts a journey in Frankfurt and comes to London but goes on to New York will be all right. Somone embarking on an aircraft from Frankfurt, coming to London. but wanting to go on to the Channel Islands or the highlands and islands will not, however, be exempt—so far as can tell. Where is the logic in that? Why cannot the Government accept that it is illogical?
        The Government will have to explain all this to people in the far reaches of Scotland, in the Channel Islands, in Northern Ireland and in the Isle of Man. It is quite illogical that those making onward journeys to those places should have to pay the tax. The Government may just think, "We've got you!"—a good headline for The Sun, and a vital point about the new tax. It is another anomaly to which the Government appear oblivious.
        I know, since I am a regular traveller, that it is still a damned sight easier to go from Frankfurt to New York via London than from Frankfurt to anywhere else in the United Kingdom via London—
        Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: And cheaper.
        Mr. Stevenson: Quite. Why are the Government prepared to build in such unworkable and anomalous systems? Why will they not reconsider? The tax will be in danger of losing all credibility because of the anomalies.
        We are told that domestic tax will be levied on the first leg of a flight, but not on the return leg, provided that the return leg is from the original airport of destination. That, too, will need explaining. Who is to know whether the return journey is made from the airport of original destination? The complexities are huge. It is no good the Government fobbing off pleas from the industry on the ground that it is just moaning and groaning: there are real problems here, and they will face anyone trying to travel.
        670
        I promised to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who asked—to use the Government's example—why someone who flies via London to somewhere else in the United Kingdom will be subject to the tax while a person coming through the channel tunnel by rail and travelling on to Scotland or Northern Ireland from a London airport will not. That seems to be a serious anomaly, too. What will happen to someone arriving by ferry who wants to come to a London airport and then travel elsewhere? He would have to pay the tax, but someone arriving in London from Frankfurt and travelling on to New York will be exempt.
        The Government will never convince me that this tax is justified, practical or required, but they will have to explain it to the people who will have to pay the tax; or are the Government not bothered about what people think? I note that no one wants to intervene to answer that.
        I note, too, that people starting their journeys in the United Kingdom will pay one amount, depending on their final destination. People who will have to pay an airport tax when leaving the continent will face the possibility, depending on where they are going, of paying another airport tax when they arrive in an airport in the United Kingdom. That looks like double taxation. It is no good saying that what people do in other countries is no business of ours. People who have to pay twice will not like it. Paying once is bad enough; paying twice will make them very angry.
        Another problem arises with cancellations. People may pay this additional Tory tax only to find that their airline has cancelled the relevant flight. What will happen then? What will happen if they are transferred to other airlines? The Government information, so far as I can see, does not refer to that. Another airline will be responsible for collecting the tax and will say, "Hang on a second, we want to know through our system that the tax is payable by us. We cannot accept someone saying, 'It has been paid." Does the tax have to be paid again if there is a cancellation and a passenger is transferred to another airline, or will the Government introduce some scheme by which the second airline can be guaranteed that the tax has been paid?
        Some hon. Members may think that this is just a bit of fun, but I am asking serious questions. What happens when people are rerouted? We have all had experience of turning up at an airport and being rerouted because of bad weather or goodness knows what. Presumably the tax has already been paid. Will the second airline say, "Hang on a minute, we will not take these people unless they pay their tax again." There is no point in saying, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) said, that we cannot know the effect of the tax. The British people are entitled to know its effect; otherwise, they will encounter serious anomalies.
        One of our most successful airlines, British Airways, has said—although I do not believe all that it says—that some of its loss-making domestic routes could be pushed over the edge. Have the Government considered that, or do they think that it is just a bit of drum banging by Lord King? After all, he tried to push Virgin over the cliff. Perhaps the tax will do that to some of his own routes.
        I am coming to the end of my speech. Many hon. Members have said that there are serious practical problems.
        Dr. John Marek: I hope that my hon. Friend will not conclude just yet. He mentioned a great

        671
        many things that are wrong with the tax and says that we should vote against it. Does he agree that there may be a case for levying the tax on airports that have benefited from infrastructure improvements paid for by the Government? For example, Heathrow has benefited from a great deal of concrete paid for out of the public purse. The constituency of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is half covered by concrete. Should not the users of that airport pay the tax to recompense the public purse for the extra infrastructure? Of course, the highland and islands airports, which are on beaches, would not be subject to the tax.
        The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. This is a long intervention.
        Dr. Marek: What does my hon. Friend think of that suggestion?
        Mr. Stevenson: That is another issue that the Government have not considered.
        This is a tax on success. I am sure that Conservative Members will recognise that phrase because they have used it often enough. The more passengers an airline carries, the more tax it will pay. However, the loss-making but vital routes will be in danger of being pushed into the financial abyss. This is the worst of all possible worlds. Perhaps a better way to impose the tax is to examine investment at airports to see how the public purse has been affected and whether European Community money has been involved. Such airports could be told that as they have benefited it is right for the Government on behalf of the British people to levy the tax in this way. However, I suspect that my hon. Friend's intervention will fall on deaf ears because it makes far too much common sense.
        For the Government, this is a simple matter and they do not mind if it taxes success. It is like saying to the airlines, "Do not try to find more passengers because if you do, you will have to pay more tax." That is an interesting concept and I am sure that Conservative Members will wrestle with it before deciding whether to support the tax.
        I accept that there are many disagreements on aspects of the tax. That is to be expected, but for the Government to go ahead and impose the tax in the light of serious anomalies and sheer impracticalities, and in the knowledge that it will impose additional burdens on airlines at a time when they are fighting in a market riven with overcapacity, makes no sense.
        7.15 pm
        I spoke to people in the airlines and in the travel industry and they have told me that there is massive overcapacity. British airlines are fighting tooth and nail for every passenger in one of the world's most viciously competitive markets, and all that the Government can do is impose an unnecessary tax on them.
        I have seen many examples of the Government shooting not themselves in the head—they will do that eventually —but shooting the British people and many industries in the head. At a time when the airlines and the travel industry are facing such competition, it is sheer lunacy to impose a tax on them. It defies logic.
        Mr. Campbell-Savours: When we were quietly discussing these matters another matter arose. What will
        672
        happen to air miles? A person who wants an air miles ticket approaches the air miles operator, which is some company in Croydon. At what stage will the money be paid?
        Mr. Stevenson: I do not want to take up too much time, but if I had sufficient time I could give an endless list of serious objections to the tax. My hon. Friend has mentioned one. I cannot answer his question, but the Minister should answer it. Such schemes were introduced by the airlines because of the vicious competition. To qualify for such a scheme a person has to buy an airline ticket and will pay the tax—depending on the journey—when he buys that ticket. Presumably when he collects the air miles and buys another ticket he will have to pay the tax again.
        How do the Government propose to deal with schemes that are designed to attract the maximum number of passengers? Such schemes are presumably in line with the competitive ethos that the Government love to promote. When people go to collect their air miles do they have to pay the tax again? Should not this question be put to the Minister before Conservative Members go into the Lobby in support of the Government? These issues are not flippant; they are very serious. What we are talking about is double taxation imposed on services designed to attract passengers to British airlines, which are facing severe international competition.
        Dr. Marek: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is absolutely right about this matter. I think that air miles, far from being subject to double taxation, are subject to zero taxation. Perhaps this is a matter that the Inland Revenue ought to look into.
        Mr. Stevenson: If my hon. Friend is correct, he makes a valid point. Either way, the matter must be addressed. People claiming their entitlement under the various schemes initiated by the airlines have to present their tickets at an airport before they travel. Do they have to pay tax again? If so, surely that is double taxation. You are in enough trouble with single taxation: I expect that when you impose double taxation your already tattered reputation —whatever is left of it—will take another nose-dive.
        The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not my reputation that is in tatters.
        Mr. Stevenson: If my words implied any such thing, I apologise unreservedly, Dame Janet. I am sure that you will allow me the luxury of making it clear, however, that I do not apologise to one Conservative Member.
        This is an important point which must be addressed and I hope that in the summing up speech the anomalies that have been identified will be addressed. The more that is known about them, the more the tax will be under threat, and the clearer it will be that the amendment must be supported. These issues must be considered thoroughly and reported on to the House before this unnecessary, damaging and dangerous tax is imposed on the British people.
        Mr. Wilson: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few points in this debate, which concerns an issue in several aspects of which I have a particular interest.
        This is one of the major taxation issues arising from the Budget. It is worth noting, in passing, that, the day after the Budget, it was seized upon by The Sun for its front-page headline as epitomising the whole spirit of the Budget. I

        673
        would not dissent lightly from the populist touch of The Sun in making that selection. Perhaps Conservative Members should take the matter a little more seriously.
        The local elections in May will be followed by the European elections in June, and this tax will come into effect in November. In other words, it will begin to operate just about a month after the new Prime Minister has been put in place. The first thing that he will be hit with is the introduction of the take-off tax. As The Sun and many hon. Members have pointed out, this tax will be resented by many. It is symbolic. People will realise that it has no rhyme or reason, that it is not fair or just, that it is simply another means of raising revenue. It is just another way of screwing people, and, for that reason, it will be deeply resented.
        The whole Budget could be described as a fiscal Kama Sutra, but this measure will be the subject of very deep unpopularity. The levity with which Conservative Members have treated the matter in this debate will be shown to have been misplaced.
        There is another preliminary point that I should like to make. It is the policy of airlines to charge for children from the age of two. As the father of two young children, I regard this as a fairly punitive policy. My little fellow of two and my daughter of five are charged half of what are very substantial air fares. One of the oddities of this tax is that it makes no distinction between adults and children. My hon. Friends and I have been trying to come up with another example of the imposition of a direct tax on two-year-olds.
        Mr. Brian Sedgemore: At full rate.
        Mr. Wilson: Yes, at full rate.
        Have the Government descended so far? Are they now reduced to charging two-year-olds £5 or £10 for the privilege of accompanying their parents? Is this the first toddler tax? If so, do the Government have plans to extend the taxation of two-year-olds?
        Mr. Gallie: The tax on sweeties is probably a direct tax imposed on two-year-olds.
        The hon. Gentleman has accused hon. Members of levity in this debate. Does he, like me, regret the fact that no member of the Scottish National party has been present for any of this debate?
        Mr. Wilson: That is a matter between the hon. Gentleman and members of the Scottish National party. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will ensure that his words are noted in the appropriate quarter.
        I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's parallel. I do not know many two-year-olds who go into a shop and buy their own sweeties. So far as I know, sweeties are not subject to VAT. [Interruption.] Apparently some are. We are back to the fiscal Kama Sutra. What we have here is a quite specific measure to introduce a personal tax that makes no distinction between two-year-olds and adults. This is an oddity which ought to be looked at.
        As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, I have several constituency interests in this matter. I am privileged to have in my constituency the base of one of the biggest travel agents in Britain. I refer to the remarkable company of A.T. Mays, which operates from Saltcoats and has branches all over Britain. This is a company of which everyone in my constituency is extremely proud, and it
        674
        provides several hundred jobs. It is axiomatic to say that any tax that hits the tourist industry, including package holidays, and business flights will hit A.T. Mays. This is one very sound reason for my opposition to the duty.
        Secondly, many of my constituents are employed by Jetstream at Prestwick. As other hon. Members have said, Jetstream, which forms part of British Aerospace, has set out some very good reasons for objecting to this new tax. I shall come to these in a moment.
        The most important of my constituency interests, however, is the same as that of every other hon. Member. For many working people a relatively cheap package holiday is no great luxury. It is something that is saved for and looked forward to, and in many cases paying for it involves considerable sacrifice. The gratuitous slapping on such holidays of a tax of £40, which bears no relationship to the value of the product being purchased—the holiday may have cost £199, or even less—is insulting and offensive and is very much to be regretted. This disproportionately high tax, on top of all the other extra taxes that people are being asked to pay this year, will be very unpopular indeed.
        I should like to refer briefly to the Jetstream objections. Among hon. Members, it is no secret that Jetstream is going through difficult times, from which we hope very much that it will emerge so that it may continue to provide a very high level of employment in Ayrshire as the major engineering firm in Scotland.
        Crucial to that company's success is the ATP airplane that services most of the regional routes in Britain and Scotland. Jetstream supplies both British Airways and Loganair—which recently placed an order for two aircraft. There is no reason why there should not be further orders in future. However, it is a marginal business. Anyone who flies those routes knows that the load cannot produce a large profit. If 5 or 10 per cent. of passengers are lost to those routes, some services will be unable to continue.
        7.30 pm
        The Government should take account of that strong point. It is not just a question of the travel industry or the social case but one of considerable importance to aircraft manufacturers. If regional services erode as a consequence of the tax and other factors that militate against them, there will be fewer aircraft orders and jobs—a point forcefully made by Jetstream.
        Mr. Campbell-Savours: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a number of conversations that I had with small airlines that want to operate between Carlisle and London. For them, Heathrow landing fees are a major preoccupation. That touches on the same principle as my hon. Friend's point.
        Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is right. Although there are well-established regional routes in Britain—and most highlands and islands services fall in that category—everyone knows that new regional routes are constantly introduced, but fail because the margins are so tight. There will be less continuity of service or development of regional airlines if they have both to meet high landing fees and to suffer the consequences of the new tax.
        It is not enough to defend imposing a new tax simply because that would be in line with other countries. The absence of such a tax in the United Kingdom has probably been a contributory factor in higher landing fees—a cost

        675
        which airlines already absorb. In future, airlines will continue to pay high landing charges and their passengers will have to meet the new tax. The Jetstream brief states:
        "The proposed APD, with the associated implications for fare levels and passenger traffic, will at the very least create uncertainty amongst airlines. In view of this and the substantial capital outlay and risk associated with the acquisition of new aircraft, airlines will be reluctant to commit to new orders until the full economic impact of the APD is known. This will result in the further delay of new aircraft orders and depress aircraft prices as manufacturers compete for scarce orders. Without new orders at profitable pricing levels, the recovery of the aircraft manufacturing industry will not take place and further reduction in manning levels will be inevitable."
        I want the Minister to answer that point tonight. This debate concerns not just air fares and the social consequences but jobs in aircraft manufacturing—particularly at Prestwick. That aspect is one to which the Minister should address himself. I hope that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) will join us in the Lobby tonight—hope, but doubt.
        Mr. Jim Cunningham: We heard today that British Aerospace has to sell Rover. Does not my hon. Friend agree that air passenger duty sends the wrong signal to manufacturers of air frames and aircraft engines? Is not the reason for BAe's sale of Rover the need for resources to develop its manufacturing activities? Has not the new tax been introduced at the wrong time? It also sends the wrong signal to airlines.
        Mr. Wilson My hon. Friend is right. Different interpretations can be placed on the implications of today's statement for Jetstream and other parts of British Aerospace. British aircraft manufacturing is a fragile industry which needs encouraging, nurturing and every support from Government—rather than another kick in the shins. I hope that the case made by Jetstream will be given due attention. It is not the only manufacturer of the sort of aircraft used for regional services but it is certainly the principal one.
        Mr. Calum Macdonald: My hon. Friend said that the imposition of such a tax by other countries does not mean that the United Kingdom must follow. Other countries also subsidise certain services for social reasons—particularly those serving far-flung areas. The Republic of Ireland, for example, subsidises the Dublin to Kerry route, which is of an equivalent distance to that between Stornoway and Inverness, but, after the subsidy, the fare is half that from Stornoway to Inverness.
        Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I want to present the islands argument, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will deal with it at considerable length if he catches your eye, Sir David.
        Mr. Campbell-Savours: I will give my hon. Friend an example of how marginal is the profitability of certain routes. In six years, three separate airlines have operated between Carlisle and London, where every cost is critically important—and none of them can make a profit from that route.
        Mr. Wilson: That is a good point. Such airlines are not looking for a large profit, and they are extremely vulnerable to any influencing factor. However, I will be slightly selfish and emphasise the islands argument,
        676
        because it has distinctive facets. The most important of them is the words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement. It is not a matter of semantics. There is no doubt what was meant by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and what he was perceived by all hon. and right hon. Members to mean.
        The Chancellor was not perceived to mean that exemption would apply only to some flights within islands, but to mean that he was announcing exemption for most flights involving the Scottish islands. For that, he raised a loud cheer from the Conservative Benches. Conservative Members cheered everything that he said that day, in a somewhat irrational fashion, but the cheer that was raised at that specific statement was due to the perception that the Chancellor was considerate enough to exempt Scottish island flights. That is the truth of the matter.
        Good faith is involved as to whether the Government will renege on that undertaking. I am willing to be charitable and to believe that the Chancellor thought that he was doing as I said. It is not really his job to go around checking how many seats there are on the flight from Glasgow to Islay or on inter-island flights between Lerwick and Kirkwall. That is scarcely the job of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We assumed that he had taken advice and that his perception was that if aircraft with fewer than 20 seats were exempted, most of the flights that hop to and from and between the Scottish islands would be exempted. But that is not the case.
        In terms of what is now being rigidly applied, the Chancellor gave virtually nothing. If the Government proceed as they intend, the House will have been conned. In fact, the Budget statement exempted barely 26,000 passenger flights a year involving the Scottish islands; the only exempted flights will be the inter-island flights within Orkney and Shetland, and the little-used service between Wick and Kirkwall. Every flight to every destination on the west coast will be subject to the tax. I shall be very surprised if the Paymaster General can say that that is what the Chancellor thought he was telling the House.
        Sir John Cope: The hon. Gentleman has described this as a semantic point. I am not sure whether he was present earlier, when I spoke more widely about the islands, but I assure him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor knew precisely what he was saying, and said it very clearly. Moreover, our intentions were made clear by the back-up pieces of paper that were issued on Budget day.
        Mr. Wilson: In that case, I am extremely disappointed in the Chancellor, because what he said was deception. It is inconceivable that he meant to create the impression that roughly 5 per cent. of flights involving Scottish islands would be exempted. Let me add that, at a subsequent briefing given by the Scottish Office, the Scottish press were given—forcefully and specifically—the message that all Scottish island flights would be exempted.
        If the Paymaster General is saying—I am surprised that he should say it in specific terms—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that such a limited range of services was to be exempted, let me tell him that that was a shameful way in which to pull the wool over hon. Members' eyes, while raising false hopes in the communities affected. The first argument for exempting island flights is the spirit of what was said in the House that day, along with the Scottish Office briefing. Ministers are

        677
        not allowed to mislead inside the House, and those who speak for them are not allowed to mislead in briefings outside.
        A second argument differentiates the islands from all other areas: the social argument. In virtually every other part of Britain that has an airport, the choice between flying and other forms of transport is relatively marginal in terms of time and convenience. A train journey will probably take six or seven hours at the most; a plane journey will take about an hour. Factors of cost and difficulty will, of course, be involved.
        The arguments relating to islands in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. 'Wallace) and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) are entirely different. Someone travelling from Islay to Glasgow cannot simply say, "I can take the train or the bus, and travel for three hours rather than travelling for 40 minutes on the plane." He must take the ferry—whose timetable is quite sparse, especially in winter; he must sail for about two and a half hours; as there is no railway, that will be followed by a long and pretty uncomfortable bus journey, lasting nearly three hours, from the port of Kennacraig.
        Most Conservative Members would not contemplate such a journey. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles, however, would have to sail for five and half hours by sea from Barra to Oban, in some of the most treacherous sea conditions that could be found around the British Isles —or, perhaps, much further afield. Those without personal transport are then faced with a long train journey—and an occasional service—from Oban to Glasgow.
        That choice must be made by people who may be ill or travelling with young children. Surely no hon. Member would suggest that such people should be forced to go on such long and arduous journeys in this day and age if aeroplanes are available. That is the social argument which separates the Scottish islands from every other part of the United Kingdom.
        I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said about Carlisle. I have travelled to most of the regional airports in the country, and all have a story to tell; but if lines are being drawn—in the spirit of what was said earlier—there is a valid case for drawing such a line around the mainland, and exempting the islands. That would be easily done. I am not persuaded by the argument of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who suggested that the accountants would be unable to work out the arrangements, and that they would lead to enormous bureaucratic complexities; this is a simple principle, which could easily be enforced.
        7.45 pm
        Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend is right. He knows the islands very well and, as he said, the island of Barra is five and a half hours from the mainland by ferry. Although there is an air service there, there is no aerodrome or airstrip as such: the plane lands on the beach when the tide is out. Under the Government's proposals, however, those who use that lifeline service will be taxed in the same way as business men travelling on the shuttle from Edinburgh to Heathrow.
        Mr. Wilson: Indeed. I do not know anything about Carshalton—
        Mr. Darling: I do.
        Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend does, apparently; but there is no reason why all hon. Members should know everything about every corner of the country.
        But before imposing a blanket tax, the Government should—for heaven's sake—take account of the vastly differing circumstances in different parts of the country, and the different reasons why people need access to air travel. Having made that distinction, they should draw a sensible line; in my view, they could draw it between the islands and other areas.
        Mr. Forman: I have been to Barra, which is a lovely place. My plane landed on the very beach mentioned by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). My point was simply that taxes involving too many exemptions were, on the whole, bad taxes, leading to problems of narrow base and high marginal rates.
        Mr. Wilson: As others have pointed out, there are already quite a few exemptions. Some of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to the existing complexities. I do not think that, when the Chancellor gave the impression that he offered from the Dispatch Box, the first reaction of Conservative Members was "Oh dear, what a complexity he has just added"—nor do I think that any particular complexity would be added now.
        Air services are disproportionately important to the islands. Some people who would not dream of travelling by air from Glasgow to London must make a difficult decision when travelling from the islands, perhaps with young children or an elderly relative. Do they pay the significant extra amount to fly or do they endure the arduous sea crossing? People living on the mainland generally do not have to make such decisions, and to add the burden of this tax strikes me as gratuitous and wrong.
        Some islands have lost their services because of the thin balance between what is economic and what is not. Skye lost its air service after being the last to lose Scottish Office subsidy. As a result, Skye is a much more difficult place to get to and from. Mull once had a scheduled air service, but it has lost it. If the balance is tipped a little more the other way, more services could be lost. That would be a regrettable and unnecessary consequence of this legislation. I am sure that the proposal was not dreamt up with that consequence in mind.
        I strongly urge the Government to think again about amendment No. 3. No enormous point of political principle is involved. Considerable weight should be given to the fact that, in the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Chancellor appeared to give a certain impression.
        We are talking about a charge of £5 now. As I have said, that is a substantial sum for many of the people who use those services. We all know that the tax could become £10, £15 or £20 once it is established as a revenue-raising device. It is important that we do not think of it in terms of being only £5 now. We should establish the principle that the islands are different and should be treated differently.
        The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said, roughly, that there are rich people in the islands and poor people in cities. Of course that is true, but one can work only in generalities. The generality has been established and recognised by the European Community: the highlands and islands are an objective 1 area. The social needs of the islands are generally recognised and I am sure

        679
        that that applies to other islands around the British coast. There is a perfectly sound case for recognising them in the context of this legislation.
        Mr. Dicks: I want to make a few very quick points to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General. First, there is a solution to the problem that has been raised about the islands. Quite simply, the tax should not be imposed within the United Kingdom. The proposal was a nonsense from the outset and it should never have been considered.
        In a sense, the principle of an airport tax can be understood. However, the way in which the tax is to be administered is, as is so often the case with such things, wrong. We have little or no consultation and decisions are taken.
        I cannot understand the thinking behind the idea that the airlines should have to administer the tax. If anyone had bothered to contact the airlines and those who work with them on a daily basis, as I do at Heathrow, it would have been clear how difficult and costly it would be to collect the tax.
        There are customs officers at Heathrow now. Why cannot we impose on them, if there were additional staff there, a duty to collect the tax? When one leaves New Zealand from Auckland airport, one goes to the Bank of New Zealand desk, presents one's boarding pass, and pays one's money. The back of the boarding pass is stamped and one is allowed to board the aeroplane. The process has nothing to do with airlines. The device is simple and anyone going through the departure door must go through that procedure. It is simple and easy and there is no red tape. The boarding pass is stamped, the money is taken and everything is filed away.
        Dr. Marek: The Government want the money and they do not care about the ill-effects that will result from getting the money. However, worse than that, the Government can be incompetent. At the moment, the Government are losing about £500 million through the escape of excise duties across the border because of the lack of harmonisation in excise duties on tobacco and alcohol. Basically, the Government are stupid. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is a member of that Government, but the stupid Government cannot get their tax policy right.
        Mr. Dicks: I have been a Member of this place for too long for the hon. Gentleman to expect me to be caught by his intervention or to go down that avenue. The hon. Gentleman made a very pleasant intervention, but I will ignore it completely.
        I cannot understand why the tax will not be imposed on those who use the ferry and the channel tunnel. What is so special about those people that they do not have to pay a tax to depart and so odd about people who want to fly on aeroplanes who have to pay the tax? The answer is for everyone to pay a departure tax, irrespective of the mode of transport or any other consideration. There should be no taxes for internal flights or movement.
        The proposal is nonsense and a dog's breakfast. If there had been any consultations with the people who work with the airlines and who know about these matters, if British Airways and people like me had been consulted, we would have been able to say how damned stupid it would be to collect the tax as proposed.
        680
        The principle is right, but the administration is a cock-up of the first order. As I have said, we need only have someone in one place, for example at every terminal at Heathrow, to collect boarding cards and to take the money and then to stamp those cards. The tax should be introduced for everyone departing by sea or via the channel tunnel in exactly the same way. We should then do away with the internal tax. The revenue from those travelling by ferry or through the tunnel would more than make up for the revenue lost in respect of this stupid internal tax. I say no more as I believe the case is made.
        Mr. Thomas Graham: It is absolutely outrageous to have to come here to talk about a new tax when we consider that the Government approached the last general election on the platform of no new taxes. Lo and behold, we have been hit by a new tax.
        I represent Renfrew, West and Inverclyde which includes Glasgow airport, The headquarters of Caledonian MacBrayne is in Gourock, which is in my constituency. The M8 runs right through my constituency. These points will become relevant later. The Erskine bridge is also in my constituency. Since the Government came to power and promised no new taxes, the Erskine bridge tax has been doubled and Caledonian MacBrayne has been forced to increase its fares because it serves the islanders.
        Roughly 15,000 workers are employed at Glasgow airport. They rely on folk flying into and out of the airport because that is what attracts the money. That is what provides them with a job. Just the other week, Renfrew enterprise trust set up a programme which might mean a £400 million investment at Glasgow airport. A further 15,000 jobs could be created. The argument is that Glasgow airport is a good place for businesses to set up and work from. The British Airports Authority has invested £120 million in Glasgow airport. However, this very damaging and punitive tax is affecting BAA's attempt to make Britain a good place to come to, to stay and to work.
        It is objectionable that the Chancellor can pick out the air industry and decide to tax it. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) was right when he asked, "What about the rest?" We should not be levying a tax which will affect Glasgow airport. The Government have got it wrong. Because of their mad, blundering economic policies, they are costing the country nearly £50 billion a year. The Chancellor is so desperate to raise money that he has decided to reach for the sky. The phrase, "Reach for the sky" used to be used by highway robbers who ripped money from people's pockets. The Chancellor is clearly the skyway robber of British politics. He is going to rip the bucks from holidaymakers.
        That is not in keeping with trying to encourage a dynamic air industry which is the envy of the world. The Chancellor has his beady eye on the industry. He hopes to rip off a few bob—some £330 million—from holiday folk.
        I object to families having to find an extra tenner or £40 to go to Benidorm, for instance. It is the height of nonsense that we are to levy a tax that will rip off somebody going on holiday. My hon. Friends are right; it is a sick tax. It is pie-in-the-sky stuff.

        681
        8 pm
        I have with me a book entitled "A Wee Dribble of Dross" by Walter McCorrisken—here is a wee plug for him—and I quote a section about a church collection. I am delighted that the Chancellor is present. The quotation epitomises the Government. It states:
        "I put five pence into the bowl then carefully looked about, Nobody was watching me, so I took a fiver out."
        The Chancellor has looked about and said, "I will take a fiver our of that." The channel tunnel is charged nothing. It is objectionable. The tax is utterly unfair to large families. Families are entitled to a wee holiday abroad, the same as anybody else.
        The islands and highlands are dear to the people of Scotland. We saw the highland clearances by the lords and masters 100 years ago. The folk down here in the south did enough damage in those days. We are seeing another punitive measure on people who have tried to cultivate the highlands and make them live. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) will speak admirably about his constituents in the highlands. However, folk in my constituency need jobs.
        Many people come to my constituency to use the local hospitals for operations and so on. Is the Chancellor going to guarantee that those folk will get the £10 paid? Will he ensure that for folk who need medicine or treatment the tenners will be paid, or is it that, because they live on an island, they will suffer once again? It is a disgrace. Islanders and highlanders. live in remote areas that are important to the infrastructure and the economy of this country, and they are not being given due attention and support to live. Instead, rural areas are being turned into shooting estates for the lords and gentry whom the Chancellor seems to look after more than anybody else.
        I am not a great lover of some of the folk who run some companies, but Sir Colin Marshall, chairman of British Airways, said:
        "The new air passenger duty proposed discriminates against this nation's most successful transport sector and penalises airlines while rail, coach and ferry companies will escape, as will the channel tunnel."
        I certainly do not want a tax on services to the islands, but I am not too concerned about the channel tunnel. I would like to hear what the Paymaster General has to say about that. Sir Michael Bishop, chairman of British Midland, the country's second biggest scheduled airline, with 3.8 million passengers a year, said:
        "Air travellers in and from Britain do not deserve to be singled out in this way. Why should they be forced to pay more and why should road, rail and sea travellers be exempt?"
        The tax is not universal; the Chancellor has singled out air travel.
        By the way, the Government should be doing more to keep our airlines in the air. More important, they should also ensure that British Aerospace and other companies, which provide many aeroplanes for Britain, continue. The Government must not take. too much out of the kitty.
        I do not want to take up too much time, but, as I have said, Glasgow airport is in my constituency. It presently handles 5 million passengers a year—very welcome passengers. The projection is that, if the infrastructure is built and we keep flying high, the airport has a chance of reaching 8 million passengers a year. This measure will damage its chances of reaching that target, and, once again, that will inflict further unemployment on Scotland. The Government will take from the people of Scotland, especially those in the islands, money that they badly need
        682
        to continue to develop the islands to make them a decent place to live. I am delighted that the Chancellor is present to hear my speech.
        There is no doubt that the measure has been brought about because of the blunderland that is Britain now. There is no doubt that, because of their £50 billion blunder, the Government are looking everywhere to dip their hands into people's pockets. I am sure that Walter McCorrisken, the famous Scottish poet, will have somthing to say about the Chancellor's mad, wild plans to get Britain out of a hole. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should keep out of the sky. I am sure that he will damage Britain's prospects of communicating with the rest of the world by imposing this punitive tax.
        Mr. Hoon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) on his wide-ranging contribution. I shall address four specific points in relation to the proposed new tax: first, the bureaucracy involved in what will clearly be a complicated tax for the airlines to administer; secondly, the likely implications of the tax for the single European market; thirdly, the effect of the tax on British airlines in competition with other airlines around the world, and the implications of that for the British tourist industry; and, fourthly, the effect on regional airports.
        On bureaucracy, the Chancellor's justification for the introduction of the tax, according to his Budget speech, is that air travel is undertaxed compared with other sectors of the economy. If that is the case, clearly it was open to the Chancellor to consider other ways of raising tax from the airline industry—perhaps simpler forms of revenue raising based on taxes that they pay already.
        It would be helpful if the Paymaster General indicated what consideration was given to other courses and what was the administrative cost assessment of using that avenue of tax raising rather than increasing taxes elsewhere. Obviously, the Government must justify that in relation to the introduction of what all hon. Members accept is an extremely complicated tax to administer. If the Paymaster General does not accept the complexity of that from me, I hope that he will accept it from people in the industry.
        Sir John Cope: It was not clear what other tax the hon. Gentleman thought we should use to raise money from the airline industry.
        Mr. Hoon: I was suggesting that the airlines are likely to be paying taxes elsewhere and that, therefore, it would be possible to increase other taxes if the justification for this taxation were accepted, which is that the airlines are undertaxed. Presumably the Government could have embarked upon an exercise to determine the most efficient way of raising tax from the airline industry, and that must involve an assessment of the administrative cost of this tax. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would enlighten the Committee on what alternative considerations were made, assuming that I accept the Chancellor's argument that the airline industry is undertaxed.
        The bureaucracy becomes clear to anyone who reads the Customs and Excise briefing that was prepared to assist hon. Members on the proposal. Paragraph 9 is entitled "Scheme of Control". I propose to read it in full because it is a useful indication of the glib way in which the

        683
        Government have approached the problem. In due course, I shall contrast that with the reaction of British Airways to
        the proposal. I quote:
        "Control arrangements for Air Passenger Duty will be systems audit based and airlines will be required to maintain records accordingly. The prime control will be a manifest list of passenger loads compiled from information on ticket coupons. Record keeping requirements will focus on several areas, including:

        An account to provide a visible audit trail for duty declared on returns;

        Manifest or passenger load lists in suitable form; and

        Commercial documentation, including information provided to airport authorities."

        That is the glib outline provided in the briefing from Customs and Excise. Presumably that is what the Government now think will be required to introduce the tax.
        It is necessary to contrast that superficial approach to the proposal with what British Airways says about it. It is a different approach because the Government assume that British Airways, together with 199 other airlines, will collect the tax. British Airways says:
        "As proposed collection of duty from passengers will be by the airline selling the ticket but payment of the duty is by the airline carrying the passenger on the dutiable sector. There are no existing systems for airlines to identify at uplift which passengers are eligible to pay the duty. It would be very expensive to develop systems to do this, requiring computer and additional manpower resources. Even then the system could not identify all exempt passengers. Furthermore there are no systems by which one airline can collect from another duty which should have been collected; indeed an airline cannot force another to collect a duty on its behalf."
        From the simplistic outline set out by the Government and their officials, which presumably will be defended by the Paymaster General, the reality is something different. An expensive computer system will be required with significant extra costs for airlines if they are to implement the scheme dreamt up by the Government.
        If the Government are in any doubt about this difficulty, they should visit any major international airline at the airport, say on a Friday evening, especially at this time of year when there is the prospect of snow or fog which will disrupt services. They should watch the activities of people who are travelling from London to Paris, Brussels or any other major airport in the European Union.
        What happens is that passengers may turn up with a ticket issued by British Airways for a BA flight. When they discover that the BA flight is delayed for an hour because there is a problem with the inbound flight, they then see whether Air France can take them, and they will re-register on an Air France aircraft. If that aircraft is then delayed, they will perhaps see whether British Midland can get them across. That means that each trail must be followed from one airline to another simply to collecct the duty of £5. That is something which the Government need to consider.
        Not only will the airline be required to follow through the arrangement. I shall give an example of something that happens routinely every day at airports around Europe. Airlines will have to ensure that they are in a position to offset the various costs. If British Airways collected the tax when it issued the ticket, it must ensure that it is in a position to get the money back from the airline that carries the passenger on that short journey. That is only one of the many difficulties that I anticipate will arise from this poorly-thought-out proposal.
        684
        Other difficulties will be obvious to anyone who travels regularly by air. Increasingly, airlines are persuading people to fly only with them, and they offer discounts to people who buy multiple tickets. Many of the multiple tickets tend to be one way, so people buy a block of six tickets for journeys from one city to another and then a block of six tickets for the return. How will the proposals affect refunds with regard to the block purchase of tickets? I anticipate all sorts of problems with the proposals which the Government have not considered.
        8.15 pm
        Transfer passengers are referred to in the briefing, and there has already been some discussion about this matter. Many international flights start early in the morning, and it is commonplace for people travelling from a regional airport to stop overnight in London before taking their further flight. Does that mean that they will have to pay the tax twice? How does that differ from the position of someone who, for example, travels from a European destination through London to a regional airport? I frequently make such a journey. Frequently, I have broken my journey by arriving at Heathrow, going into London for a meeting, returning to Heathrow and continuing my journey north. Does that mean that I will have to pay the tax twice? How will anyone know that I chose to break my journey at Heathrow, came into London and then went out again?
        There are all sorts of anomalies that the Government have built into the proposals. The matter of stopovers needs to be considered because it will have a significant impact on our regional airports. I hope that the Government have some concern about the impact of their proposals on airports outside London.
        Mr. Macdonald: The problem with stopovers exposes some of the more ridiculous anomalies contained in this duty. For example, if one were to fly from Barra to Stornoway in my constituency, it would involve a stopover in Balivanish. One would have to change from a plane that carried fewer than 20 passengers to one that carried more than 20 pasengers. Halfway through a single journey, one is suddenly transferred from a category where one is not liable for the tax to a category where one is liable for it. How does my hon. Friend think that Customs and Excise will work out the complexities of such a conundrum?
        Mr. Hoon: At the risk of testing my limited geographical knowledge, my hon. Friend has pointed out a further problem that the Government face in trying to make the proposal sensible, if they are bothered about that. It may well be that they are not too worried about making it sensible; they are more concerned about simply raising revenue. If that is the answer that the Paymaster General gives us, I suppose that we must accept it. If the Government will not raise revenue by the one mechanism that they studiously avoid—increasing the basic income tax rate—we must face such bureaucratic tax systems, which involve an inordinate amount of effort by those who are charged with the responsibility for collecting the tax, and the Government will have to face up to the decisions that they are taking.
        We have been told that this is all about revenue raising. Of course, it is not simply about revenue raising; it is about the complexity of revenue raising and the difficulties in which the Government have got themselves. The previous Chancellor was proud that he abolished a tax each time he

        685
        delivered the Budget statement. It appears that this Government's approach will be the reverse—not only to add new taxes to the portfolio of taxes facing taxpayers in the United Kingdom but to add new, inherently complex taxes.
        I should be grateful if the Paymaster General would examine the suggestion that the tax is to be collected by the airlines and then effectively buried in the cost of the ticket. I hope that the Government intend to make it clear to the airlines that the tax must be displayed prominently on every ticket issued, otherwise the consumer—the taxpayer —will not be aware of the Government's additional cost of a holiday. I am sure that the Paymaster General will agree that, in the interests of openness, it is right that the taxpayer should be fully aware of the charge that the Government are imposing. I hope that the Government will make it clear in their instructions on how the tax will be collected that the full cost of the tax must be properly shown on each ticket.
        The second matter that I mentioned was that of the single market. I sat with the Paymaster General through many hours of debate on the Finance Bill 1992, which was introduced specifically to establish consistent tax rules across the European Community as it was then, the European Union as it is now. We spent many hours debating the finer points of excise duty and VAT so that the 12 member states could begin to have some consistency in the rules which they applied for those two taxes. Perhaps the Paymaster General did not suffer as much as I did during those long hours in Committee. I tried to make him suffer occasionally, but obviously I was not as successful as I had hoped.
        There is no attempt in the proposals to produce a common approach in the European Community. Instead, the Government: are simply striking out on their own. They are saying that it does not matter what other countries are doing—they want to have this tax because they need to raise money. They are not concerned about the attitude of other countries to the proposal. I doubt whether the Government had any discussions with other member states about concerns that such taxes were anomalous in the European Community. I doubt whether any anxieties have been expressed by the Government on that question. When challenged, of course, they will say that other countries have such a tax and that therefore they are perfectly justified in introducing it.
        Belgium charges a duty on all international flights but, because it is Belgium, the rate of duty varies between airports. The maximum rate, however, is about £9. Denmark charges about £6·50 on all international air departures, and Ireland has a duty of about £5 on all international departures with the exception of those to Northern Ireland. There is a precedent in the European Union.
        The proposals, however, provide a different structure, with the tax applying both to domestic and to international flights. The structure is significantly different also from the way in which those three member states choose to impose their taxatioin and that will produce further anomalies. Perhaps the Paymaster General will next year make proposals to amend the tax to bring it into line with the other member states. It is unfortunate that, at a time when the Government are seeking to produce a standard approach in other areas of taxation with other European
        686
        countries, they should strike out clearly on their own and introduce a tax quite different from any other in the European Union.
        The third area upon which I should be grateful for the comments of the Paymaster General concerns competition with other airlines. The right hon. Gentleman has had drawn to his attention more than once today the letter from Sir Colin Marshall of British Airways. It does, however, repay serious examination. The point which he made on behalf of British Airways has been repeated by others in the airline industry. He was extremely concerned that the duty will not only hit airlines generally, but will hit British-based airlines particularly hard.
        Sir Colin said in the letter that the tax will not apply to competitors, some of whom, unlike British Airways, are subsidised and do not meet the full costs of their infrastructure. He was also concerned that the tax will do serious damage to some of our services, particularly those domestic routes which are losing money. He also stated that he could not be sure that it would not precipitate the closure of some of the more difficult regional services.
        If the Paymaster General is in any doubt about that, I suggest that he goes to Heathrow early on a Saturday morning and takes a flight to Amsterdam, as I had the opportunity of doing recently. I was expecting a comfortable service to Amsterdam on a virtually empty plane, because most of the passengers who travel from Heathrow to Amsterdam do so for business reasons. The truth is that Saturday morning flights to Amsterdam from Heathrow are packed, and it is extremely difficult to get a seat. The reason is that, increasingly, Amsterdam attracts large numbers of passengers who are using the airport as a stopping-off point before going elsewhere. Indeed, Amsterdam has made a virtue out of that for many years, and at one time described itself in an advertising campaign as the third London airport.
        Amsterdam is increasingly competing directly with the London airports. It has much greater capacity because it has had a good deal of investment in terms of new building, and it has routes to elsewhere in the world. In terms of the proposals, I assume that the passenger choosing to go through Amsterdam will have only to pay the £5 tax for the internal service and not the £10 tax if the journey then goes on elsewhere outside the European Union. If that is not the case, it will create a further competitive edge as far as an airport such as Amsterdam is concerned and will further attract passengers away from using British airports and facilities. That will be to the benefit of our direct competition on the continent.
        I am sure that the Government will simply say that that is a marginal consideration, but the fact is that it is a competitive industry and such marginal considerations are the difference between airlines and services going bust, or surviving and making a profit. The Government ought to address that point carefully.
        Again, if the Paymaster General is unhappy to accept that argument from me, he should look carefully at what Sir Colin Marshall has said. He has said that it would be easy for foreign airlines to compete unfairly against British airlines by evading the proper duty, if the duty is collected as was proposed originally. A foreign airline would be able to route its passengers through its international base on the continent rather than directly to the United Kingdom. For passengers on long-haul services, that does not really pose

        687
        much difficulty. If that gives foreign-based airlines which operate from the United Kingdom such a competitive edge, we will be seriously damaging our industry in the process.
        In relation to the question of competition for British-based operations, it is also worthwhile for the Government to look carefully at the views of the United Kingdom-based tourist industry. The Government take some credit for encouraging tourism to the United Kingdom, and yet clearly the industry is extremely concerned about the impact of the tax on business.
        The chairman of an extremely successful travel agency has said that the new tax will have a highly detrimental effect on Britain's tourist industry. In an extremely price-sensitive market, the chairman added that the United Kingdom is already seen as an expensive destination. He explained that increasingly in the provision of package travel holidays United Kingdom-based companies are competing with companies from France, Holland and other European nations. That kind of price differential may make a real impact on business.
        Mr. Rupert Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the departure tax will not have the impact that he suggests? The British tourist industry has in fact advocated the extension of VAT to foreign package holidays so as to protect the domestic market. That would make the domestic tourist market much more competitive. Would not people who pay £500 to £700 for a foreign package holiday be perfectly able to afford a small amount extra if VAT were extended to that package holiday?
        Mr. Hoon: I do not want to get into an argument about VAT. The Government are increasing taxation sufficiently as it is without my following the hon. Gentleman along that route.
        If companies based in Britain are worried that they will be placed, however marginally, at a disadvantage in competition with tourist companies on the continent, the Government ought to take that carefully into consideration. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) used as an illustration a holiday costing £600 or £700, but the most fierce competition in the holiday business tends to be at the lower end of the package holiday market. So we are talking about holidays that may cost less than £200. When that expenditure is multiplied by, say, four or five, for a family the impact of the tax—whether it amounts to £25 for journeys within the European Union or £50 for journeys outside the European Union—will be a consideration in what is clearly a tight market.
        The last of the four subjects that I said I wished to raise is the effect of the tax on regional airports. The type of taxation represented by the air passenger duty will have consequences for the regional airports. We tend to assume that regional airports are steadily growing. People look to airports such as Manchester as an illustration of a clearly successful airport that has attracted new services and is successful in competing against London.
        8.30 pm
        Let us contrast the position of Manchester airport with an airport rather close to home for me and for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Chancellor wanted to fly from East Midlands airport to Heathrow—he might not choose to do so as a way of travelling to the House of Commons, but he might want to do so when travelling to
        688
        an international summit somewhere—he would find that he would no longer be able to take that service. A service operated by British Midland for a long time has been withdrawn in recent months because British Midland now believes that it is no longer economic to run it. The company cannot justify the price to passengers of the service down to London.
        The air passenger duty will add a further £5 to the journey cost. If people want to travel by air to Heathrow and carry on to some other part of the world, it will add £10. The duty will be a major factor in an airline's decision whether to operate a service such as East Midlands to Heathrow. Such taxation has a serious impact on a company. I know that because I have encouraged a variety of companies to offer routes from Heathrow. They all say that it is a matter of landing fees and the cost of getting the aircraft in the air.
        Those seem to me, as someone who pays the fare, relatively marginal considerations when they are spread across an aircraft with people all paying what seems to be a high fare. But the truth is that such services operate on extremely tight margins. The air passenger duty could mean the difference between operating or not operating a service or—of more concern to many regional airports—whether a service can continue to be operated.
        If, instead of travelling from East Midlands to Heathrow, the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to travel from Birmingham to Heathrow, again he would be disappointed. Still more recently, that service has been withdrawn.
        Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider the effect on regional airports. As several hon. Members have said already in the debate, I hope that the Government will examine carefully the way in which the tax will hit services other than those from London.
        I repeat that air passenger duty will not simply be a tax of small impact for most people. Many people contemplating whether they can afford a holiday this summer, particularly if they are thinking of going to one of the destinations abroad for which there is fierce competition in the package holiday market, will wonder whether they can afford the extra cost. My constituents in Ashfield will wonder whether they can contemplate the extra cost imposed by the tax. If they have two or three children, the tax will make a significant difference. [Interruption.] Conservative Members seem to find that amusing and entertaining. It is a matter of great concern to people. Instead of going on holiday, people will sit at home and blame the Government for two weeks. Perhaps that is what I really want them to do.
        Mr. Allason: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) has exaggerated the role of the air passenger duty. He should be aware that the domestic tourist industry has been disadvantaged in many different ways, and certainly by foreign competition. If one wanted to support the British tourist industry, the quickest solution would be to introduce a differential in value added tax to reduce, as in France, the level of VAT charged in restaurants, the catering business and hotels. That would give a tremendous boost to the domestic industry.
        The domestic tourist industry is extremely successful and important. It is the largest earner of foreign currency in Britain. Therefore, it deserves some support. The simplest way of providing that support, and, indeed, benefiting the Exchequer, is surely to extend VAT to the purchase of

        689
        foreign air travel and holidays. As the hon. Member for Ashfield said, the cost of a package holiday even at the lowest end of the market is about £200. If one multiplies that by the number of people in the family, it comes to exactly the figure that I suggested—£600, £700 or £800. The imposition of VAT on that figure would not be significant. It would have been an imaginative approach on the part of the Government, and the measure would have been welcomed by the British domestic tourist industry, to impose VAT on foreign air travel.
        I wish to take a moment to examine the problem of the British domestic tourist industry. At present, if people decide to come to Torbay for their holiday—which I strongly recommend—the difficulty is that any hotel bill or restaurant bill has VAT at 17·5 per cent. added to it. If exactly the same family goes abroad, say to Spain or France, they may find that part of their holiday is subsidised by a rather lower level of VAT. There is a differential in those countries.
        For many years, the Government and particularly the Treasury have resisted the idea of two rates of VAT. In the good old days of Ted Heath, the dual rate of VAT—one forgets how high the rates were—was broadly accepted. The Government have introduced a different rate for the new VAT on fuel. We shall have a dual rate for at least a year. Why not extend that and help the domestic tourist industry, which is extremely important?
        Mr. Pike: Es the hon. Gentleman arguing against the main plank of the Government's policy, which is to shift the balance from direct taxation to VAT? That is a policy with which I wholly disagree. But in the—[Interruption.]
        The Temporary Chairman (Sir David Knox): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going much too wide. We are on a much narrower point than the one that he is raising.
        Mr. Allason: It is a narrow point. I am grateful for your guidance, Sir David. I strongly support the extension of VAT to the purchase of foreign holidays and foreign transport. It would be a good way of raising revenue to put an extra amount on the purchase of package holidays.
        I am sympathetic to the argument made by the hon. Member for Ashfield about regional airports. The blame for part of the problem lies not only with the Treasury but with the European Union. If there had been true competition between domestic carriers, Air France and other continental carriers would have been allowed to come into the United Kingdom and, if they saw a market, to take advantage of it. How can one believe that, following the creation of the single market and the European Union, we are members of a free trade club when British Airways cannot pick up passengers in, say, Madrid and fly them to Rome? Surely the point of a free trade club is that the existing players should be able to take advantage of a market if they see one.
        Mr. Hoon: While I appreciate that the liberalisation of airline routes in the European Union continues to be difficult, the hon. Gentleman needs to concentrate on the real difficulty facing regional airports: they are not getting the competition. Competition implies more than one airline, but most regional airports are having difficulty finding even one airline to fly a scheduled route—for example, between the East Midlands airport and London.
        690
        It is not a case of many airlines queuing up to compete —the airport cannot even persuade one airline to take on that responsibility.
        Mr. Allason: I accept that, but I am worried about the predatory nature of some of the airlines operating on the domestic market. I am especially concerned about routes from Exeter and Plymouth, which are regional airports on the brink of viability.
        If we are members of a free trade club, why do so many restrictions remain? They mean that only a few airlines can come into the domestic market.
        The Temporary Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman keep to the point? He is getting far beyond it. We are discussing amendment No. 1.
        Mr. Allason: I am grateful for your guidance, Sir David.
        This measure is certainly unimaginative because it does not grasp the problem. While it is a straightforward and obvious attempt to raise revenue, I urge the House to consider carefully going further and extending value added tax to foreign package holidays. That would be widely welcomed and I urge the House to accept that.
        8.45 pm
        Mr. Jim Cunningham: I and many of my constituents are worried about the implications of the air passenger tax. The amount of duty that the Government are introducing now is not necessarily the cause for concern—it is the amount that they might introduce next year or the year after. We are really concerned about the knock-on effects of the tax.
        Travel agents are extremely worried about the tax and the implications for the future. In my constituency, the aero-engine business—especially Rolls-Royce—has gone through a lean time, as it has throughout the country—and today's announcement about Rover gives us food for thought. British Aerospace has sold off its holding in Rover to a German company and that should tell us a lot about the state of British Aerospace. It serves as an illustration that we should be concerned not only about the tax but about the future of the freight and aerospace businesses and, to a certain extent, the future of travel agencies.
        My constituents and people in the west midlands will be wondering about the tax. They will not necessarily be worried by the amount at the moment, but they will wonder how much it will be in future and the effect that it might have on their jobs.
        Mr. Pike: The tax will also cost something to implement, apart from the £5 or £10 initial duty. Is it not true that the cost of administering it will remain the same, even if the tax is increased? We have heard nothing to allay fears that the tax will not merely be £5 or £10 next year, but that once the door is open it will increase very quickly.
        Mr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend's argument is far better than mine. He has summed up that area of concern very well.
        Birmingham airport flies the flag for the west midlands. People in the west midlands will not have a lot of confidence in the industrial base there when they consider what is likely to happen to the airport and to the aerospace industry.

        691
        We are constantly being told that there is a recovery, but that it is fragile. The business community are constantly telling us that the full effects of the Budget have not flowed through and are apprenhensive about that fact.
        Many people are worried about the tax and the effects that it will have on the morale of those who work in the travel or aero engine businesses. Many jobs have been shed in those industries during the past few years and it is the wrong time to introduce such a tax—it sends out the wrong signals to manufacturers and travel agents.
        The Government will not know the implications of the tax until they have introduced it, but has that not been the sorry tale of this Government? Whether in the implementation of value added tax or other measures, they have failed to consult adequately or to listen to people who would be affected by the measures.
        It is not merely a question of £5 or £10—this tax and the increases in value added tax, coupled with cuts in benefits, will have a net effect on families. We must consider the tax and its implications against a broader canvas than the amendment allows. However, I do not want to deviate too much.
        The tax will affect tourism and regional airports such as Birmingham. Many of the smaller airports, such as Coventry, are seeking partners in the private sector because of the cost factor, as many hon. Members with an involvement in local government know. The tax will not encourage such partnerships, because the private sector will think that there is no profit in them. Once again, small airports will find themselves on the breadline and jobs at such airports may be under threat. The tax, therefore, also has implications for jobs, as well as for the tourist and aircraft industries.
        The tax is totally the wrong message to be sending to the employees of British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce in Coventry and to people throughout the country—especially at a time when many thousands of people in the west midlands and in my constituency want the industrial base to grow. They certainly want the aircraft industry to grow again and want more jobs to be created in it and in other industries throughout Britain. Psychologically, it is the wrong time to introduce the tax and I question the need for it. I should have thought that the Government would consider other ways to raise the necessary revenue, instead of introducing this tax at the wrong time.
        Many people—particularly small manufacturers which do a great deal of work for British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce—will not be so concerned about the level of the tax now as about the cost in the future. Anyone who is extremely concerned about this country's future and especially its industrial base must worry about that. The effects of this tax, coupled with the results of the recent GATT round, on the aircraft industry and on companies such as Rolls-Royce give rise to extreme concern, because they could deter customers from buying engines. As I understand it, the GATT subsidy will be totally eradicated.
        Another factor is that the last remnants of the British aircraft industry might be taken over by a company from abroad—whether German or American—as happened with Rover.
        Although the amount of the tax seems small, the effects will be devastating. We are playing into the hands of our competitors abroad. We are not helping to restore
        692
        confidence in the British economy so that it can get out of recession. We are not restoring confidence in the business community to invest; it fears that it cannot trust the Government over taxation. The Minister may give assurances tonight that the tax is a one-off and that it will not be increased in future, but nobody believes him, because we were given the same assurances about the introduction of VAT some years ago. We have now found out to our cost that one cannot believe what the Government indicate or say. Many in the travel and tourism trades will be concerned.
        Mr. Pike: Is not it a fact that, because of the tax, the travel industry and the air transport industry will fear that, within Europe, Frankfurt, Schiphol and other airports will develop at the expense of Heathrow and Manchester airports?
        Mr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is quite right. There is no doubt that some of our major airports will be under serious threat. In the longer term, the feeder airports will be under serious threat. Many people forget that some of the regional airports such as Birmingham rely on feeder airports such as Coventry. We need those feeder airports because they facilitate trade. When a business man or a company has to fly components to Frankfurt or anywhere else in Europe, those small airports are often the lifeblood of the regional airports, because a small company can fly its freight at short notice to meet the customer's needs. That boosts confidence abroad in British manufacturers and, in turn, means that one starts to build up the confidence and regenerate the British economy, particularly the industrial base of the west midlands, but, more importantly, cities such as Coventry, which is renowned not only for its ingenuity in motor manufacturing but for aircraft production in companies such as Rolls-Royce and electrical companies such as GPT. Those companies now need a morale boost. They do not need their path to trade expansion hindered by another new tax.
        I am extremely concerned for the welfare of my constituents in terms of their jobs, whether in the aero-engine manufacturing industry, in travel agencies in Coventry, South-East, in the airframe industries in the peripheries of Coventry or the small companies that produce components for companies such as Rolls-Royce. Nobody can forecast future Budgets, but I hope that the Minister will pause before introducing the tax and start to talk to people who are involved in air travel and in the production of aero-engines, which are vital to the technology and craft of the country.
        The Minister should think seriously about the consequences of the levels of the tax. He should think about the signal that he is sending to British industry, particularly in the west midlands, which has been on its knees for many years, and to companies such as Rolls-Royce, GPT and the small business men in Coventry and throughout the country.
        The tax will have serious consequences. It is not a morale booster. I hope that the fears of small business men will not be realised when the full implications of the Budget are known after April. I hope sincerely that it does not dampen economic growth. It seems to me that measures such as this act as a deterrent to British manufacturers and workers, not an incentive. I hope that the Minister will think again about the tax.
        9 pm
        Mr. Macdonald: I am pleased to be able to join the debate this evening. I shall speak in particular to amendment No. 3 to clause 28, which asks that
        "This duty shall not be charged until the Government has presented a report to Parliament on its effects on the economies of the United Kingdom islands, on the travelling public and on the air transport industry and tourism."
        I should like to focus in particular on the effects on the economies of the islands of the United Kingdom, but more specifically the Scottish islands and the more remote and distant Scottish islands.
        I take on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) has said about the wider economic implications of the duty, its effects on industry in general, on the manufacturers of aircraft, on business confidence throughout the British economy and the way that it potentially disadvantages British carriers as compared with continental carriers. However, the valid point has been made that, with the differentiation between travel within Europe being charged at £5 a head and international travel at £10 a head, there is an open invitation for carriers to try to skirt around the £10 charge by trying to use continental airports as staging posts to divert international passengers from the United Kingdom. That could adversely affect British carriers. The Government have failed to take that into account. I hope that that matter will be addressed.
        Apart from the wider economic implications for the British economy and industry, I shall refer specifically to its impact on the Scottish islands, which, after all, were one of the high points of the Chancellor's Budget speech. He said that the Scottish islands were to be exempted from the effects of the tax and he instantly won some cheap and easy applause from his hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, not that that applause was in short supply, because his colleagues gave the Budget an astonishing reception. One wonders whether they appreciated its implications, given that it has introduced the biggest peacetime tax hike in history, which will lead, eventually, to the highest peacetime taxes. Despite that, each new tax and each new increase received delirious applause and cheers from Conservative Members.
        Although that reception might have been misguided, the exemption granted to the Scottish islands was met with genuine pleasure. Suddenly it seemed as though inter-party and cross-party argument had been suspended for the moment, because both sides of the House recognised the special position of the Scottish islands. We welcomed the fact that the Chancellor, too, apparently recognised that by granting that exemption. The special position of the Scottish islands has been discussed at some length and it relates primarily to their geographical location. They are found on the ultimate fringes of the continent of Europe. Their sheer difference from the industrial and commercial hub of Europe and the United Kingdom is one of the main disadvantages with which they must cope.
        The remoteness of the northern isles and the Western Isles is recognised not just in the House, but in the country and throughout Europe. They are a special case precisely because of their remoteness and their very distance from the Scottish mainland. It takes five and a half hours to travel by ferry to the island of Barra, in my constituency, from the Scottish mainland. I do not believe that most hon. Members appreciate the distances involved until they are spelt out. They know that the islands are a certain distance
        694
        from the mainland, but when they realise that it takes more than five hours to reach a community, most of them are surprised, and even shocked.
        Mr. Wallace: I am not attempting one-upmanship, but just to illustrate the hon. Gentleman's point I should point out that to travel from Lerwick in Shetland to the Scottish mainland involves an overnight, 14-hour journey by ferry.
        The Temporary Chairman: Order. Although hon. Members can allude to such matters, the debate is not about the length of time it takes to travel from one point to another but about a tax.
        Mr. Macdonald: I was simply trying to illustrate, with the help of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the effects of the tax upon the economies of the United Kingdom and the islands, as outlined in amendment No. 3, which is one of the group of amendments selected for debate.
        One of the defining characteristics of the economies of the Scottish islands is their distance from markets. That was the point I was trying to make until I was superseded, or perhaps I should say one-upped, by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
        I do not need to give the specific number of hours that it takes to travel to each island, but their remoteness is a defining factor not just in the life style of the islanders, but of the economic difficulties that they face.
        The other singular feature of the Scottish islands, with the happy exception of the Shetlands because of the relevance of oil to its economy, is their economic fragility. The per capita gross national product of Scotland is some way below the United Kingdom norm, but the lowest of the lot is found in the Scottish islands. The level of unemployment is higher than average while earnings are considerably lower than those found on the mainland.
        It is precisely because of that distance that prices on the Scottish islands are higher than anywhere else in Scotland and probably than anywhere in the United Kingdom. That crucial economic factor must be taken into account, because until one appreciates the economic fragility of the Scottish islands, the full impact of the tax—the slap in the face—cannot be appreciated.
        When one takes the factors of remoteness and economic fragility into account, one realises that the air service to the Scottish islands is by no means a luxury. It is not a businessman's perk to go by plane rather than train. Rather, the air service is a lifeline for the Scottish islands. When one is faced with a ferry journey of 14 hours or even five and a half hours, the air service is not simply weighed up on the grounds of convenience but becomes a vital link between the island communities and the outside world, connecting them with the rest of the United Kingdom. Although the islands are so many hours' steaming from the Scottish mainland, travelling time can be reduced to only an hour because of the air. service.
        The matter is illustrated by the fact that there are three airports in my constituency. I wonder how many other hon. Members have as many airports in their constituencies.
        Mrs. Ray Michie: I have.
        Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) says that she has a similar number, and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland probably has, too. That shows that the air service is a lifeline for the remote communities of the Scottish islands.

        695
        The Government have recognised the extent to which the air service is a lifeline. When islanders need essential specialist medical care that cannot be provided on the Scottish islands because of their low population, they are flown to hospitals on the mainland, in cities such as Inverness, Aberdeen and Glasgow. That is a regular occurrence. One might expect that patients would be flown to the mainland if they need urgent medical attention, but close relatives, such as the mother of a young child who has been flown to the mainland, are entitled to Government assistance to visit their sick relatives in the mainland hospitals. The Government do not ask the relatives to take a ferry or bus from Ullapool to Inverness and all the way to Glasgow, but recognise the special nature of the Scottish islands and assist the relatives to fly, courtesy of the NHS, from the Scottish islands to the mainland.
        I am at a loss to think of any other constituency where that would be so. It certainly happens nowhere in the rest of the country. The Government recognise the special nature of the Scottish islands and the fact that such a service is no luxury but an essential aspect of maintaining a viable community on those islands.
        The tax also has an impact on the viability of the air services to the Scottish islands. To impose this tax on passengers is bound to affect demand for the air services. Indeed, the Government have given us an estimate of how much the tax may affect demand. In an answer to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, the Paymaster General said:
        "Overall, the tax is expected to reduce demand for air travel by around 2½ per cent. There is insufficient information available to estimate the impact of the tax on airports operated by Highland and Islands airports. No information has been received from other European countries on the impact of the introduction of such taxation on transport."—[Official Report, 19 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 643.]
        The Paymaster General seems to have been unable to estimate the reduction in demand for the highlands and islands, but I suggest that because of the economic fragility, the unemployment, the low earnings and the higher prices of the Scottish islands, the impact will be more severe there. Passenger demand is bound to be depressed. Taking into account the shuttle services between Scotland and the cities of England, I estimate that the decrease in demand for passenger services in the highlands and islands may be as high as 5 or 10 per cent.
        I emphasise again that the air services to and between the Scottish islands are already on a knife edge of viability —just showing a profit. I might add that they receive no subsidies or assistance from the Government; they all have to pay their own way, apart from some help from local authorities for inter-island flights. A reduction in passenger demand of between 5 and 10 per cent. could mean that some of these air services are no longer viable. British Airways may have to decide that no longer can it run these lifeline air services to the Scottish islands because of the effects of the tax and the consequent falling off in demand.
        This explains why my hon. Friend and I are asking the Government, when considering the tax, to take the special circumstances of the Scottish islands into account. I believe that there are overwhelming social and economic grounds for exempting them. I have even estimated that the Government could do so without much impact on their revenue from the tax. A complete general exemption for the Scottish islands could be achieved, I estimate, with a loss to the Treasury of only about £800,000. I have based
        696
        that figure on what I have been told constitutes the passenger traffic within the Scottish islands and between them and the mainland.
        I know that the Treasury is hard up these days and that the Government are in a bit of an economic hole, as the Chancelloer said before he became Chancellor. The sum of £800,000, however, out of a total budget of £280 billion, is one that I believe the Government could live with fairly comfortably. The Government need money so desperately that they are willing to put VAT on domestic fuel. This impost is a kind of poll tax of the air on lifeline services to the islands.
        But the Government are willing to forgo certain revenues. For example, at the same time as they announced the biggest tax rise in history, they announced that they were abolishing sporting rates paid by landed estates in Scotland. That is an interesting contrast. Those sporting rates are not worth an enormous amount to local authorities, but a fair amount is involved.
        9.15 pm
        On 7 January the Minister of State at the Scottish Office told me that the total revenue accruing to Scottish local authorities from sporting rates in each of the past four years was estimated at about £2 million a year. The Government feel able to write that off to the benefit of the hunters, shooters and fishermen among the Scottish landed gentry, but they will tell us that £800,000 to rescue the lifeline services for the Scottish islands is beyond their means. We can draw our own conclusions from that.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) spoke about the international comparison and said that just because other countries had such a tax did not mean that one should be introduced here. I understand that the air duties in other countries tend to be for international and not domestic flights. The Government's air duty appears to be more sweeping in its catchment.
        We have lessons to learn from other countries. In an intervention, I gave the example of the Republic of Ireland. The air route from Dublin to Kerry in the west of Ireland, a remote area on the edge of Europe, faces many of the same social and economic problems as the west coast of Scotland and the northern and Western Isles. But instead of imposing a tax on the people of Kerry and others who use that service, the Government of Ireland negotiated with the European Commission and was allowed to provide a subsidy to maintain that essential service.
        The journey from Dublin to Kerry is equivalent to that from Stornoway to Inverness—about 200 air miles—but while the Scottish islanders will have to pay about £130 for the journey, because of the subsidy negotiated by the Irish Government, a person travelling from Dublin to Kerry will pay only half that, £70. That contrast rather shames the Government. The Government of the Republic of Ireland were able to fight and negotiate with the Commission to provide a subsidy for their remote areas but this Government ended such subsidies a long time ago. They prefer to impose a poll tax on each person travelling to and from the Scottish islands.
        The Government maintain that they have provided some exemptions. As I said earlier, the Chancellor made much of that. At the time, he received some easy applause. Actually, it was genuine and well-meant applause, as hon. Members on both sides thought that it was reasonable and proper to exempt the Scottish islands. No Conservative Member protested. Nobody shouted "Shame" when the

        697
        Chancellor appeared to be exempting the Scottish islands. All cheered, and I appreciate the sentiment that was thus expressed.
        Unfortunately, a look at the small print revealed what I might call a Dudley-type promise—the Chancellor having said that promises made on a rainy night in Dudley were not to be taken seriously. In fact, the exemption is not what it appears to be. The Paymaster General has tried to defend what the Chancellor said in his Budget speech. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's defence reflects worse on the Chancellor than did what we thought was the position. We thought that the Chancellor's speech had been written by civil servants and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not possibly have known the details, could not possibly have known that what he was reading out was highly misleading. But we have now heard from the Paymaster General that the Chancellor knew all along that what he was saying was misleading. That is regrettable and shameful.
        The Paymaster General himself has tried to be a little economical with the truth in his attempt to justify these apparent exemptions. For example, in an answer given to me on 6 December last, he said that, based on October 1993 timetables, it was estimated that about a quarter of flights to the Scottish islands from the mainland and about three quarters of inter-island flights would be exempt. That sounds very generous. The impression it gives is that most people will be included in the exemption. But what we have in those words is only one way of describing the situation. On the basis of flights per se, it may be so, but the number of passengers being carried, the number being taxed and the number exempted present a completely different picture. Indeed, the position is the opposite of that presented by the Chancellor in his Budget speech.
        If one adds together the numbers of people carried on Loganair and British Airways flights between the Scottish islands and between the mainland and the islands, one arrives at a figure of more than 210,000 passenger flights of the kind described in this legislation. Of these, only 42,000 would be exempted under the Chancellor's concession. In other words, 80 per cent. would be taxed, and 20 per cent. exempted.
        We now find that the situation is even worse. On 22 December, Mr. Scott Grier, the managing director of Loganair, wrote to the Chancellor pointing out that, although at present 20 per cent. of passenger flights would be exempted, in the near future the number would be much smaller, as different kinds of aircraft would be used. Mr. Grier says:
        "Only a small minority are going to be exempt. On your proposed basis, only those passengers flying the eight-seat Britten Norman islander aircraft used in the Orkney inter-island service and the Shetland inter-island service are likely to be exempt next October when the duty is due to be implemented. Services currently using 18-seat De Havilland Twin Otter and Jetstream 31 aircraft are likely to be upgraded in the next few months, due to the Twin Otter no longer being manufactured, and the Jetstream 31 being unsuitable for the common requirements of the Highlands and Islands services to carry freight, newspapers and mail in addition to passengers. It is likely, therefore, that perhaps only around 20,000 passengers per annum would be eligible for relief if your proposed exception criterion is applied."
        An exception that was to apply to 20 per cent. of passengers when the Chancellor made his Budget statement will apply to only 10 per cent. next year. That is very different from the message that the Chancellor apparently tried to convey in his Budget speech.
        698
        I want to explore not only that deception—if that word is permissible—by the Chancellor, or his misleading statement, but an aspect that might cause concern to even the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Paymaster General themselves. I refer to the enormous number of anomalies that will be thrown up when the duty is introduced late next year.
        To understand those anomalies, one must distinguish between the two types of aircraft used on Scottish island routes. One type is represented by the Jetstream 41 and the Shorts-360, which carry 29 and 36 passengers respectively. The other type carries fewer than 20 passengers. I mentioned the Jetstream 31, which carries only 17 passengers. The Islander carries six to eight passengers, and the Twin Otter carries 15 to 18 passengers.
        The significant point is that aircraft that carry fewer than 20 passengers will be exempted, whereas those that carry more will be subject to the duty. The aircraft that carry more than 20 passengers also account for the highest number of passengers carried on the entire inter-island network.
        Those two types of aircraft create a whole series of anomalies. I will give the example of one flight serving the Western Isles and another serving the northern isles. An inter-island flight in Orkney or Shetland using a Jetstream 31 or Islander will be exempted from duty. However, a flight from Barra to Balivanish in the Western Isles operated by the same company—Loganair, involving no greater distance, and serving a community every bit as impoverished, economically fragile and remote as one in the Orkneys or Shetlands, will require that passengers pay the full whack of £5 per head. Surely that discrepancy cannot be justified.
        The absurdities become even worse. I refer to the flight from Barra to Stornoway, or from there to Barra. As I have already mentioned, the inter-island flight from Stornoway to Barra, or vice versa, has a stopover half way up the island chain at the airport at Balivanish. Passengers travelling from Barra to Stornoway stop over at Balivanish and have to change plane. They have to change from a Twin Otter aircraft, which carries fewer than 20 passengers and is therefore exempt from the tax, to a Shorts 6 aircraft, which is tax liable and will carry them for the remainder of their journey. Half way through their journeys, passengers change from a tax-exempt aircraft to a taxable aircraft.
        9.30 pm
        I scratch my head about how the duty will be assessed in such a case. Will the significant factor be the direction in which passengers travel? If they come from Barra and start off in a tax-exempt aircraft, will that determine the tax status all the way to Stornaway? If they come from Stornoway, they will start their journey in a tax-liable aircraft, so will they be taxed all the way to Barra? Will passengers who get off at Balivanish have to fork out £5 extra on top of the fare that they have already paid at Barra? It is absurd and shows the ridiculousness of trying to base exemptions on the size of the aircraft.
        There are also anomalies involving flights from the islands to the mainland. The social and economic need for protecting those flights is perhaps greater for island to mainland flights than for inter-island flights. The connection between the islands and mainland is economically, socially and psychologically important. Again, there are various anomalies. A flight from Kirkwall to Glasgow, which currently uses a Jetstream 31, will be

        699
        tax exempt. A flight from Stornoway to Inverness, which is a shorter flight and uses a British Aerospace advanced turbo-prop aeroplane, will be taxed. What possible justification is there for that? Likewise, the flight from Sumburgh—an important oil station—to Edinburgh, the financial capital of Scotland, will be tax exempt. But the flights from Stornoway to Inverness and Balinvanish to Glasgow will be hit by the tax. There is no social or economic logic in that anomaly.
        Let us take a different sort of illogicality and anomaly, which is even more absurd. Some routes use different planes on different days—for example, the flights from Kirkwall to Wick and from Sumburgh to Edinburgh. If one takes one of those flights one day, one will be taxed, but on another day one will be exempt. That is clearly absurd and ridiculous. The Government have to consider the position more seriously.
        Some days the Sumburgh to Edinburgh route uses an ATP and on others it uses a Jetstream 31. On some days the Kirkwall to Wick flight uses a Jetstream 31, which is below the 20-passenger limit and is tax exempt, but on other days it uses the Shorts 6, which is above a 20-passenger limit and is therefore tax liable.
        That creates a real problem for the Government, whose intention is to tax people on return rather than single journeys. People will not be taxed twice if they take a genuine return trip, but what if they use different planes on different days? What happens if they go out on a Jetstream 31, but come back on a Shorts 6 or an ATP? What will happen to people who fly out on a tax-exempt aircraft and return on a tax-liable one? Have the Government even considered that absurd anomaly? The notion of providing exemptions based on the size is riddled with such anomalies, which makes the whole process nonsensical —especially in regard to the Scottish islands.
        The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) pointed out that there were rich people in the islands and poor people in the cities; why should the islands be treated differently? It is widely acknowledged, however, that the islands are a special case, in both social and economic terms: hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed that. Moreover, most rich people in the islands do not live there: they occasionally spend a weekend hunting, fishing and shooting on their estates, but most travellers on commercial flights to the islands will not find them in the neighbouring seat. Such people hire their own Jetstream 31; they are wealthy, busy business men, for whom time is money. They will hire a Jetstream 31 to Stornoway, and step off it tax exempt.
        That is the real irony. An islander visiting a relative in a Glasgow hospital, using the air link from Barra, must walk across the sand to board the aircraft; that person will be hit by a £5 tax. The millionaire jetting into his Hebridean estate for a weekend's shooting—on his Jetstream 31—will be exempt. We have come to expect such anomalies from the present Government, but they are not justified.
        I wrote to the Chancellor raising some of those points. On 13 January, the Paymaster General wrote back to me, trying to defend the current illogical position; I believe that he wrote to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in similar terms. He wrote:
        "There is a logic to the proposed exception for flights in small aircraft … These criteria relate to CAA licensing requirements whereby carriers exclusively involved in operations with aircraft below this size"—
        700
        that is, with fewer than 20 passengers—
        "are subject to less rigorous financial obligations. It follows from the proposed exemption that all holders of this type of licence will know immediately they need not register for this duty."
        That is fine, but Loganair and British Airways do not exclusively use aircraft of that kind. It is completely and utterly beside the point to bring that aspect of Civil Aviation Authority regulations into the argument to justify exemptions in commercial flights to the Scottish islands. That is completely irrelevant and it is not germane to the argument about the Scottish islands.
        The letter contains another argument for the exemption. That piece of logic states:
        "Another consequence of this criterion, which Kenneth mentioned in his Budget speech, is that the majority of flights between the Scottish islands will be exempt from the duty as they use small aircraft. Many of these small aircraft use Avgas which is subject to excise duty and therefore, unlike most other domestic and all international flights are already subject to some indirect taxation."
        That argument for fixing the exemption of planes with fewer than 20 passengers is that they already pay some form of tax and duty because they use avgas which is a different kind of fuel from that used by regular scheduled commercial flights. Therefore, to impose an extra tax would involve a double duty.
        The only problem with that explanation is that none of the aircraft servicing the Scottish islands uses avgas. Only five of Loganair's planes use avgas and they are used for the air ambulance service. None of the passenger flights to the Scottish islands or between those islands uses avgas. That attempted justification for the duty also runs into the sand.
        The lesson is that there can be no justification for this absurd, inequitable and deeply damaging tax. There can be no justification for this poll tax of the air. The weakest form of argument that the Government can advance is to suggest that if an exception were granted for the Scottish islands, somehow that would be a slippery slope towards the destruction of the duty in its entirety; if the exception were granted, other areas would want similar exemptions. However, that argument ignores the obvious fact which is widely recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Scottish islands are a special case because of their fragility, remoteness and distance.
        That point could be recognised by the Government in the structure of the new tax in a way that would be accepted by everyone inside and outside this place. The Air Transport Users Council wrote to Mr. David Hock of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. It made the point that it would make
        "economic sense to extend the exemption … to embrace all island services".
        The council does not believe that such an exemption would lead to a wider form of exemption. It recognises the special position of the islands. Loganair and British Airways are of the same opinion. In the notes which British Airways has given to hon. Members explaining its views on the new tax, it states that, instead of having a silly categorisation of below and above 20 passengers, it would be better to exempt specific journeys which have economic dimensions.
        I appeal to the Government, when we retire upstairs to deal with these matters in greater detail and, dare I say it, at even greater length, to reconsider the way in which the duty will operate and its impact on the Scottish islands. If they genuinely extend the exemption to cover all flights to

        701
        and from and between the Scottish islands, they will again receive applause from all hon. Members, and deservedly SO.
        Mr. Enright: I shall be very brief because I would like to see the Paymaster General wriggle. There is great excitement among waiting Conservative Members—all eight of them, one in semi-recumbent posture and two loitering with intent. I must not deprive them of their pleasure.
        9.45 pm
        The Government simply do not learn from history. I remind them cif the tale of Daedalus and Icarus. Daedalus carefully designed wings so that Icarus would be able to fly, but he did not put enough planning into it, Icarus plunged into the ocean and drowned, and Daedalus mourned ever after. All that we are asking the Government to do is what Daedalus did not do—a bit of planning and a bit of examination to see what is wrong and what real effects the Bill will have.
        We are told that the measure will not involve many bureaucrats and that £5 and £10 are easy to collect, but that is not true. When hon. Members considered the Sunday Trading Bill in Committee, I suggested that those shops which opened on Sundays might pay the charge which they cost to local authorities. I was told that it was, in truth, not possible; Ministers said that it was too difficult to collect such a small amount. Yet here we are talking about £5 and £10. Therefore, I cannot think that it is about the £5 and £10: I must think that it is about the Government's future intention to tax even more than they are doing now.
        The excise charge which at this moment is £5 or £10 will quickly leap to £25 and £50, and that is just judging by the Government's record. On interest payable to commissioners, schedule 6 paragraph 8(1) states:
        "Where, due to an error on the part of the Commissioners, a person has paid by way of duty an amount which was not due and which the Commissioners are in consequence liable to repay to him"—
        and so on. First, that is gobbledegook and the Government will not win any prizes in the plain English competition. Secondly, it is an almost impossible clause to administer, as the Government will see if they look at it carefully.
        Over the page, we see "Preferential debt". Why should that be a preferential debt? We know perfectly well that other debts which are due to the Government are not preferential. For example, I refer to Unicorn plc, which not only does not have to pay back its debt of £200,000 but is given a tax rebate for the rest of the people who invested in it.
        The measure will have a damaging effect, too, on regional airports. In particular, I refer to Leeds-Bradford airport from which people in my constituency depart on the holidays for which they have worked hard. For an average family of six there will be another £60 to pay. It is very difficult for people in an area such as mine to find £60. The measure is certainly not acceptable.
        The problem with the Government is their philosophy on tax. They want to tax but they do not know why they are taxing, except to make sure that the rich pay less and the poor pay more. They have soaked the poor in order to pay the rich.
        It is not just on their policy of taxing aeroplanes that the Government will perish, but on their general philosophy—
        The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. So far as I am concerned, the debate will be only on the airport tax.
        Mr. Enright: I accept that absolutely, and I shall speak only to the airport tax.
        In conclusion, I remind the Government of the closing words of the film "King Kong":
        "Oh no! It wasn't the aeroplanes. It was Beauty killed the beast."
        Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Sir Michael—
        The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member should use the terminology "Chairman" or "Mr. Morris". Either of them is appropriate.
        Mr. Mackinlay: I am much obliged, Mr. Morris.
        My constituents will not immediately notice the impact of this tax because, unhappily, a high proportion of them never have the opportunity of travelling on aircraft. However, they are concerned about any dampening of enterprise and commerce in this country, because it has an impact on their capacity to get employment.
        They are also conscious of the fact that close to my constituency is the underused airport at Stansted, which has a great opportunity for enterprise and creating work. However, the opportunities for Stansted to expand will be affected by the imposition of this tax. Clearly, Stansted airport relies on the creation of new routes from inland airports in the United Kingdom and the islands. This tax will deter airlines and those wanting to create new routes into London from expanding or creating new enterprises.
        The imposition of the tax, and the work and duty that it places on airlines to collect it, and do all the paperwork, makes a nonsense of the Government's claim that they are in the business of deregulation and making life easier for commerce and enterprise. It is nonsense when an Essex Member of Parliament who is the Minister of tourism, the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat), says in documents released to us that he will take a personal interest in promoting tourism and then sees his colleagues imposing a tax which will have an immediate impact on those who want to expand tourism and mobility in the United Kingdom.
        I am the Secretary of the all-party Manx group. My comments are not made on behalf of the group; nevertheless, I am pleased to take an interest in the fortunes of the Isle of Man and the people there. It is wrong for some hon. Members to assume that people who live on the Isle of Man are wealthy. For many, the position is quite the reverse. Many ordinary, working people on the Isle of Man depend on the opportunity of travelling to the United Kingdom, especially those who have children following further and higher education in the United Kingdom. The cost of travelling to universities and colleges in the United Kingdom is a heavy price for parents who live on the Isle of Man to pay. I am sure that the same is true with regard to Jersey, Guernsey and the other islands.
        The proposed tax is unfair. Have the Governments on the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands been consulted about the impact of this tax? I believe that there is a convention that they should have been consulted. It seems that the Government have not complied with the spirit of that convention. I hope that the Minister was paying attention to my question so that he can reply to it. There is a customs arrangement in relation to the Isle of Man, and it seems to me that there is a danger that the Government

        703
        of the Isle of Man may well feel forced to react to this tax by imposing a similar tax within their jurisdiction. Again, I hope that the Minister is paying attention and that he will be able to respond to that point.
        There have been speeches from Labour Members on behalf of the highlands and islands, and I have been pleased to refer to the interests of the people who go to and from the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Many of those people reside in the United Kingdom and they will take note that it is a Conservative Government who are imposing the tax, and I hope that that will be remembered in future. The tax will also affect those who use Liverpool airport to go to the Isle of Man. The fares for students from Liverpool to Douglas will increase by 25 per cent. as a result of the tax, and that will have an impact in Douglas and at Liverpool Speke airport.
        I am also aware that there have been no speeches in the debate from hon. Members from Northern Ireland, none of whom is present. I hope that it will be noted in the six counties that Labour Members have spoken up against the tax on behalf of the people, not just of the mainland but of the six counties of Northern Ireland. The airports at Belfast, Belfast City and the new airport at Derry, or Londonderry, will be hit by the impact of the tax, and the beneficiaries of that will be airport enterprises in Dublin. That will be the effect of the tax, and the Minister should be aware of that, having previously been a Northern Ireland Minister. It will put at a grave disadvantage those whose incomes and enterprises depend on their work at the Northern Ireland airports.
        Mr. Andrew Smith: We have had a full and thorough debate on the issue, thanks to the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends who have launched a battery of attacks on the iniquities and the administrative burdens of the tax.
        There has been a special emphasis and strength of feeling throughout on the position of the Scottish islands, and the damage which the tax would inflict on their economy, culture and family visits. There is one significant point of which the House and the country will want to take note. There have been speeches from around 14 Labour Members, six Conservative Members—that stretches it, because two of them were not happy with the tax and one was the independent hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason)—and two speeches from Liberal Democrat Members. Is not it extraordinary that, on an issue which so concerns the people of the highlands and islands of Scotland, not for one instant have we heard the sound or seen the sight of the Scottish National party? When the people for whom it claims to speak needed it to speak on their behalf, it was absent and that fact will not be lost on the electorate of Scotland.
        The imposition of the tax is damaging to communities that depend on air transport for a lifeline. It is bad for the airline industry and it imposes an administrative burden which, in any other circumstances, Conservative Members would describe as a job-killer. The legislation shows every sign of having been rushed forward without the consultation which should have taken place. The Government have no mandate for this poll tax on wings, and we shall be pressing our amendment to a vote.
        10 pm
        Sir John Cope: We have had a long and sometimes repetitive debate running over many of the points that arise from the air passenger duty. I spoke about some of those points in my opening speech. Other points will arise later in the Standing Committee stage, as will some of the same ones.
        All sorts of things have been mentioned, including Daedalus and Icarus, referred to by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). I was not sure whether I was cast as Icarus or Daedalus, but never mind—he moved on to Sunday trading fairly quickly. That did not seem to matter.
        The first point that I wish to make is that consultation on the air passenger duty has not finished. Some hon. Members tried to make out that it had. Quite a few hon. Members quoted the letter from the chairman of British Airways. That letter was part of the consultation process with British Airways. One of the arguments that hon. Members made in quoting that letter was in favour of a sales tax. They argued that it would be easier to collect. That is wrong. It would be more difficult to collect and control, particularly when sales took place outside the United Kingdom.
        The taxable event would be outside United Kingdom jurisdiction. It would be difficult to collect the tax from a large number of traders who have no presence and no business in the United Kingdom It would mean, in turn, that the tax would bite more heavily on United Kingdom citizens because foreign travellers who purchased their tickets outside the United Kingdom could escape the charge.
        Many other points were raised in the debate, including transfer passengers, stopovers and so on. If hon. Members care to consult clause 30, they will see that the detailed arrangements for connected flights, and the definitions which affect the matter, will be found in secondary legislation, about which we are also consulting.
        All sorts of other combinations of flights were also mentioned by various hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). They are summarised in the document that was issued on Budget day, but the detailed arrangements will be found in the secondary legislation in due course. We even had a reference to air miles, which are simply another way of paying for a ticket. Such tickets will be dealt with in the same way as any other.
        Many more detailed points came up—
        Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
        Sir John Cope: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He spoke earlier and I gave way to him in my opening speech.
        Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give me the assurance that he refused to give earlier? Will he assure the House that the Government, who have no mandate for the air passenger duty, will not raise the tax before the next general election?
        Sir John Cope: I said clearly earlier in the debate that we believe that we have set the right rate for the tax. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman and the House know perfectly well, I shall not forecast future Budgets.

        705
        The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr.
        Wilson) made a point about children, particularly children under two. We shall use the airlines' definition. I am sure that that is the best thing to do. There was—
        Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
        Sir John Cope: I will not give way. There was a series of other points—
        Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
        The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member who has the Floor is not giving way. That must be painfully obvious to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I should be grateful if he would recognise that fact. Perhaps I- may also say that the House should listen to the Paymaster General, who is responding to some interesting speeches made this evening.
        Sir John Cope: Several other detailed points were raised which will come up during discussions in the Standing Committee. Several hon. Members spoke about the Scottish islands. I referred to them at the beginning of the debate. The matter will also come up later.
        Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
        Sir John Cope: No, I will not.
        In all the speeches made by Labour Members this evening, no one responded to the point that I made about Labour's interest in such taxes, expressed in the London Policy Forum headed by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). 'The report clearly said:
        "Labour will consider introducing an airport tax such as that levied in many other countries."
        At another stage, it said:
        "This could mean examining options such as a tourism tax".
        That is another of the attacks that has been made on the tax. Her Front-Bench colleagues seemed not to listen to the hon. Member for Peckham's views in that report, but she may find that the Government have listened to her more on this occasion.
        I reject the amendment, but we will consider much of the detail that has been raised during further debates later in Committee.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 278, Noes 312.

        Division No. 94]

        [10.4 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Betts, Clive

        Adams, Mrs Irene

        Blair, Tony

        Ainger, Nick

        Blunkett, David

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Boateng, Paul

        Allen, Graham

        Boyes, Roland

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Bradley, Keith

        Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

        Ashton, Joe

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Austin-Walker, John

        Burden, Richard

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Byers, Stephen

        Barnes, Harry

        Caborn, Richard

        Barron, Kevin

        Callaghan, Jim

        Battle, John

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Bayley, Hugh

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Bell, Stuart

        Cann, Jamie

        Bennett, Andrew F.

        Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

        Benton, Joe

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Clapham, Michael

        Berry, Dr. Roger

        Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

        706

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Hoyle, Doug

        Clelland, David

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Coffey, Ann

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Cohen, Harry

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Connarty, Michael

        Hutton, John

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        lllsley, Eric

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Ingram, Adam

        Corbett, Robin

        Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Jamieson, David

        Cousins, Jim

        Janner, Greville

        Cox, Tom

        Johnston, Sir Russell

        Cryer, Bob

        Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

        Cummings, John

        Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

        Cunningham, Jim (CovySE)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Jowell, Tessa

        Darling, Alistair

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Davidson, Ian

        Keen, Alan

        Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

        Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Khabra, Piara S.

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

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

        Denham, John

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Dewar, Donald

        Leighton, Ron

        Dixon, Don

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Dobson, Frank

        Lewis, Terry

        Donohoe, Brian H.

        Litherland, Robert

        Dowd, Jim

        Livingstone, Ken

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Eagle, Ms Angela

        Loyden, Eddie

        Eastham, Ken

        Lynne, Ms Liz

        Enright, Derek

        McAllion, John

        Etherington, Bill

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        McCartney, Ian

        Fatchett, Derek

        Macdonald, Calum

        Faulds, Andrew

        McFall, John

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        McKelvey, William

        Fisher, Mark

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Flynn, Paul

        McLeish, Henry

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Maclennan, Robert

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        McMaster, Gordon

        Foulkes, George

        McNamara, Kevin

        Fraser, John

        Madden, Max

        Fyfe, Maria

        Maddock, Mrs Diana

        Galloway, George

        Mahon, Alice

        Gapes, Mike

        Mandelson, Peter

        Garrett, John

        Marek, Dr John

        George, Bruce

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Gerrard, Neil

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Martlew, Eric

        Godsiff, Roger

        Maxton, John

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Meacher, Michael

        Gordon, Mildred

        Meale, Alan

        Gould, Bryan

        Michael, Alun

        Graham, Thomas

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Milbum, Alan

        Grocott, Bruce

        Miller, Andrew

        Gunnell, John

        Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

        Hain, Peter

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Hall, Mike

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Hanson, David

        Morley, Elliot

        Hardy, Peter

        Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Harvey, Nick

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Henderson, Doug

        Mudie, George

        Heppell, John

        Mullin, Chris

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        Murphy, Paul

        Hoey, Kate

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

        O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

        Home Robertson, John

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        Hood, Jimmy

        O'Hara, Edward

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Olner, William

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        O'Neill, Martin

        707

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Snape, Peter

        Parry, Robert

        Soley, Clive

        Pendry, Tom

        Spearing, Nigel

        Pickthall, Colin

        Spellar, John

        Pike, Peter L.

        Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

        Pope, Greg

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Stevenson, George

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

        Strang, Dr. Gavin

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Straw, Jack

        Prescott, John

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Purchase, Ken

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Radice, Giles

        Tipping, Paddy

        Randall, Stuart

        Turner, Dennis

        Raynsford, Nick

        Tyler, Paul

        Redmond, Martin

        Vaz, Keith

        Reid, Dr John

        Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

        Rendel, David

        Wallace, James

        Robertson, George (Hamilton)

        Walley, Joan

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Roche, Mrs. Barbara

        Wareing, Robert N

        Rogers, Allan

        Watson, Mike

        Rooker, Jeff

        Welsh, Andrew

        Rooney, Terry

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Rowlands, Ted

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw"n W)

        Ruddock, Joan

        Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

        Salmond, Alex

        Wilson, Brian

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Winnick, David

        Sheerman, Barry

        Wise, Audrey

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Worthington, Tony

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Wray, Jimmy

        Short, Clare

        Wright, Dr Tony

        Simpson, Alan

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

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

        Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

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

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

        Bums, Simon

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Burt, Alistair

        Alexander, Richard

        Butcher, John

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Butler, Peter

        Amess, David

        Butterfill, John

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Carlisle, John (Luton North)

        Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Ashby, David

        Carrington, Matthew

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Carttiss, Michael

        Atkins, Robert

        Cash, William

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Churchill, Mr

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

        Clappison, James

        Baldry, Tony

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Bates, Michael

        Coe, Sebastian

        Batiste, Spencer

        Colvin, Michael

        Bellingham, Henry

        Congdon, David

        Bendall, Vivian

        Conway, Derek

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Body, Sir Richard

        Cormack, Patrick

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Couchman, James

        Booth, Hartley

        Cran, James

        Boswell, Tim

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

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

        Bowden, Andrew

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Bowis, John

        Day, Stephen

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Devlin, Tim

        Brazier, Julian

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Bright, Graham

        Dicks, Terry

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Browning, Mrs. Angela

        Dover, Den

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Duncan, Alan

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Duncan-Smith, Iain

        708

        Dunn, Bob

        Kilfedder, Sir James

        Durant, Sir Anthony

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Dykes, Hugh

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Eggar, Tim

        Knapman, Roger

        Elletson, Harold

        Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Knight, Greg (Derby N)

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Evennett, David

        Lang, Rt Hon Ian

        Faber, David

        Lawrence, Sir Ivan

        Fabricant, Michael

        Legg, Barry

        Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

        Leigh, Edward

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Lennox-Boyd, Mark

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Fishbum, Dudley

        Lidington, David

        Forman, Nigel

        Lightbown, David

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

        Forth, Eric

        Lord, Michael

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Luff, Peter

        Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        MacKay, Andrew

        French, Douglas

        Maclean, David

        Fry, Sir Peter

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Gale, Roger

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Gallie, Phil

        Madel, Sir David

        Gardiner, Sir George

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Garnier, Edward

        Malone, Gerald

        Gill, Christopher

        Mans, Keith

        Gillan, Cheryl

        Mariand, Paul

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        Marlow, Tony

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

        Gorst, John

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

        Mates, Michael

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Mellor, Rt Hon David

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

        Merchant, Piers

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Milligan, Stephen

        Hague, William

        Mills, lain

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        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)

        Hendry, Charles

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Norris, Steve

        Hicks, Robert

        Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

        Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Hill, James (Southampton Test)

        Ottaway, Richard

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

        Page, Richard

        Horam, John

        Paice, James

        Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Patnick, Irvine

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Pawsey, James

        Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Pickles, Eric

        Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Hunter, Andrew

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Jack, Michael

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Rathbone, Tim

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Jessel, Toby

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Richards, Rod

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Riddick, Graham

        Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

        Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Robathan, Andrew

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

        Key, Robert

        Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

        709

        Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

        Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

        Thurnham, Peter

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Ryder, Rl Hon Richard

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

        Sackville, Tom

        Tracey, Richard

        Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Tredinnick, David

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Trend, Michael

        Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

        Trotter, Neville

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Shersby, Michael

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Sims, Roger

        Viggers, Peter

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Walden, George

        Soames, Nicholas

        Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

        Speed, Sir Keith

        Waller, Gary

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Ward, John

        Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Waterson, Nigel

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Watts, John

        Spring, Richard

        Wells, Bowen

        Sproat, lain

        Whitney, Ray

        Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

        Whittingdale, John

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Steen, Anthony

        Wiggin, Sir Jerry

        Stephen, Michael

        Wilkinson, John

        Stern, Michael

        Willetts, David

        Stewart, Allan

        Wilshire, David

        Streeter, Gary

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Sumberg, David

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

        Sweeney, Walter

        Wolfson, Mark

        Sykes, John

        Wood, Timothy

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Yeo, Tim

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

        Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Temple-Morris, F'eter

        Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. James Arbuthnot.

        Thomason, Roy

        Question accordingly negatived.
        THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Debate on clause or schedule standing part), That the clause stand part of the Bill.
        Question agreed to.
        Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
        To report Progress and ask leave to sit again. —[Mr. Conway.]
        Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Business of the House
10.23 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to make a short statement about a change in the business for tomorrow.
The business for tomorrow will now be a timetable motion on the Finance Bill, followed by conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So far we have debated one clause of the Finance Bill, and it was quite clear that progress was being made. We were ready to debate the next clause, on which it was also quite clear that progress would be made. It was equally clear that the Committee would proceed tomorrow in an orderly manner.
It is therefore quite outrageous that the Government should try to timetable the Finance Bill—one of the longest ever introduced—when it is quite clear that the Bill would have been debated properly. The fact is that the Government are no longer confident of their own legislation, which is why they wish to guillotine a Finance Bill, an action unheard of in recent times.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was it in order for the Leader of the House to announce a guillotine motion without giving the House the benefit of an explanation why it is necessary?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The Leader of the House is entirely responsible for his own statements.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett rose—
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The right hon. Lady has not been here.
Mrs. Beckett: Quite right. I was not here because I had no notice of the statement from the Leader of the House. He did not even do me the courtesy of giving me 30 seconds' notice, as he did on the last occasion, of the fact that the Government proposed to guillotine after one day's debate a Finance Bill of more than 200 clauses.
I do not know why this Government even bother to come to Parliament, they have such contempt for the parliamentary process. Is there any Bill that they will not guillotine? They simply cannot be bothered to make their Members stay here to debate crucial issues that affect the British people and the tax package that they will have to pay in April. That is disgraceful, and the Leader of the House knows it. He is not fit to do his job.
Mr. Newton: I have three points to make in response to that. First, anyone who has followed today's proceedings —including speeches verging on an hour's length and many others lasting half an hour, some made by Members who were not in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate —will have recognised organised delaying tactics when they saw them.
Secondly, every effort was made by my hon. Friends in good faith to achieve an understanding. They thought that they had achieved one; manifestly it was not adhered to.

711
Thirdly, if the right hon. Lady would engage in sensible discussion through the usual channels, we would not be in this position.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House rather gave the House the impression that he was making a business statement. Would it not have been more helpful to know clearly that that was what he was doing, thus enabling hon. Members to ask him questions about whether he intended to timetable the entire Bill or merely the clauses taken on the Floor of the House? Important —and very long—Bills such as this, which are not usually timetabled, surely demand some opportunity for discussion in the House and for questioning the Leader of the House about his precise intentions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a business statement, so a modicum of discussion and questioning is appropriate.
Mr. John Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was quite obvious to some of us who wanted to take part in the debate on clause 46 and who have been in the House since 3.30 pm in order to do so that there were only seven hon. Members in the Chamber at 4.30 pm, and such was the poor attendance that many of us suspected that the business would collapse—that it would be a struggle to keep it going until 7 pm.
Hon. Members do not have to sit in the Chamber for hours on end to see what is going on there. What has happened here tonight has been a disgraceful waste of public money, and my right hon. Friend is entirely right to introduce a timetable motion.
Mr. Newton rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Leader of the House answers, I must say that I should be grateful if hon. Members would remember that they should ask questions, not make statements of opinion.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) confirmed one of the points that I made in responding to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). I apologise as I certainly intended no discourtesy by not responding to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). It is our intention that the timetable motion should cover the rest of the proceedings on the Bill as a whole, and should provide probably more, and certainly no less, time than was spent on the previous Finance Bill. It is intended to ensure that the Bill is discussed in the proper and orderly way that both the House and the business community are entitled to expect.
Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House admit that those of us who have been in the Chamber for most of the night were expecting to debate the subsequent clauses—I have my speech ready for the clause that I thought we would go on to debate. We were not in any way attempting to delay business.
What the Leader of the House has done is an absolute disgrace. He has curtailed debate on a Bill that is twice the length of the previous Finance Bill and will enable highly technical legislation to pass through the House without proper scrutiny. The right hon. Gentleman has no proof of any attempt to filibuster. As an Opposition Member, I am
712
proof of the fact that we did not discuss that tactic as I have my speech for later tonight. What has happened is a complete disgrace.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady appears to be confirming that it was the Opposition's intention that such important matters should be debated right through the night, or at least through a good part of it. That is exactly what people outside consider to be a silly way to carry on.
Mr. George Foulkes: The Leader of the House has spoken about a silly way to carry on. I sat through the events. The Serjeant at Arms was unaware of what was happening when he moved the Mace to its position; you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not seem to know as you came from one Chair to the other—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was well aware of what was happening as far as I could see. I am quite clear about what is happening now.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a business statement, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask a question. If not, he should resume his seat.
Mr. Foulkes: I was not clear whether it was a business statement because it started with a point of order and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, taking points of order—[Interruption.] I understand that it says "Point of order" on the annunciator screen. It has not been clarified—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With the greatest respect, we are on a business statement. I am not interested in what appears on the screen; the hon. Gentleman should be paying attention to the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman will ask a question of the Leader of the House in the normal manner, I am sure that he will receive an answer.
Mr. Foulkes: Did not the Leader of the House rise and say, "On a point of order"?
Mr. Newton: I rose and said that, on a point of order, I should like to make a short statement.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: As it is a statement, why does not the Leader of the House have the guts to admit that what he is doing tonight with the guillotine motion is simply because the two wings of the Tory party are fighting like Kilkenny cats? They will not stay up at night in order to get the legislation through, and they treat the British people and taxpayers with arrogance and contempt. The Government are pushing through legislation to introduce 12 more taxes and put another £10 a week tax on everybody's pay packet. They are achieving all that by using the guillotine motion. It is time they packed their bags and went.
Mr. Newton: The contempt of the public—or whatever phrase the hon. Gentleman used—is shown in the deliberate tactic to discuss important matters in the middle of the night.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that the step being taken is pretty unprecedented in relation to a Finance Bill? Will he undertake that the timetable motion that he tables will contain provision for a Committee to be set up

713
to consider the allocation of time on the clauses of the Finance Bill? That seems to be the very least that the Government can do in such extreme circumstances.
Mr. Newton: The Finance Bill was guillotined in 1968, in 1975 and in 1992, just before the election. I intend that the timetable motion should provide for a Business Committee in the ordinary way.
Mrs. Beckett: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you said a moment ago that what appears on the communicator was not your concern, and I understand that it was not your responsibility. You will recall that on a previous occasion it was said that if the communicators did not show "Business statement" hon. Members would not know what was happening. You may also recall that there were clear assurances by the Government to the Speaker and to the House that on no subsequent occasion would the Leader of the House rise on a point of order and make a business statement announcing a guillotine without hon. Members being warned of it. I understand that the House was assured that at least 10 or 15 minutes would be given. This is a gross discourtesy to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you are well aware.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are on questions about business and the Leader of the House is about to respond to the right hon. Lady.
Mr. Newton: I should certainly have wished to give notice, but that was not practicable because of the particular circumstances and, specifically, because of the inter-relationship of the various motions before the House.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Why is it necessary so soon in the progress of the Bill to table a timetable motion? Why is that considered necessary after only one clause has been debated? If the explanation by the Leader of the House is that it is because of some failure to reach an agreement with an Opposition Member, will he sa.y with which hon. Member he considers he had an agreement?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know the contacts to which I am referring, which were not contacts with me personally. If he does not, it would not be right for me to give details of them on the Floor of the House. I have no reason to doubt that they were undertaken in good faith by all those involved. The hon. Gentleman provided his own answer to the first part of his question. The reason for the guillotine is that it has taken all day to debate only one clause, and in a way that made it quite clear that delay was intended.
Mr. Thomas Graham: I took part in the debate on the amendment because my constituency covers Glasgow airport, which is an important employer in my area. My hon. Friend the
714
Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) spoke for 50 minutes because the issue is vital to his constituents who live in the highlands and islands. How can that be a reason for guillotining business that is also important for the rest of Britain?
Mr. Newton: I entirely accept the legitimacy of hon. Members raising constituency issues, but I do not think that it takes 50 minutes or an hour to do it.
Mr. Derek Enright: Is it not the case that the Leader of the House is supposed to protect the interests of Back Benchers? Is it not in the interest of Back Benchers to debate in full a Finance Bill that contains more taxes at a higher level than have ever been put to the House?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) make it quite clear that he thought that his interests as a Back Bencher were being protected by what I have announced.
Mr. Clive Betts: Does not the Leader of the House accept that the guillotine has been imposed for the simple reason that we in the Opposition wanted to give proper scrutiny to a new tax that was mentioned nowhere in the Government's election manifesto? The Government are running away from a proper debate on other taxes that were also not included in that manifesto. Can the Leader of the House find any precedent of a Finance Bill being guillotined after only one clause had been dealt with?
Mr. Newton: I cannot find any precedent either for an Opposition behaving in the way that this one is behaving. If the hon. Gentleman wants proper scrutiny of the Bill, I am giving him an opportunity to do that at sensible hours in a sensible way.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: If the Leader of the House thinks that we ought to debate matters at sensible hours, why, last week, did he direct his hon. Friends dealing with the criminal justice Bill to engage in debate until 4.30 in the morning? Will he tell us the precise terms of the guillotine motion that is to be moved tomorrow? Has he yet thought of them—or is the government to be conducted as he goes along?
Mr. Newton: The guillotine will be tabled very shortly —if it has not been tabled already—and it will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper. I have already indicated its general terms. It will provide for the conclusion of the proceedings on the Floor by 10 o'clock tomorrow night.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Ordered,
That Dr. Michael Clark be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Robert Banks be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Child Support Agency
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sydney Chapman.]
10.40 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Naturally, in one sense, I am delighted that, as a result of the circumstances and of the statement that we have just heard, this Adjournment debate is taking place somewhat earlier than the Minister and I might have expected. That is good, as it means that we can devote our intellectual powers—which I hope are considerable on this occasion—to this very important matter. I am very glad of the opportunity to raise a serious problem affecting a constituent of mine, Mrs. Terri West, and her family as a result of the activities, decisions and rulings—at least on a provisional basis—of the Child Support Agency.
There have been many cases of husbands or former husbands suffering from sharply increased payments for which their circumstances did not allow. In numerical terms, those have constituted the main preoccupation of most hon. Members. In this case, things have gone in the other direction, with the wife, or former wife, suffering very grievously as a result of at least the provisional ruling of the Child Support Agency. I shall go into the details of the case in a moment.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security for coming to the House to reply to this important debate. I hope that he will indicate tonight—and if the occasion so demands, as I think it inevitable that it will, in later correspondence —that this case will be examined very thoroughly, not only because of its grievous effect on one of my constituents, who has fought with great courage to highlight it, but also because of its effect on a large number of other people. We are receiving more and more evidence of the numbers involved.
The tax status of a former head of household is also affected—a very important matter about which there must be consultation between my hon. Friend's Department, the Treasury and the Inland Revenue. This affects the Child Support Agency's behaviour and procedures in its still early days, notwithstanding the improvements that my hon. Friend and his colleagues introduced just before December as a result of the various helpful suggestions of the Select Committee on Social Security. The rigid procedures of the Child Support Agency need to be made more subtle and more supple with a view to dealing with problems such as those that I wish to highlight.
The appeal and reviews too are affected. We must make sure that those work correctly, and not to the detriment of hard-pressed families such as the one involved in this case. There has been a considerable amount of press publicity about this matter. It is not easy for a member of the public to take such a decision, especially when he or she bears in mind the possible effect on the children—in this case, one son and one daughter, who attend local schools and are doing very well—as well as on the rest of the family including, in this case, Mrs. Terri West. She has shown great foresight in her determination to draw attention to her case. Often people will think of doing so, but the thought of the publicity that will inevitably rain down may deter them from action which could benefit many hundreds of others, if not more.
716
The problem arose because of the CSA's assessments in this case. Thankfully, I can emphasise that they are only provisional. The trouble started recently as a result of the agency's determinations. As I will explain later, I have not found its replies so far to be satisfactory.
In 1986, a divorce court ordered Mrs. West's ex-husband to pay £75 a week maintenance in respect of their two children, but that was reduced to £57 as a result of the CSA's ruling.
I thank the press for their interest in the case; various journalists who have been in touch with the West family, me and others; the solicitor acting for Mrs. West—Mr. Anthony Andrews; and others closely involved.
I and others are alarmed at the way in which the agency examined the status, income potential and wealth of the ex-husband in this case, and we question whether its adjudication is right and fair.
That mother of two children is struggling bravely. As we know all too well from our surgery cases, people still suffer from harsh economic conditions even in the south, where we are traditionally used to prosperity by comparison with the north of England. Mrs. West visited my surgery some time ago, having decided that she would not take the matter lying down. I am glad that she has committed all her energy to arguing her case, and I am proud to do so on her behalf in this Adjournment debate.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give a cogent answer tonight as to why the CSA reached the wrong conclusions in Mrs. West's case and is treating her and her family in an oppressive way. He may be tempted, understandably, to say that CSA rules and procedures mean that he cannot comment too much on the confidential details of an individual case. But that will not be enough: he must give at least a part answer tonight. If he wants to defend the CSA, I shall listen carefully and perhaps his answer will continue in later correspondence. If, however, the CSA's rules of confidentiality are just used as an excuse not to answer properly the public's queries, problems and complaints, much more frustration will be generated.
In her letter to me of 26 January, Mrs. West places great emphasis on the crux of the matter. Her husband is not a conventional employee for tax purposes, and now has another potential or actual marriage partner—to whom he is paying an allowance for her work as a secretary in his own company. He created a one-man, limited company. His above-the-line deductions for legitimate business expenses according to Inland Revenue calculations made the below-the-line amounts far too low and the CSA's assessment ridiculously low for a former husband who is extremely prosperous and well off and who can pay far more for the upkeep of his former family—for the care of his children, in particular, and other expenses incurred in maintaining Mrs. West's household.
A moral obligation is involved. If an ex-husband has with his former spouse brought children into the world, there must be a solemn moral obligation as well as a legal requirement for him to acknowledge his obligations, even if he has developed a second family, and to make sure that the children by a former marriage are not harshly treated in the already hard climate of the modern world.
Mrs. West wrote:
"The most important fact that creates my situation is the fact that the CSA cannot consider the income of a 'one-man' limited company, enabling my ex-husband to finance a large amount of

717
his expenditure through his company, ie cars (registered solely as business use)—a Porsche and two BMWs … and entertainment".
He was also allowed to write off other costs as legitimate household expenses—such as a cleaner. The CSA ends up considering only the income that he contributes himself, after—as Mrs. West says in her letter—paying his second wife a salary of £20,000 as company secretary, which Mrs. West contends is an accounting procedure rather than a genuine form of employment.
In a genuine company, there may be an arm's-length relationship between directors, all the legitimate expenses and the normal salary arrangements for someone who may be classified as an employee or a self-employed director. That is one thing, but in a self-created, one-man company, are such arrangements really fair to a former wife and her children?
Mrs. West continues:
"My maintenance agreed by the court in 1986 was £300 per month"—
I have already given quotations to that effect—
"and … has been reduced to £57 per week".
The maintenance,
"under the proposed amendments to the Act in February will be reduced by up to £22 a week because my ex has second family, leaving a sum of approx £35 a week, this amount will then be reduced by a further 25 per cent. because my children are between 11–14, resulting in a figure of approx £26 per week for 2 children … My exempt income has been assessed at £171 a week, and any amount I earn over this amount will reduce his payments further".
If she could earn £800 a month—she cannot at present; it has been a tremendous struggle for her—
"my ex-husband"—
a wealthy entrepreneur with a gross total of £54,000 per annum—
"could end up paying a notional amount"
of probably just over £2 a week.
That is a scandalous state of affairs which cannot be allowed to continue. The Government did not set up the CSA with such a device in mind; they did not want people to be able to escape their obligations. Whatever the rights and wrongs—whatever the circumstances in which families break up, and the reasons for which they do so —these arrangements are entirely wrong.
In her well thought out and well written letter, Mrs. West observes:
"If this amendment goes ahead, I will then be forced into a position of selling the family home, as my sole income it; £78·20 per week from Family Credit and my mortgage is £300 per month including endowment policy."
Talk about desperation and frustration!
In his reply of 27 January—for which I thank him—my hon. Friend the Minister stated:
"As you know, strict rules of confidentiality will not allow me to discuss Mrs. West's particular circumstances on Monday in the House. I will of course, be able to address the principles of her case."
I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that I need some clear, cogent answers to the Government's dilemma about such cases. What further changes do they intend to deal with the CSA's behaviour?
Later, my hon. Friend's letter states:
"Mrs. West has suggested that the Agency should assume the profits of Mr. Tsangarides' business as his income because he is the only director."
Mr. Tsangarides is Mrs. West's former husband.
"This is not appropriate as the absent parent is employed by his company and it is his salary, bonuses, commission and taxable benefits that should be taken into account. This has always been the case … If someone is dissatisfied with a decision about their
718
assessment they may apply for a review of the decision of the child support officer and a different child support officer will re-examine the decision in question."
I received a letter dated 28 January—the day after my hon. Friend's reply—from Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive of the CSA. It referred to the rules of confidentiality, but added:
"Where such verification of financial evidence is required, and is not provided …a…Child Support Agency Inspector has the power to demand to see the accounts and such evidence or information as is deemed necessary."
I submit that in this instance that conclusion was erroneous and inaccurate. It is essential that the review gets to the facts and helps Mrs. West and her children by adjusting the figures. Perhaps my hon. Friend's letter to The Mail on Sunday yesterday will turn out to be more correct than we think at this stage.
10.53 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on having the good fortune to secure this debate and on his enterprise in applying for it. I am also pleased that we are having the debate slightly earlier than might otherwise have been the case, which is for the convenience of hon. Members who are present in the Chamber.
I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the operation of the Child Support Agency. As my hon. Friend is aware, and as I made clear to him in a letter, I am unable to discuss the circumstances of individual cases. However, my hon. Friend is entitled, as are others, to an explanation why. It is not an attempt to evade the issue. It is a recognition of two particular matters. First, such cases involve not just one party who has given consent to disclosure of information. At the very least, another party and children are involved. Therefore, care must be taken, particularly when allegations may have been made by one party rather than another. For those reasons, it is right that some confidentiality is kept.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend said, a review process is available. That review process has already been applied for and the case is being examined extremely carefully. For those reasons, it is not appropriate to go into the individual circumstances of the case in great detail. However, for the convenience of the House and of my hon. Friend, I can assure him that I have listened very carefully to the circumstances that he has raised tonight and I read carefully the letters and the previous explanation of the case given by my hon. Friend. The matter is receiving my attention and that of the CSA. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
Mr. Dykes: Is my hon. Friend also liaising directly with the Inland Revenue on this matter?
Mr. Burt: With respect, it is not appropriate for me to discuss precisely what efforts are made in any particular case to verify matters. However, I will refer later to the principles behind my hon. Friend's question and he will see precisely how the agency might try to deal in general with the difficult circumstances that he has described and he may apply his own conclusions about how we might be dealing with particular cases.
My hon. Friend made a number of valuable comments, the principles of which I will deal with shortly. I am sure that it would be helpful, however, if I first set out the purpose and provisions of the child support scheme. I have,

719
of course, put the points before the House on other occasions in the past, but I make no apology for doing so again, partly because my hon. Friend has done a valuable service by referring to a woman's circumstances.
In recent weeks, we have heard a great deal about the position of absent parents. Nine out of 10 absent parents are fathers and there has been an over-concentration in the media on the circumstances affecting them. The circumstances of the case raised by my hon. Friend have brought to mind the fact that women can be left looking after children in extremely difficult circumstances. That is one reason why the legislation came into effect and why the agency was created. It is only right that I should stress that point.
The child support scheme was introduced because of growing concern about the lack of proper financial provision for children whose parents lived apart. The purpose of the scheme is to obtain maintenance for children and to improve on a discretionary-based system which had failed to halt the number of absent parents not paying maintenance. The scheme is designed to ensure that, wherever possible, parents pay for the maintenance of their own children rather than expect other people, often on a low income, to do so through their taxes. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to refer to the moral dimension of that.
The principle of parental support for children is not new. However, there is no doubt that the old, court-based system was failing the vast majority of children. More and more parents with care were becoming reliant on the benefit system as their means of support. By 1991, almost two thirds of parents with care received no regular maintenance from the absent parent. Where maintenance was in payment, the amounts seldom reflected the true cost of bringing up children.
It became increasingly clear that in many cases absent parents' incomes were improving, but that their children were not sharing in their parents' increased prosperity. There were inconsistencies in amounts awarded, although the circumstances of the people involved appeared to be very similar. The White Paper, "Children Come First", quoted the example where research had identified two fathers each with one child to maintain, each earning £150 per week net. One was required to pay £5 per week in maintenance, the other £50 per week. That cannnot be right. That is why maintenance is now decided not on an arbitrary basis but by a formula which was extensively discussed, both inside and outside Parliament. It ensures that both parents, where they can afford to do so, contribute to the maintenance of their children.
The formula is designed to produce consistent and realistic amounts of maintenance for children, taking account of the fact that children do not look after themselves, and, at the same time, ensure that children share in their parents' increasing prosperity. The formula takes account of the number and ages of all the children, and the income and essential expenditure of both parents. It is based on income support rates. Those are regularly updated and they provide a ready means of updating the amount of child maintenance to be paid, unlike the court-based system where there was no automatic increase. Court orders could remain in force for years at the same rate.
720
The formula applies to all families where maintenance is an issue, and it therefore eliminates inconsistency. It applies to people who are getting benefit and to those who are not. The formula is detailed because it is intended to deal with the complexities of individuals' circumstances. The effect of the formula is that people in similar financial situations will pay similar amounts of maintenance.
Undoubtedly, in some cases, once the formula is applied, the amount of maintenance paid to the parent with care for children, whether it was by order of a court or voluntary agreement, reduces. A reduction in those circumstances is a consequence of applying, for the first time, a set of rules that treats the income and outgoings of both parents in a similar manner. Where a court order included an award for the parent with care, that element remains. The parent with care can, if she chooses, apply to the court to have the order varied. I understand that that might be the circumstance in the case dealt with by my hon. Friend.
One of the fundamental principles of the new system is that parents have a legal responsibility to support their children financially if they can afford to do so. There is, however, no responsibility on a new partner to contribute to the maintenance of her partner's child from a previous relationship. If the couple have a child of their own, the new partner's income is looked at to see whether she can afford to contribute to that child's support, enabling the absent parent to contribute more to the support of his first family.
When the Child Support Agency works out how much maintenance is to be paid, it looks at the assessable income of both parents. Assessable income is income available for child maintenance. It is income left after allowance has been made for day-to-day expenditure against net income. Net income is the total income from all sources available to the absent parent or parent with care. The agency asks for evidence of income in all cases, with the main source of information about earnings coming from salary slips. If there is difficulty in collecting evidence of income, the agency can appoint a child support inspector to examine wage records where the absent parent is employed, or accounts if he is self-employed.
Inspectors have the power to enter any premises specified in their certificate of appointment and can look at whatever documentation they consider appropriate. Failure to co-operate with an inspector is a criminal offence. Inspectors, in practice, are used only as a last resort where an employer or self-employed person is not co-operating with the agency. Such investigative powers were not available to the courts under the old scheme and so, in some cases, awards would have been made without the full facts being known.
It is not uncommon that the two parties involved have a differing view of each other's income. That has always been the case in ancillary proceedings. Anyone with experience of such work in the courts knows that it was not uncommon, often representing a woman in financial proceedings, to receive an affidavit from the other party, look at the income declared and say, "You must be joking," and have a discussion with the client about the revealing or non-revealing of income and assets. It is impossible fully and properly to resolve that problem.
The difference perhaps between the courts and the Child Support Agency is that the Child Support Agency has available to it rather more extensive powers of investigation at its own expense rather than at the expense

721
of one of the parties. In the past, just as it was impossible sometimes to trace an absent parent who had disappeared completely and a private investigator had to be employed, the same applied to expressions of concern about income and the like. It was necessary to employ private investigators to try to find out what the real income was. The Child Support Agency has more powers. But trying to ascertain what might be the true state of a party's finances, especially in the case of self-employed people, will always remain a problem. However, as I said, the agency has powers in this case to co-operate with a variety of other agencies to identify exactly how much money might be available.
It is not uncommon that, even if the basic facts of what the income might be are agreed, there might still be different interpretations between each of the sides as to how the money is obtained and what it is for. The earnings of a self-employed person are not always straightforward. There will be circumstances where, although one party feels aggrieved or unhappy about what has been accepted as a true indication of those earnings, they are legally correct. Accepting that that is the case can be difficult in some circumstances.
Once the agency has worked out how much child maintenance the absent parent should pay, both parents are notified in writing. The notification gives details as to how maintenance has been calculated, including details of the assessable income of both parents.
Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend is giving the impression that he agrees with the agency's adjudication in this matter. If that is correct, it is very disturbing.
Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is wrong; I am not suggesting that at all. I am not dealing with the facts of this specific case. All I am saying is that, just as in the past there was a dispute between the revelation of earnings in ancillary financial proceedings, and a dispute between the parties as to whether the figures were true and an adjudication had to be made—sometimes when the adjudication was made, there was still disappointment on one side or the other—the same circumstances can apply with regard to cases under the Child Support Agency. I do not know the circumstances of this specific case which a review or any subsequent appeal will find. I have no knowledge. All I am doing is setting out the process that the agency must follow to verify the facts. It may be that the facts are agreed, but there may still be a difference of opinion between the two parties with regard to the amounts that may be revealed. However, that is not a matter for me.
Mr. Dykes: What is the point then of a Member of Parliament raising the matter in an Adjournment debate?
Mr. Burt: That is not a matter for me. My hon. Friend did not approach me about the case before he applied for the Adjournment debate; otherwise I would have told him that the individual circumstances could not be discussed, as I made clear to him in a letter. I am more than happy to discuss what information I can with my hon. Friend in private, but I gave the reasons why I could not go into the matter in the House. A review is taking place, and other people's circumstances have to be taken into consideration. It was my hon. Friend's decision to apply for the Adjournment debate, not mine.
Having received a notification, either party has a right to ask for a review or to appeal. The agency is therefore
722
obliged to set out in sufficient detail the calculation of the assessment so that both parties may make an informed decision as to whether the assessment is correct. A balance has been struck between the need for confidentiality of the information which is given to the agency and the obligation to provide information that is essential to enable a decision to be made on whether to apply for a review or to appeal. If parents with care or absent parents believe that the information the agency has used to work out how much maintenance should be paid is incorrect, they can ask for a review or seek an appeal at no cost to themselves. The agency does not disclose information other than is necessary for either party to make an informed decision about whether to seek a review or appeal. That procedure has been properly followed in this case.
The vast majority of lone parents are in receipt of an income-related benefit. However, we know that most of them wish to work now or at some time in the fairly near future, usually once their children are established at school. Maintenance payments therefore are valuable income which lone parents can take with them when they return to work; it is income additional to earnings. The Government recognise that lone parents may face extra problems combining the role of bread winner and child rearer and therefore there are special rules in the benefit system to help those lone parents who want to work.
The Child Support Agency has received its fair share of attention in the past few weeks. It is important to realise that the media choose to give only one side of the story in the vast majority of cases. But a more balanced presentation which seeks to explain that there are two sides to every story would go some way to balancing the scaremongering articles and programmes that certain elements of the media feel obliged to present.
Perhaps the tide is turning slowly. I was pleased to see an article in The Times today that put the case of one of the large groups whose voice has been largely unheard in the present debate—parents with care. The article stated:
"The Child Support Agency has really done its bit for me. It has managed to get money that I would never otherwise have had … I didn't know what to do until the CSA took on my case. They have been super—really helpful."
The views of a parent with care seldom seem to get the publicity that they are due.
We recognise that, while the basic principles behind the new system are supported by Parliament and the country, there have been genuine concerns about the way in which the system has worked in detail. We recently announced proposals to bring forward a package of changes to child support arrangements which take account not only of the Select Committee's thoughtful and balanced report, but reflect representations which have been received from hon. Members and the public.
I hope that the changes will help. I can assure my hon. Friend in relation to the case which he has raised today that I am looking extremely carefully at the circumstances. The case has gone to review where it will be properly considered, and, should any lessons be learnt which are capable of wider application, he has my assurance that that will be the case. I expect to be discussing the matter with him privately in the future. I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to discuss the case.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics" policy for his Department during 1994.

  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 January,Official Report, column 849.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 20 January to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Meriden for answer on 29 November, if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in supplying his answer.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the inordinate delay in answering his question, and for the inconvenience this caused to him. This delay was a result of the question having been overlooked when it was first tabled.

  Duchy Benevolent Fund
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the membership of the board of the Duchy of Lancaster benevolent fund, their dates of appointment; and what criteria were used in selecting appointees.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The trustees of the Duchy Lancaster benevolent fund are:

  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster: The right hon. William Waldegrave, MP

  The Duchy Attorney General: Mr. Timothy Lloyd, Q.C.

  The Duchy Receiver General: Major Sir Shane Blewitt, KCVO

  The Vice Chancellor of the County Palatine: The hon. Justice Morritt

  Sir Michael Bunbury, Bt

  Sir Simon Towneley, KCVO, JP

  Professor Christopher Howes, CB

  Mr. John Sclater

  Clerk of the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster: Mr. Michael Ridley, CVO

  All were appointed on 1 October 1993 when the benevolent fund was made a charitable trust. All trustees are members of the Duchy Council and are distinguished in various fields relating to Duchy matters. For example, Sir Simon Towneley is the Lord-Lieutenant of Lancashire.
  472
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the advisers within the County Palatine who advise the Duchy's benevolent fund on applications it receives for financial assistance.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The principal advisers are the Lords-Lieutenant of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. The secretary of the fund also keeps in contact with organisations which advise on charitable giving, for example the charities advice and information service of the community council of Lancashire, and makes use of his own extensive contacts in the County Palatine to evaluate applications for assistance.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which of the provisions in sections 4.1, 4.1 annex A, 4.2 and 4.3 annex A of the civil service management categories of civil servant are exempt.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  These provisions apply to all civil servants. Exceptionally, special advisers are not covered by the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments —annex A to section 4.3—as the rules themselves make clear.

  Public Appointments (Women)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what targets have been set for an increased percentage of women in public appointments for all Departments as following the 1989 Cabinet Office review of the public appointments process; and what is the current progress towards them.

  Mr. David Davis
  Departmental plans and goals for the increased representation of women on public bodies were published on 16 November 1992. A summary of these is in the Library of the House. The percentage of public appointments held by women has risen from 23 per cent. in 1991 to 26 per cent. in 1992 and 28 per cent. in 1993. Further details are available in the 1993 edition of "Public Bodies", a copy of which is also available in the Library of the House.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide a figure for the number of staff in his Department covered by statutory sick pay.

  Mr. David Davis
  The number of staff covered by statutory sick pay in the Cabinet Office and the Office of Public Service and Science is 1,340.

ENVIRONMENT

  Agencies
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters addressed to Ministers in his Department in the last 12 months by(a) hon. Members and (b) others have been forwarded for reply to each agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Some 295 letters from hon. Members addressed to Ministers in my Department have been replied
  473
  to directly, by the Planning Inspectorate agency, during 1993. No other agencies in my Department have replied to such letters. Information about letters from other correspondents is not available.

  Urban Deprivation Index
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will produce the newly revised indicators of poverty to be used in the new urban deprivation index; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We hope to finalise the indicators to be used in the census-based index of local conditions shortly.

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

  Mr. Gummer
  I have no such plans.

  Environmental Approach (Launch Meeting)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which hon. and right hon. Members who are not Ministers were invited to attend the meeting in the Banqueting House to launch the Government's environmental approach.

  Mr. Atkins
  Members of the House were not invited to attend the meeting in the Banqueting House, which was a press conference in the presence of people who had been associated with preparation of the documents, but all four reports are Command papers which were presented to Parliament in the usual way.

  Water Supply (Lead Levels)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to identify the areas most at risk from lead levels in water supply; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  A direction has been made requiring water supply companies annually to provide information on the risk that drinking water might breach the standard for lead. This information for 1989 and 1990 was published in the report "Nitrate, Pesticides and Lead" issued by the drinking water inspectorate in 1992. A report for 1991 and 1992 will be published in due course.

  CCT Evaluation Reports
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department's compulsory competitive tendering evaluation reports will be published.

  Mr. Baldry
  In July 1993 my Department published two reports of research on the results of CCT carried out by the University of Birmingham Institute of Local Government Studies, following publication of preliminary research in 1991. This independent research showed that CCT had led to an average cost reduction of 6·5 per cent., and up to 20 per cent. for certain services; higher standards and more systematic monitoring of delivery; and better management and improved staff morale. Copies of the two reports were placed in the Library of the House. The 474
  Department is now carrying out further research to evaluate the private sector's experience of CCT, reports on which we expect to publish later this year.

  Administration Expenditure
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of city challenge, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses(a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed;

  (2) if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of housing action trusts, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses (a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed;

  (3) if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of inner-city task forces, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses (a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed;

  (4) if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of estate action, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses (a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed;

  (5) if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of the Urban Regeneration Agency, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses (a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed;

  (6) if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of the urban programmes, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses (a) over the last 15 years and (b) since the scheme was developed;

  (7) if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of the city action teams, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses (a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed;

  (8) if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of the urban development corporations, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses (a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed.

  Mr. Baldry
  Detailed information on my Department's administration expenditure is not readily available in the form requested. But a breakdown of departmental staff effort by function is available in the DOE's annual published MINIS return.

  Deregulation Task Forces
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his response to paragraphs 190 to 319 of the recommendations of the proposals for reform of the deregulation task forces, as they affect his Department's policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  The substantial deregulation action that my Department is taking to reduce unnecessary controls on business while safeguarding environmental and public safety is fully set out at pages 36 to 44 of the DTI
  475
  publication "Deregulation—Cutting Red Tape" that was issued on 19 January together with the complete list of the task force's proposals for reform.

  Fire and Civil Defence Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the expenditure and standard spending assessment for fire and civil defence purposes in

  Fire and civil defence net revenue expenditure and standard spending assessment in each fire authority area per 1,000 population for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 (SSA only)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Local authority

  Expenditure (£)

  SSA (£)

  Expenditure (£)

  SSA (£)

  SSA (£)

  Greater Manchester Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  22,757

  24,140

  25,026

  25,957

  27,634

  Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  28,830

  28,797

  31,708

  31,103

  32,699

  South Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  21,307

  19,054

  23,083

  21,069

  21,742

  Tyne and Wear Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  25,395

  26,044

  28,208

  29,216

  30,606

  West Midlands Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  21,275

  23,507

  23,842

  25,325

  25,778

  West Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  23,262

  21,035

  24,237

  22,891

  23,719

  Isles of Scilly

  48,148

  31,169

  45,662

  33,919

  26,136

  London Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  32,473

  32,966

  34,489

  35,055

  35,664

  Avon

  20,392

  19,401

  21,301

  20,487

  21,281

  Bedfordshire

  19,472

  18,856

  21,148

  20,377

  20,725

  Berkshire

  17,929

  19,696

  19,614

  21,755

  22,061

  Buckinghamshire

  15,263

  17,338

  17,881

  19,017

  19,307

  Cambridgeshire

  17,136

  15,973

  17,802

  17,262

  17,972

  Cheshire

  19,514

  18,143

  20,883

  19,893

  20,798

  Cleveland

  32,111

  31,362

  34,869

  33,813

  34,912

  Cornwall

  18,966

  14,809

  20,352

  15,573

  15,176

  Cumbria

  20,859

  16,241

  23,739

  17,023

  17,875

  Derbyshire

  17,567

  16,133

  18,794

  17,962

  18,156

  Devon

  18,420

  17,354

  20,346

  18,525

  18,804

  Dorset

  17,557

  16,637

  18,309

  17,847

  18,195

  Durham

  20,265

  18,924

  21,866

  20,841

  21,466

  East Sussex

  20,298

  18,941

  22,205

  20,120

  20,796

  Essex

  19,602

  18,501

  21,019

  20,285

  20,309

  Gloucestershire

  16,942

  15,860

  17,402

  17,051

  17,827

  Hampshire

  16,254

  18,289

  16,759

  19,699

  20,038

  Hereford and Worcester

  17,096

  15,981

  18,025

  17,496

  17,661

  Hertfordshire

  17,312

  18,774

  18,623

  20,575

  20,502

  Humberside

  24,555

  21,451

  26,276

  23,532

  24,384

  Isle of Wight

  22,223

  16,252

  25,141

  17,576

  17,610

  Kent

  20,558

  18,478

  21,670

  19,881

  20,143

  Lancashire

  21,350

  20,540

  22,331

  21,710

  22,918

  Leicestershire

  14,892

  17,128

  16,266

  18,435

  18,998

  Lincolnshire

  16,256

  14,705

  16,780

  15,741

  16,173

  Norfolk

  16,732

  15,408

  18,173

  16,517

  17,133

  Northamptonshire

  17,106

  17,491

  18,431

  18,798

  19,179

  Northumberland

  27,819

  17,237

  28,143

  18,698

  18,959

  North Yorkshire

  18,210

  15,085

  19,552

  16,115

  16,653

  Nottinghamshire

  18,857

  18,555

  19,178

  20,149

  20,771

  Oxfordshire

  15,905

  17,080

  18,817

  18,493

  19,467

  Shropshire

  18,678

  16,615

  19,889

  18,824

  19,001

  Somerset

  17,082

  14,801

  18,914

  15,736

  16,390

  Staffordshire

  17,412

  16,613

  16,809

  17,909

  18,470

  Suffolk

  17,392

  15,624

  18,178

  16,607

  16,655

  Surrey

  21,967

  19,062

  23,599

  21,739

  21,413

  Warwickshire

  21,258

  16,200

  22,682

  17,857

  18,359

  West Sussex

  18,607

  18,969

  19,750

  20,474

  20,732

  Wiltshire

  16,014

  16,076

  17,362

  17,033

  17,413

  Expenditure: 1991–92 figures are final outturn, 1992–93 are revised estimates, both are at outturn prices.

  Programme Funding
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount of funding made available over the last year by(a) estate action, (b) housing action trusts, (c) city challenge, (d) the urban programme, (e) the Urban Regeneration Agency, (f) urban development corporations, (g) inner-city task forces and (h) city action teams.
  476
  each fire authority area as expenditure of standard spending assessment per 1,000 population served for (a) 1991–92, (b) 4992–93 and, so far as standard spending assessment is concerned, for 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total amount of funding provided by my Department under each of these programmes for the financial year ending March 1994 is forecast to be:

  1993–94 Forecast Outturn £ million

  (a) Estate Action

  356·0

  (b) Housing Action Trusts

  86·8

  (c) City Challenge

  223·2

  (d) Urban Programme

  173·0

  477

  1993–94 Forecast Outturn £ million

  (e) Urban Regeneration Agency (URA)

  158·0

  (f) Urban Development Corporations

  380·8

  (g) Inner City Task Forces

  18·0

  (h) City Action Teams

  3·4

  1 Includes city grant provision up to 10 November 1993 when responsibility transferred to English Partnerships (the URA).

  Stray Dogs
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the most recent estimate for the number of stray dogs recovered by local authorities for each year since 1991.

  Mr. Atkins
  The National Dog Wardens Association estimates that the number of dogs picked up by or taken to local authorities in Great Britain was 90,000 in 1991 and 140,000 in 1992. A figure for 1993 is not yet available. These figures do not reflect the total number of stray dogs as some may be returned directly to their owners or be taken to the police or to animal charities.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will reply to the letter of 22 December 1993 from the hon. Member for Leicester, East.

  Mr. Baldry
  I replied to the hon. Member on 27 January.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment as to the number of district authorities which would be granted a provisional increase in their standard spending assessments of more than 10 per cent. in 1994–95 was made in reaching his determination, expressed in his Budget statement, that the growth in spending in England in 1994–95 would be limited to 2·3 per cent.

  Mr. Baldry
  The figure for total standard spending for 1994–95 represents the Government's view of an appropriate level of net revenue expenditure by local authorities taking account of the pressures on local authorities and general economic conditions. The distribution of the total of standard spending assessments will be determined according to the formulae set out in the local government finance report laid before the House on 27 January. As a result of the extensive review of the method of calculating SSAs for 1994–95 some authorities will find their SSAs increasing between years while others will face a reduction.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by financial year, each contract worth more than £100,000 entered into by Leeds development corporation for the purchase or sale of land and buildings.

  Mr. Baldry
  All details of commercial contracts entered into between a vendor and a purchaser are 478
  commercial in confidence and releasing such information would require the agreement of both of the parties concerned. Development corporations are required to obtain independent valuations before entering into contracts for the sale or purchase of land or buildings to ensure that the proper market valuation is paid.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out for each financial year since its inception(a) the amount of money spent on acquiring land and buildings and (b) the amount of money received for the sale of land and buildings by Leeds development corporation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Expenditure and receipts in respect of the acquisition and sale of land and buildings by Leeds development corporation from inception until 31 March 1993 are as follows:

  Expenditure (£000)

  Receipts (£000)

  1988–89

  935

  0

  1989–90

  5,671

  0

  1990–91

  7,542

  7

  1991–92

  3,377

  1,861

  1992–93

  6,393

  4,041

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to celebrate the centenary of the Local Government Act 1894 and to mark the social contribution made by parish councils to their communities.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend is considering what actions to take to celebrate the centenary of the Local Government Act 1894. We greatly value the contribution parish and town councils have made to their local communities.

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

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of staff in the Department and its agencies covered by statutory sick pay at 31 December 1993 was 7,421.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 674, what are the additional costs, net of any reduction in employer's national insurance contributions, to his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95 of the changes in statutory sick pay provision.

  Mr. Gummer
  There should be no net costs to my departmental budget.

  Sea Bathing
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the final report into the health effects of sea bathing will be published; and if he will make a statement.
  479
  Mr. Atkins
  The Water Research Centre is today publishing the final report of the four-year programme of research into the health effects of sea bathing. The research was jointly funded by my own Department, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Health, and the National Rivers Authority.

  I welcome the report. The Government have funded this independent research because of concerns expressed about the possibility of contracting illnesses from swimming at our holiday beaches. It will provide reassurance for the many people who enjoy sea bathing.

  The work has demonstrated for the first time that sea water itself has effects on sea bathers, causing an increase in reported symptoms such as eye irritations, sore ears and skin rashes. It has also confirmed the relationship which was already known between the level of particular micro-organisms in sea water and the reporting of gastro-intestinal symptoms and diarrhoea. However, the report concludes that the current mandatory EC standards give adequate health protection.

  I and colleagues in the other Departments agree with this assessment and believe that any additional benefit to be gained by tightening EC standards is likely to be insignificant.

  The Government are committed to securing improvements in our bathing waters. A £2 billion programme is in hand to bring virtually all United Kingdom bathing waters up to the mandatory standards of the EC bathing water directive by the end of 1995. Already 80 per cent. of our 458 bathing waters meet or exceed these standards. The forthcoming very large expenditures to implement the urban waste water treatment directive will improve further the quality of our coastal water.

  Copies of the full report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Right-to-repair Scheme
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the final details of the new right-to-repair scheme for council tenants.

  Sir George Young
  I have today laid before the House the Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994—SI 1994/133—which will introduce an improved right-to-repair scheme for council tenants from 1 April 1994. Copies of the regulations and an explanatory circular are being sent to all housing authorities in England.

  This citizens charter initiative will give council tenants the right to have certain urgent repairs carried out at no cost to themselves, and will provide a simple and reliable way of getting the work done when the council fails to complete a qualifying repair within a specified period.

  The improved right-to-repair scheme will be far more effective in ensuring that councils get repairs done quickly at no cost to the tenant. Where the scheme fails to work, tenants will be compensated for the inconvenience caused to them.

  The regulations set out which small urgent repairs, costing up to £250, are included in the scheme, and how long councils will have to complete them. If a repair is not carried out within the specified period the tenant will be able to ask the council to instruct a second contractor to complete the repair, with the cost being met by the council.

  If the second contractor fails to complete the repair within a second specified period the tenant will be entitled
  480
  to compensation of £10, plus £2 per day for every day that the repair remains outstanding, up to a maximum payment of £50.

  The repair times in the regulations will apply to all new contracts let after 1 April 1994. Transitional arrangements will apply for councils whose existing contract have longer repair times. However, all councils must comply with the repair times in the regulations by 1 April 1996.

  Irish Sea Science
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by the Irish sea science co-ordinator in reviewing Irish sea science since his appointment was announced on 11 March 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  The co-ordinator prepared an inventory of "Research and Monitoring on the Irish Sea" with the assistance of organisations on both sides of the Irish sea. The inventory was submitted to the United Kingdom and Irish Governments as the "First Report of the Irish Sea Science Co-ordinator". I am placing copies in the Library of the House today. The co-ordinator is now undertaking a review based on the inventory to identify possible gaps and overlaps in current programmes. A further report will be made available to the House once the review has been completed.

  Car Hire
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of hiring private cars in 1992–93; and for what purposes they were hired.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: The total cost to the Department, including Property Holdings and the Property Services Agency, of vehicle hire in 1992–93 was some £1·16 million. This figure includes some expenditure on the Government car service.

  The major use of private cars is for site inspections or visits by staff. Private vehicles are also used for regional visits.

  Vehicles are also hired on an ad hoc basis for travelling to conferences or meetings, for collecting equipment from suppliers and for journeys connected with the maintenance and installation of security systems.

  Landfill Pricing
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will take action on the report published in 1993 on "Landfill Pricing: Correcting Possible Market Distortions"; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to introduce a tax on waste to landfill; and if he will make a statement;

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are examining the idea of introducing a landfill levy. To inform our decisions, we published reports in 1993 on "Landfill Pricing: Correcting Possible Market Distortions" and "Externalities from Landfill and Incineration". We invited comments on both reports. The deadline for comments on the second report was 7 January 1994. We are now considering the reports and comments received on them and will announce our decisions in due course.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what further initiatives he intends to introduce to increase the recycling of waste; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what recycling initiatives he has introduced to reduce waste to landfill.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: Full details of the Government's recycling initiatives are given in the annual reports on the White Paper "This Common Inheritance"; copies are in the Library. Initiatives involving my Department in the past year include: the development of producer responsibility schemes under which industries contributing to major waste streams have been asked to develop plans for the recovery of significantly higher levels of their waste; the allocation of some £15 million in supplementary credit approvals to encourage the development of recycling initiatives by local authorities; and changing the basis of payment for recycling credits from 50 per cent. of the long-run marginal cost of disposal to 100 per cent. with effect from 1 April 1994. We keep our recycling policies under review and will introduce further initiatives where appropriate.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the results of his industry waste recovery plan.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: Under our producer responsibility initiative we are asking industry to take responsibility for ensuring that a significantly higher proportion of the wastes it produces is recovered for beneficial uses. In July 1993 we challenged the packaging industry to devise a plan to secure the recovery of between 50 per cent. and 75 per cent. of all packaging waste by the year 2000, compared with 34 per cent. currently being achieved; we also asked it to take immediate steps to safeguard the United Kingdom recycling infrastructure for waste paper and board and plastics. In November, the producer responsibility group presented an interim report which committed the industry to providing support for these sectors until its full plan is implemented. PRG submitted a draft of its full plan for official consideration before Christmas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment expects to receive a final version of the plan shortly.

  The producer responsibility concept embraces industries responsible for a wide range of waste streams. In addition to the packaging industry, the Government have asked the newspaper, tyre, battery, electronic equipment and motor vehicle industries to devise plans.

  Tyne and Wear Development Corporation
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) jobs and (b) jobs for youth have been created by the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation;

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: Up to the end of December 1993, Tyne and Wear development corporation created 12,230 gross jobs. The corporation does not keep information which would enable "jobs for youth" to be separately identified.
  482
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of inward investment has been attracted by the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: The total private sector investment attracted by the corporation into the urban development area, to the end of December 1993, is almost £600 million. Expenditure by companies moving into the UDA from elsewhere in the United Kingdom or overseas is estimated at £65 million.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Relations
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with which countries the United Kingdom has no diplomatic relations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The following are the states recognised by Her Majesty's Government with which the Government do not currently have diplomatic relations:

  Bhutan

  Iraq

  Korea (North)

  Libya

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries of the former USSR to which the United Kingdom has not appointed ambassadors.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has appointed ambassadors to all the countries of the former Soviet Union, some resident and some non-resident. Our ambassador in Moscow is at present accredited to Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan as well as Russia. He will shortly be giving up his responsibilities for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, to which our ambassadors in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan respectively will be cross-accredited. We also have resident ambassadors in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in appointing a person, under section 10(3AA) of the Asylum and Immigration Appeal Act 1993, to monitor refusals of entry clearance where there is no right of appeal by virtue of section 10(3A) of the Act; and in what manner the person appointed will discharge his or her functions.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have appointed Elizabeth Anson to be the first independent monitor. Lady Anson has been appointed for a period of three years; she took up her duties with effect from 1 December and will make her first report before 30 November 1994, which I will lay before Parliament.

  The monitor will look at a random sample of refusals of entry clearance where there is no statutory right of appeal as a result of the 1993 Act. She will consider whether the standards required by legislation or administrative practice, by which decisions are reached, are being applied correctly and fairly. During the early part of each year, she will visit a number of posts to assist her understanding of practice and procedure at overseas posts.
  483
  The review will be undertaken in London and will encompass all entry clearance posts. The sample will be drawn randomly and posts will not know in advance which cases have been chosen for review.

  It is not intended that the review should become an alternative appeals system; nor will it be a procedure for applicants or sponsors to seek to have their decisions reviewed in individual cases. The monitor will have no powers to overturn decisions. It will be a further check on the standards which are being applied to decisions in entry clearance posts.

  World Community
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussion he has had with his French, German and American counterparts to improve the cohesion and effectiveness of the world community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend is in frequent contact with his French, German and American counterparts on issues which could contribute to this cohesion and effectiveness. One of the most important is the Uruguay round trade negotiations, the successful conclusions of which will make a major contribution to economic growth in developing and developed countries alike.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the methods by which NATO intends to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and what is the definition of weapons of mass destruction agreed in this strategy.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The alliance's approach to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction does not seek to duplicate traditional preventive non-proliferation policies to which the United Kingdom Government remain committed. It will review what steps are necessary for the alliance to protect against and deter any threat to it from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which in this context, include chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy proposals the United Kingdom plans to put to the resumed negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty within the framework of the United Nations committee on disarmament, beginning in Geneva on 24 January; what is the composition of the United Kingdom delegation; and what is the timetable for the negotiations.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A detailed statement of our approach to the negotiations was made by Sir Michael Weston, the head of the United Kingdom delegation to the conference on disarmament, on 25 January. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House. Our aim will be to make good speed towards the conclusion of an effective treaty.

  The conference on disarmament proceeds by consensus, and the timetable for negotiations will therefore depend on the speed with which agreement can be reached on the key
  484
  elements of the treaty. But we continue to doubt that fixing a firm deadline for the achievement of a treaty will promote the chances of a successful outcome to the negotiations. Our delegation will be supported as necessary by officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, and staff from the Atomic Weapons Establishment.

  Mehdi Dibaj
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with the Iranian ambassador the decision of the Iranian Government: to execute Mehdi Dibaj for converting to Christianity; and if he will strongly urge the Iranian Government to reverse this decision.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The European Union, with our full support, has raised the case of Rev. Mehdi Dibaj with the Iranian authorities in Tehran and Geneva. We have also made clear to the Iranian embassy in London our concern at the death sentence passed on him. We understand that Rev. Dibaj has been released on bail but that his case is still before the Iranian supreme court. The European Union will continue to follow his case closely.

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

  Mr.Goodlad
  None. On behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council regularly organises and supports exhibitions of British photography. It has 16 such exhibitions already scheduled for this year and another five under preparation. It has also bought a large number of photographs for the British Council collection.

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

  Mr. Goodlad
  The rooms of the Secretary of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office comprise his own office, his private offices and a waiting room. There are 45 paintings or prints and 21 photographs on the walls of these rooms.

  Visitor's Passport
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which members of the European Union accept the British visitor's passport as a travel document for entry into their country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All members of the European Union currently accept the British visitor's passport for entry into their countries, except Ireland which forms part of a common travel area with the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the kingdom of Spain about the future acceptance of the British visitor's passport; and if he will make a statement.
  485
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British embassy in Madrid expressed concern to the Spanish authorities at the time they announced their intention to withdraw recognition of the British visitor's passport. Further representations will shortly be made by Her Majesty's ambassador. I shall write to the right hon. Member when the outcome of these representations is known.

  Malaysia
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the protocol signed with the Government of Malaysia in March 1988 which included references to aid and defence equipment sales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  It is established practice that confidential documents exchanged between Governments on such matters as defence sales should not be published. The Government will co-operate fully with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in the inquiry which it announced on 26 January.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government began discussions with the Government of Malaysia about the construction of a military base at Mersing in Malaysia; whether such discussions took place concurrently with talks about his Department's funding for the Pergau dam project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Discussions between the two Governments about a military base at Mersing first took place in July 1987.

  The application from the British consortium for support from the aid and trade provision for the Pergau hydro-electric project was received in November 1988.

  Discussions of the two issues were entirely independent of each other and have remained so.

  Azerbaijan
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he has taken to ensure that military equipment or assistance is not supplied by British-registered companies to Azerbaijan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe's embargo on the supply of arms to the parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute still applies. We adhere to this fully and have not approved licences for the export of any military equipment to Azerbaijan or Armenia. Nor will we do so.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policies exist over the supplying of arms and military equipment to Azerbaijan and Armenia; when such policies were implemented; whether there have been changes in policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since February 1992, a voluntary CSCE embargo has been in place on the supply of military equipment to the parties in the Nagorno-Karabakh. We have stood by the terms of this embargo and will continue to do so.

  As I made clear in my answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 28 January, Official Report, column 468, it would be a serious matter if a British company were found to be breaking this embargo.
  486
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with(a) United Kingdom companies and (b) persons acting as their representatives or consultants about the possible supply of arms and mercenaries to Azerbaijan; if he will name each such company or persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am not aware of any discussions with United Kingdom companies, their representatives or consultants about the possible supply of arms and mercenaries to Azerbaijan.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) of 17 January,Official Report, columns 354–55, if he will list for each Council of Europe convention and agreement mentioned the lead Department in the British Government.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 21 January 1994]: The table shows the lead Government Department for each of the conventions referred to in the question.

  Department of the Environment

  European outline convention on transfrontier co-operation between territorial communities or authorities (1980)

  European charter of local self-government (1985)

  Convention on civil liability for damage resulting from activities dangerous to the environment (1993)

  Department for Education

  European convention on the general equivalence of periods of university study (1990)

  Department of Health

  Agreement on the transfer of corpses (1973)

  Arrangement for the application of the European agreement of 17 October 1980 concerning the provision of medical care to persons during temporary residence (1988)

  Department of National Heritage

  European convention on offences relating to cultural property (1985)

  Department of Transport

  European convention on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles (1959)

  European convention on the international effects of deprivation of the right to drive a motor vehicle (1976)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Agreement relating to application of the European convention on international commercial arbitration (1962)

  European convention providing a uniform law of arbitration (1966)

  European convention on establishment of companies (1966)

  European convention on foreign money liabilities (1967)

  European convention on the place of payment of money liabilities (1972)

  European convention on civil liability for damage caused by motor vehicles (1973)

  European convention on products liability in regard to personal injury and death (1977)

  European convention on certain international aspects of bankruptcy (1990)

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  European convention on consular functions (1967)

  Home Office

  European convention on the supervision of conditionally sentenced or conditionally released offenders (1964)

  European convention on the punishment of road traffic offences (1964)

  European convention on "au pair" placement (1969)

  487

  European convention on the international validity of criminal judgments (1970)

  European convention on the repatriation of minors (1970)

  European convention on the transfer of proceedings in criminal matters (1972)

  European convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitation to crimes against humanity and war crimes (1974)

  European Convention on the legal status of migrant workers (1977)

  European convention on the control of the acquisition and possession of firearms by individuals (1978)

  European convention for the protection of pet animals (1987)

  European charter on regional or minority languages

  Inland Revenue

  Convention on mutual administration assistance in tax matters (1988)

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  European Convention on the calculation of time limits (1972)

  European convention on the service abroad of documents relating to administrative matters (1977)

  European convention on the obtaining abroad of information and evidence in administrative matters (1978)

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Eueropean Convention for the protection of animals for slaughter (1979)

  Department of Social Security

  European convention on social security (1972)

  Supplementary agreement to the European convention on social security (1972)

  European code of social security (Revised) (1990)

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what plans he has for an embargo on military supplies to Nigeria;

  (2) what action he has taken to express Her Majesty's Government's view about the continued military dictatorship in Nigeria; and what international action he is urging.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the written reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 2 December, at column 680.

  The measures aimed at the Nigerian military announced then, in concert with our partners in the European Union, remain in force. We continue to consult closely with our partners and are keeping these measures under review.

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

  Mr. Goodlad
  The cost of advertising in the United Kingdom by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for recruitment in 1992–93, the last financial year for which information is available, was:

  FCO Diplomatic Wing £

  FCO ODA Wing £

  1992–93

  150,787

  238,033

  488
  The corresponding figures for 1979–80 and 1985–86 are:

  FCO Diplomatic Wing £

  FCO ODA Wing £

  1979–80

  100,266

  214,739

  1985–86

  160,535

  271,084

  Cost for each of last 12 months are:

  FCO Diplomatic Wing £

  FCO ODA Wing £

  1992

  December

  521

  0

  1993

  January

  3,560

  15,668

  February

  35,656

  9,546

  March

  11,870

  26,647

  April

  1,704

  37,152

  May

  2,938

  32,196

  June

  1,455

  9,783

  July

  0

  2,250

  August

  0

  18,142

  September

  1,192

  10,587

  October

  613

  30,680

  November

  0

  3,987

  The compilation of these figures for intervening years and of the cost of advertising overseas would incur disproportionate cost.

  Outer Space
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress in the discussions in the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, in relation to the benefit of all as set out in article 1 of the outer space treaty.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This topic is debated by the committee and its legal sub-committee during their annual meetings.

  The most recent development is the production of a working paper by a number of member states on the consideration of the legal aspects related to the application of one of the principles in article 1 of the 1967 outer space treaty:
  "The exploration and use of outer space … shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries".

PRIME MINISTER

  Lords-Lieutenant
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Lords-Lieutenant in England and their dates of appointment.

  The Prime Minister
  The following is a list of the Lords-Lieutenant of England and of when their appointments were announced.
  489

  Lord-Lieutenants of England

  County

  Lord-Lieutenant

  Announcement of appointment

  Avon

  Sir John Wills, TD, FRICS, JP

  April 1974

  Bedfordshire

  Samuel Whitbread, Esq., JP

  January 1991

  Berkshire

  John Henderson, Esq., CVO, OBE

  June 1989

  Buckinghamshire

  Commander the Hon. John Fremantle, RN (Retd.), JP

  September 1984

  Cambridgeshire

  James Crowden, Esq., JP

  May 1992

  Cheshire

  William Bromley Davenport, Esq., JP

  June 1990

  Cleveland

  The Lord Gisborough, TD, JP

  March 1981

  Cornwall

  The Viscount Falmouth

  October 1977

  Cumbria

  Sir Charles Graham, Bt.

  February 1983

  Derbyshire

  Colonel Sir Peter Hilton, KCVO, MC, JP

  January 1978

  Devon

  The Earl of Morley, JP

  May 1982

  Dorset

  The Lord Digby, JP

  September 1984

  Durham

  David Grant, Esq., CBE, JP

  April 1988

  East Sussex

  Admiral Sir Lindsay Bryson, KCB, FRSE, FEng.

  May 1989

  Essex

  The Lord Braybrooke

  March 1992

  Gloucestershire

  Henry Elwes, Esq., JP

  December 1992

  Greater London

  Field Marshal The Lord Bramall, GCB, OBE, MC, JP

  January 1986

  Greater Manchester

  Colonel John Timmins, OBE, TD, JP

  December 1987

  Hampshire

  Mrs. Mary Fagan

  January 1994

  Hereford and Worcester

  Captain Thomas Dunne, JP

  July 1977

  Hertfordshire

  Simon Bowes Lyon, Esq., FCA, BA

  January 1986

  Humberside

  Richard Bethell, Esq., JP

  October 1983

  Isle of Wight

  The Lord Mottistone, CBE

  August 1985

  Kent

  The Rt. Hon. The Lord Kingsdown, MA, FRSA, FBIM, JP

  August 1982

  Lancashire

  Simon Towneley, Esq., DPhil, JP

  March 1976

  Leicestershire

  Timothy Brooks, Esq., JP

  January 1989

  Lincolnshire

  Sir Henry Nevile, KCVO, JP

  November 1975

  Merseyside

  Alan Waterworth Esq., MA, JP

  October 1993

  Norfolk

  Timothy Colman, Esq., JP

  March 1978

  Northamptonshire

  John Lowther, Esq., CBE, JP

  January 1984

  Northumberland

  The Viscount Ridley, KG, TD, JP

  January 1984

  North Yorkshire

  Sir Marcus Worsley, Bt., JP

  March 1987

  Nottinghamshire

  Sir Andrew Buchanan, Bt.

  January 1991

  Oxfordshire

  Sir Ashley Ponsonby, Bt., KCVO, MC

  January 1980

  Shropshire

  John Dugdale, Esq.

  February 1975

  Somerset

  Lt. Col. Sir Walter Luttrell, KCVO, MC, JP

  March 1978

  South Yorkshire

  Hugh Neill, Esq., CBE, TD, JP

  May 1985

  Staffordshire

  James Hawley, Esq., TD, JP

  August 1993

  490

  491

  County

  Lord-Lieutenant

  Announcement of appointment

  Suffolk

  The Rt. Hon. The Lord Belstead, JP

  December 1993

  Surrey

  Richard Thornton, Esq., OBE, JP

  May 1986

  Tyne and Wear

  Sir Ralph Carr-Ellison, TD

  July 1984

  Warwickshire

  The Viscount Daventry

  February 1990

  West Midlands

  Robert Taylor, Esq., OBE

  November 1993

  West Sussex

  His Grace The Duke of Richmond and Gordon

  March 1990

  West Yorkshire

  John Lyles, Esq., CBE, Bsc.

  August 1992

  Wiltshire

  Field Marshal Sir Roland Gibbs, GCB, CBE, DSO, MC

  December 1989

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

  The Prime Minister
  None, currently.

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

  The Prime Minister
  A considerable number.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister how many recommendations for public appointments by the Crown have been made by the Prime Minister since 1979.

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

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1993,Official Report, column 798, if he will show any specific policy or departmental areas on which each of the special advisers listed has worked since December 1990 showing their qualifications, expertise or experience relevant to those areas.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my practice to comment on the qualifications, expertise or experience of my special advisers.

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the criteria used to assess applications by private political parties' organisations for the use of 10 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks),Official Report, 30 November 1993, column 420.

  Children
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to produce a co-ordinated strategy for children throughout all Government Departments; if he will publish his response to the letter of 24 January from the National Children's Home; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Our strategy includes regular consultation when considering new legislation or policy initiatives concerning children, between the originating Department and all other Departments with an interest. Several interdepartmental groups have been set up which meet regularly to discuss matters of mutual concern about children. I have no current plans to publish my response to the letter from National Children's Home Action for Children; that will be a matter for that organisation.

  Lebanon
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will be able to report to the House on his recent conversations with the President of the Republic of Lebanon.

  The Prime Minister
  [Pursuant to his answer, 25 January, c.159]: I would like to report on the recent visit by the Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafic Hariri, and on our discussions on 24 January.

  Mr. Hariri visited Britain from 23–27 January. He was accompanied by a delegation which included his Minister for Defence, Minister of the Interior, Minister of State for Financial Affairs, Minister without Portfolio and the governor of the central bank.

  Mr. Hariri and his team met a wide range of representatives of political, commercial and financial interests in the United Kingdom, to explore the role that the United Kingdom might play in Lebanon's programme of reconstruction.

  This was a central theme in my discussions with Mr. Hariri. I am keen to see British companies playing an active role, in particular in the water, power and gas sectors. I informed him that we had decided to restore ECGD medium/long-term cover to a ceiling of £50 million. I also discussed with him the possibility of British companies helping to re-equip Lebanon's internal security forces and the Lebanese armed forces.

  This was the first visit to Britain by a Lebanese Prime Minister for 20 years. It provided us with the opportunity to reaffirm the long-standing links between Britain and

  493
  Lebanon. Lebanon is now back on its feet and ready to do business. British companies are in an excellent position to exploit the opportunities that exist there.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Consultancies
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) accountancy firms and (b) merchant banks to which his Department awarded private consultancy work in 1992 and 1993, together with a list of the consultancies concerned and the amount paid.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on which occasions since 1979 his Department has employed the services of external consultants; and if he will give details of the purposes for which they were employed and the cost of employing them.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The latest available information is for contracts awarded for the 1992–93 financial year. Details are shown in the table.

  Purpose

  Occasions

  Privatisation

  12

  Information Technology

  98

  General Management

  938

  Next Steps Agencies

  20

  Capital Works Programme

  149

  Monitoring MMB (NI)'s commercial subsidiary (Dromona Quality Foods)

  1

  The Financial and Trading Position of Northern Ireland Meat Plants on behalf of the Beef and Sheep Meat Sectorial Working Party

  1

  Preparation of Environmental Impact Assessment of Watercourse Management scheme

  1

  Feasibility Studies into Watercourse Management schemes

  2

  The design and supervision of Watercourse Management schemes

  48

  Review of the Foyle Fisheries Commission

  1

  Evaluation of the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme

  1

  Evaluating the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Land Use monitoring project

  1

  Audit of Credit Control Arrangements within the Forest Service in relation to Timber Sales

  1

  Assessment of the Financial Credibility of Potential Commercial Partners re the Flax Breeding Programme

  1

  Identification, Development, Installation and Commissioning of Plant at Enniskillen re the Production of Electricity from Biomass

  1

  Management consultancy on a Sportsturf/Playing Fields Project at Greenmount Agricultural College

  1

  Management consultancy on Market Testing

  1

  Staff training

  36

  Evaluation of the Agricultural Development Operations Programme

  1

  Strategic Plan for the Public Library Service

  1

  Review the structures and funding of the Arts in Northern Ireland

  1

  Development of Northern Ireland Education Service Strategic Planning process

  1

  Evaluation of the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux and the Forum for Community Work Education

  1

  Advice on the grading of staff in the Staff Commission for the Northern Ireland Education and Library Boards

  1

  494

  Purpose

  Occasions

  Development of Information Systems Strategy for Northern Ireland Education Service

  1

  Evaluation of Local Area Network

  1

  Survey of Health and Safety at Sports Grounds

  1

  Design staff magazine

  1

  Re-design Northern Ireland Office headed stationery

  1

  Staff competence framework study

  1

  Year 1 of 3-year combined study into "The Experience of People with Disabilities in Northern Ireland'

  1

  Legislating for Northern Ireland: Options for Reform

  1

  Law on Lethal Force: Options for Reform

  1

  School Effectiveness and Education in Northern Ireland: Practice, Policy and Research

  1

  Remands in Custody in Northern Ireland: A Critical Appraisal

  1

  Early Childhood Education/Services: A Review

  1

  Develop Library System

  1

  Advise on Questionnaire Development and subsequent analysis

  1

  Provide advice and produce reports on conservation at Hillsborough Castle

  1

  Energy Survey

  3

  Combined Meat and Power Survey

  1

  Construction of temporary laboratories

  2

  Identify site for a new permanent laboratory

  1

  Business implications of a transfer to Agency status

  1

  Glass fragment analysis

  1

  Overtime enquiry

  1

  Pensions

  1

  Financial Monitoring

  1

  Advice on asbestos removal

  1

  Development of total quality management

  1

  The total cost for external consultancy in 1992–93 is 16,399,560.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the electorate of the constituency of Belfast, East; and how many of them are resident in(a) the city of Belfast and (b) the borough of Castlereagh;

  (2) what is the electorate of the constituency of Strangford, and how many of them are resident in the boroughs of (a) Ards and (b) Castlereagh.

  Mr. Ancram
  Anticipated, and therefore provisional, figures for the 1994–95 electoral register are given in the table. The register, based on the qualifying date of 15 September 1993, will come into force on 16 February. The hon. Gentleman will have received these figures by now from the chief electoral officer, who sent them to the main political parties on 20 January.

  Constituency

  Anticipated electorate 1994–95

  Belfast East

  53,057

  City of Belfast

  45,693

  Local government district of Castlereagh

  7,364

  Strangford

  71,683

  Local government district of Ards

  50,336

  Local government district of Castlereagh

  21,347

  Prisoners (Christmas Leave)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria he uses when deciding which prisoners may be granted Christmas leave.
  495
  Sir John Wheeler
  Under the terms of the 1993 Christmas home leave scheme applications were considered from the following prisoners, other than those in the top risk category:

  (i) all prisoners who would have served at least 11 years of their sentence by 23 December 1993;

  (ii) all indeterminate sentence prisoners whose cases were at consultation with the judiciary, or who had been given provisional release dates;

  (iii) "star" class determinate sentence prisoners—that is those serving their first sentence or who are particularly well behaved—committed under sentence on or before 31 October 1993 and who were in the last year of their sentences at 31 December 1993;

  (iv) "ordinary" class determinate sentence prisoners—that is, those on second or subsequent sentences—who were sentenced to 10 years or more and who were in the last year of their sentences at 31 December 1993;

  (v) inmates in the young offenders centre in both "star" and "ordinary" class committed under sentence on or before 31 October 1993 and who were in the last year of their sentences at 31 December 1993.

  A decision on each case was reached after consideration of the Governor's recommendation, the prisoner's/ inmate's attitude and behaviour while in prison/YOC and relevant security issues.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors determine whether or not a prisoner's sentence is reviewed by the Life Sentence Review Board.

  Sir John Wheeler
  All life sentences are reviewed by the Life Sentence Review Board normally after 10 years in custody. Prisoners serving detention during the pleasure of the Secretary of State have their sentences reviewed at the eight-year stage. Thereafter cases are reviewed at intervals determined by the board.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners he expects to have their sentences reviewed by the Life Sentence Review Board in 1994.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Forty-five.

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

  Sir John Wheeler
  Approximately 30,000.

ATTORNEY-GENERSAL

  Mr. Totterington-Jarvis
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Attorney-General What payment the Serious Fraud Office has made to the City of London police while they were on attachment since 1 September 1991 for information provided by Mr. Totterington-Jarvis.

  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office has not made any such payments.

OVERSES DEVELOPMENT

  Pergau Hydro-electric Project
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish his instruction dated 4 July 1991 to Sir Tim Lankester in respect of the Pergau hydro-electric project.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Public Accounts Committee was informed that, in accordance with usual practice, this internal document would not be released. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will prepare a full memorandum in response to the request now expected from the Foreign Affairs Committee following its decision of 26 January.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all overseas aid projects which involve the clearing of land mines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since April 1991 the ODA has funded the following humanitarian mine clearing operations:

  Country and project

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Afghanistan

  Mine clearance

  —

  188,900

  290,631

  Minefield surveying, planning and management; mine awareness; clearance and clearance training

  —

  1,000,000

  500,000

  Cambodia

  Mine clearance, training and awareness programme

  60,000

  199,886

  255,770

  Public awareness

  —

  6,451

  —

  Support of Cambodian mine clearance centre (through UNDP)

  —

  —

  133,333

  Mozambique

  Demining of roads in Zambezia province

  —

  —

  710,418

  North West Somalia

  Mine clearance training; clearance management; mine awareness

  300,000

  373,540

  —

  Total

  360,000

  1,768,777

  1,890,152

  Kashmir
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to increase aid to Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are no plans to increase aid for Kashmir.

  Aid (Developing Countries)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how British aid can be used to help stimulate enterprise and trade in the developing countries.
  497
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  British aid is used to promote policies and an institutional and infrastructural environment in aid recipients conducive to the development of enterprise and trade. This may be done through assistance in support of economic reforms and through projects to promote the rehabilitation, development and effective management of transport and communications infrastructure and of public utilities. We also provide aid to prepare for and facilitate the privatisation of public enterprises and to develop the financial sector and financial markets.

  British aid also helps enterprises in aid recipients more directly through know-how and technology transfer to help overcome their production and commercial problems and thus to become more competitive in external markets. The aid programme pays particular attention through research and technical assistance to solving production problems arising in the renewable natural resource sectors. It also has a growing number of projects to encourage the development of small enterprises.

  The aid programme supports the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which provides equity investment and loan finance predominantly to private sector enterprises in developing countries. Many of its projects produce commodities for export.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations he has made into acquiring a shuttle vessel for St. Helena; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Extensive international investigations into the possibilities of acquiring or chartering a suitable shuttle vessel for operation between St. Helena and Ascension island have been made since late 1989. Over 30 ships have been considered, but so far all have been found unsuitable on grounds of cost, technical unsuitability or economic non-viability. A further ship is being investigated currently.

  Textile and Clothing Industries
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all bilateral and multilateral assistance given by the Overseas Development Administration to help the development of textile and clothing industries and the amounts given in the period since 1988.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: Bilateral aid for the development of textiles and clothing—and investment by the Commonwealth Development Corporation—is shown in a table which I have arranged to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. There is no centrally compiled source of data on aid for textiles and clothing provided by various multilateral

  Private consultancy work awarded in 1992 and 1993

  Year

  Consultants

  Service required

  Value £000s

  (a) Accountancy firms

  1992

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  IS strategy support to Vehicle Inspectorate

  90

  1992

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Rail privatisation: accountancy and taxation advice

  1,702

  1992

  Price Waterhouse

  Preparation of DVOIT Long Form Report

  52

  1992

  Price Waterhouse

  Advice on taxation and company cars

  6

  1992

  Cooper and Lybrand

  Temporary finance director

  52

  498
  agencies. Information on these agencies' support—and thus on ODA's share of this—could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement Quotas
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all countries in receipt of United Kingdom aid against whom the European Union multi-fibre arrangement quotas operate and the extent of United Kingdom aid to each of those countries in the period since 1988.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: The countries which have European Union multi-fibre arrangement quotas and which also receive United Kingdom aid are shown in a table which I have arranged to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This table also shows their receipts of bilateral aid from the ODA over the last six years.

TRANSPORT

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make arrangements for the Data Protection Registrar to inspect relevant contracts with suppliers of IT services that involve the use of personal data held by his Department in order to check whether all appropriate arrangements in relation to the Data Protetion Act 1984 have been made, and whether such contracts make provisions for the registrar to make random inspections in order to check the suppliers' compliance in with the eighth data protection principle.

  Mr. Norris
  The Data Protection Registrar has a wide range of powers, under the Data Protection Act 1984, to ensure that all individuals and organisations holding personal data on computer systems are registered and observe the data protection principles as required by the Act. When IT services are contracted out by the data user, the contractor and the user will be subject to the application of the data protection principles, and to the registrars powers to promote compliance with them, as provided for in the Act. It is for the registrar to decide how he will use his powers under the Act, and I do not consider that any further arrangements are necessary for him to discharge his duties effectively.

  Consultancies
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) accountancy firms and (b) merchant banks to which his Department awarded private consultancy work in 1992 and 1993, together with a list of the consultancies concerned and the amount paid.

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:
  499

  Year

  Consultants

  Service required

  Value £'000s

  1992

  Ernst and Young

  Departmental Payroll Costs Model

  106

  1992

  Price Waterhouse

  Senior Staff Review

  72

  1992

  Ernst and Young

  DVOIT privatisation

  2

  1992

  Touche Ross

  Management Information System: OR Preparation

  40

  1992

  Capita

  Financial reporting review

  12

  1992

  Michael Page Finance

  Accountancy services to Driving Standards Agency

  16

  1992

  Cooper and Lybrand

  Evaluation of telesales tenders

  36

  1992

  KPMG

  Network referencing

  109

  1992

  KPMG

  Project management software

  172

  1992

  KPMG

  Disc network policy

  26

  1992

  Coopers Lybrand Deloitte

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road: financial advisers

  300

  1992

  Coopers Lybrand Deloitte

  Study of EC directive

  450

  1992

  Coopers Lybrand Deloitte

  National Motorway Communications System maintenance specifications

  60

  1992

  Ernst and Young

  Development of a decision framework for European standardisation

  87

  1992

  Coopers Lybrand Deloitte

  DVOIT privatisation strategy review

  16

  1993

  Capita

  Financial reporting review

  109

  1993

  Ernst and Young

  IS strategy support to Vehicle Inspectorate

  39

  1993

  Capita

  Financial advice

  250

  1993

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Rail privatisation: accountancy and taxation advice

  2,072

  1993

  Price Waterhouse

  London Buses Ltd. privatisation

  400

  1993

  Price Waterhouse

  Review of DVOIT's 1992–93·accounts

  30

  1993

  Price Waterhouse

  Feasibility of privatising Vehicle Inspectorate's testing functions

  72

  1993

  Price Waterhouse

  Review of DVOIT Ltd. balance sheet

  N/a

  1993

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Financial advice on DVOIT's privatisation

  541

  1993

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Study on the privatisation of Transport Research Laboratory

  42

  1993

  Cooper and Lybrand

  Scottish Office Safety Review

  18

  1993

  Michael Page Finance

  Temporary accountant

  12

  1993

  Price Waterhouse

  Advice on the privatisation of Transport Research Laboratory

  9

  1993

  Touche Ross

  Management Information System

  23

  1993

  Ernst and Young

  OPRAF Consultancy

  170

  1993

  Cooper and Lybrand

  Training courses on tender evaluation

  2

  1993

  Touche Ross

  Market Testing in DVLA: customer/client role

  139

  1993

  Capita

  Market Testing in DVLA: in-house bid construction

  34

  1993

  Cooper and Lybrand

  Sale of anonymised data

  25

  1993

  Cooper and Lybrand

  Evaluation of vehicle relicensing tenders

  25

  1993

  Capita

  Financial Adviser

  N/a

  (b) Merchant banks

  1992

  Samuel Montagu and Co.

  Rail privatisation: merchant banking advice

  351

  1992

  Samuel Montagu and Co.

  Private sector involvement in Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  223

  1992

  Lloyds

  Corporate banking

  450

  1993

  Samuel Montagu and Co.

  Rail privatisation: merchant banking advice

  1,776

  1993

  Hill Samuel Bank

  Private sector involvement in Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  366

  N/a—Not available.

  A1 and A1(M)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current position in respect of the A1 and A1(M) trunk road improvements.

  Mr. Key
  We are conducting a review of the trunk road programme in preparation for the launch in April of the Highways Agency. I shall write to the hon. Member when the outcome of that review is known.

  Cycle Lanes
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of a mile of cycle lane on the average road; and what the cost would be of instituting cycle lanes on all trunk roads in England.

  Mr. Key
  The cost of constructing a two-way 3 m wide cycle lane on one side of the road is in the order of 500
  £400,000 per mile. This cost will vary considerably depending on local conditions and excludes the cost of land acquisition.

  There are approximately 10,000 miles of trunk roads including motorways. Because of varying local conditions it is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of the cost of installing cycle lanes on all these roads.

  Diesel Fuel (Buses)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with representatives of bus operators the change in the amount of rebate received in respect of duty on diesel fuel following the Budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following preliminary discussions with my officials, the Bus and Coach Council is preparing a paper on the effects of the recent changes in the payment of fuel duty rebate which I shall be happy to discuss with it in due course.
  501
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish details of the duty payable on diesel fuel used by local bus operators before and after the recent Budget, together with the corresponding proportions of duty as a percentage of overall cost of diesel fuel.

  Mr. Freeman
  The duty payable on diesel fuel before and after the recent Budget was 25·14p per litre and 27·70p per litre respectively. Duty as a percentage of typical retail pump prices was 50 per cent. before the Budget and about 53 per cent. afterwards. Before the Budget all duty paid by local bus operators was rebated. After the Budget, operators will continue to receive rebate at pre-Budget levels, which will mean that 2·56p per litre in duty will not be recoverable.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that local bus operators continue to receive rebate in full in respect of duties on diesel fuel.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 30 November that fuel duty rebate would be held at pre-Budget levels during the lifetime of this Parliament.

  Birmingham Airport
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current position of negotiations with the United States Government regarding additional flights into Birmingham airport.

  Mr. Norris
  Liberalisation of routes from the United States to United Kingdom regional airports has been a consistent priority. In December the United Kingdom tabled a proposal which would give immediate open access to regional routes, including to Birmingham. We hope that the United States Government will consider our proposal seriously.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assistance has been provided to the Driving Standards Agency in-house bid team which is involved in the market test of the booking of driving tests and the proposing of test fees; and what has been the cost of such assistance.

  Mr. Key
  The in-house bid team has been offered assistance to develop its bid. To date, the in-house bid manager has been provided with training on bid formulation and with travel and subsistence costs to visit staff involved. The agency is now in the process of agreeing with the in-house bidders what further help they need, including from external management consultants, in line with the principles set out in "The Government's Guide to Market Testing". Costs are therefore not yet available.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) of 15 December,Official Report, column 713, how many vehicle excise duty offences reports have been generated for the current financial year; and how many VED offences reports were received by the DVLA in the financial year 1992–93.
  502
  Mr. Key
  The number of vehicles reported to DVLA for alleged VED offences in 1992–93 was 1·8 million. For this financial year to December the figure was 1·4 million.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff were employed on enforcement duties; and what amount was raised in enforcement revenue by the DVLA local office network in each year from 1979–80.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested, from 1981–82, is as follows:

  Year

  Number of staff in local office network (man years)

  Revenue raised £ million

  1981–82

  800

  6·5

  1982–83

  833

  11·8

  1983–84

  843

  15·6

  1984–85

  908

  18·2

  1985–86

  908

  21·0

  1986–87

  945

  23·1

  1987–88

  952

  23·6

  1988–89

  943

  25·6

  1989–90

  947

  25·9

  1990–91

  922

  27·5

  1991–92

  909

  34–3

  1992–93

  936

  37·5

  11993–94

  948

  34·3

  1 Figures to end December 1993.

  Driving Test Fees
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will happen to those staff in the Driving Standards Agency not affected by the market test of the booking of driving tests and the proposing of test fees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The aim of the market test is to improve value for money. The precise effects on staff not directly involved will not be known until bids have been evaluated, but the agency will aim to minimise the disruption to staff.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost in the financial year 1992–93 of the booking of driving tests and the receiving and processing of the driving test fees.

  Mr. Key
  The agency's 1993–94 business plan, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, gives details of the total estimated costs of the agency's regional offices, which include the functions to be market tested.

  Goods Vehicle Licensing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the Police Federation was consulted on the proposals to change the rules relating to passenger and goods vehicle operating licensing.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department did not send a copy of its consultation document to the Police Federation. Following normal practice, consultation with the police was through the Association of Chief Police Officers.
  503

  Minibus Permits
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what maintenance checks, other than the regular Ministry of Transport test, are carried out by his Department before a minibus permit is issued to an organisation.

  Mr. Key
  Before a minibus permit is issued by the Traffic Commissioner, the person authorised by the body applying for the permit must sign a declaration on behalf of its members that"the body will make proper arrangements so that any vehicle used under the permit will comply with the appropriate construction requirements and conditions of fitness, will be kept fit and serviceable and that regular maintenance inspection; will be carried out".

  In addition, the person must provide the name and address of the person(s) or garage who will maintain and service the vehicle and attach a written maintenance contract or letter of agreement from the person or garage doing the work and indicate how often safety checks will be made on the vehicle.

  The issuing of permits by designated bodies and local authorities is their own responsibility.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what checks are carried out by his Department on the conduct and repute of applicants for minibus permits before such permits are issued.

  Mr. Key
  Minibus permits are not issued by the Department. They may be issued from three sources: bodies designated by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, which are national voluntary bodies and may issue permits only to their own branches and affiliated organisations; local authorities which may issue permits to their own departments or schools under their control; and the Traffic Commissioners who may issue them to other eligible local bodies concerned with education, religion, recreation or social welfare.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many minibus permits issued by the traffic area office network were revoked for poor maintenance during the last three years.

  Mr. Key
  None.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many minibus permits were issued by traffic area offices in 1993.

  Mr. Key
  A total of 1,407.

  Public Carriage Office
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has initiated and concluded, and what proposals he has made, concerning the transfer of the functions and staff of the public carriage office of the Metropolitan police to his Department; and if he will list those bodies and individuals from whom he has received support for this proposal.

  Mr. Norris
  This proposal is one of the matters covered by the consultation paper on the future of taxi and private hire services issued by my Department. About 4,500 copies were sent to organisations and individuals who have an interest in the subject. These include local authority 504
  associations and all individual county and district councils, local and national taxi and private hire vehicle organisations, the licensing officers organisation, the police, organisations concerned with people who have mobility problems and vulnerable members of society, consumer groups, transport interests, the press, car, taxi and taxi-meter manufacturers and those concerned with tourists. Copies were available in the Lobby of this House and in another place. The paper was also published in a trade newspaper. The consultation period last until 1 March 1994.

  It is not our practice to identify those organisations or individuals who responded to consultation exercises.

  M25
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review his decision on the widening of the M25; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The national road programme is under review as part of our preparations for the setting up of the Highways Agency. Subject to anything that emerges from that exercise I have no reason to reconsider the policy for the M25 announced by my right hon. Friend last July.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 601, how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by Ministers in his Department; and how much these cards cost to buy.

  Mr. Norris
  Some 650 official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by Ministers of the Department of Transport, at a cost of £645. All were cards for which a proportion of the cost went to charity.

  Signal Failures
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, columns 807–808, if he will tabulate the total number of reported signal failures on (a) the British Railways Board and (b) London Underground Ltd., together with the number of wrong side failures on (i) normal passenger lines and other lines, (ii) yards and (iii) sidings for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not available in this format. However, the Health and Safety Executive's HM railway inspectorate is informed by the railway operator of all wrong side failures annually. A breakdown of these figures is available in the "Annual Report on Railway Safety in Great Britain", copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  High-speed Rail Link
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 29, concerning the financing of an international station at Stratford on the channel tunnel rail link, what is (a) the estimated cost of the rail route as presently planned from the River Lea to Maryland station and (b) the estimated cost of providing additional station facilities of at least four platform faces capable of dealing with intended tracks.
  505
  Mr. Freeman
  The cost of the London section of the route is estimated to be £670 million—fourth quarter 1992 prices—that is, £645 million for the base route plus £25 million for a package of options including a short box at Stratford. Union Railways estimates that the additional capital cost, including station works, access roads, parking, land and property and management costs, of providing a combined international and domestic station at Stratford is £105 million, while an international only station would cost £93 million. Further information is available in Union Railways' October 1993 report, published on 24 January 1994.

  Rail Freight and Coastal Shipping
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out his plans and targets for increasing the amount of(a) rail freight and (b) coastal shipping over the next five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The choice of transport mode for moving freight is primarily a commercial matter. However, we encourage freight users to consider the merits of rail and water as an alternative to road where this is practical. As part of that commitment, we have announced measures, to be introduced shortly, which will assist rail—Hansard, 2 February 1993, columns 164–65—and shipping—Hansard, 15 December 1993, columns 698–99—and we will monitor their progress closely.

  Trainload Freight
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make available information to prospective purchasers prospectus details regarding the three successor trainload freight companies.

  Mr. Freeman
  The three successor trainload freight businesses will be vested as individual subsidiary companies of the British Railways Board in September 1994. The board will issue information to prospective purchasers of the new companies after a subsequent period of "shadow running". Further background information is available in the Department of Transport publication "Rail freight privatisation—the Government's proposals", published in May 1993.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what grounds he decided not to accept the proposal for a tunnel through the Boxley valley on the channel tunnel rail link route; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government considered very carefully the representations received and an updated comparative assessment by Union Railways' environmental consultants. The long tunnel option through the Boxley valley has significant environmental advantages, but the Government decided that these did not justify spending an additional £65 million, plus a further cost risk of £50 million.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he has made to implement the purchasing policy for properties within the safeguarded corridor of the channel tunnel rail link; and if he will make a statement.
  506
  Mr. Freeman
  The Secretary of State for Transport will issue directions to safeguard the route of the rail link in around three weeks' time. This will trigger Union Railways' voluntary purchase scheme for homes within the safeguarded zone. The scheme will be backed by statutory blight compensation provisions.

  Spofforth Bypass
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of the construction of the bypass in the village of Spofforth in north Yorkshire.

  Mr. Key
  North Yorkshire county council estimates the cost of its Spofforth bypass proposal at £3·22 million.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to enforce the installation of the traffic alerts and collision avoidance systems in all British-based commercial airliners and all similar aircraft using United Kingdom airspace; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The traffic alert and collision avoidance system is a complex safety device, which is currently being evaluated for use in United Kingdom airspace by National Air Traffic Services, part of the Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible for air traffic safety. This evaluation is being undertaken as part of a Europe-wide evaluation programme, which is ultimately under the aegis of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

  As this is primarily an air traffic management issue, I have passed the hon. Member's question to the chairman of the CAA and asked him to send a comprehensive response to the hon. Member.

  Severn Tunnel (Accident)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Seymour inquiry report on the Severn tunnel accident was concluded; what is the reason for the delay in publishing the Seymour inquiry report on the Severn tunnel accident: and when the inspector who conducted the Seymour inquiry retired.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand from the Health and Safety Executive's HM railway inspector that the inquiry into the Severn tunnel accident is now concluded and the report should be published by March.

  Mr. Seymour held two separate public hearings. This was due to the amount of evidence given and the need to hear winesses that were not available for the first session. He was not able to complete his investigations because of the reluctance of a key witness to give evidence.

  Mr. Seymour retired in February 1993. However, he agreed to complete his inquiry on a consultancy basis.

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

  Mr. Norris
  The total number of staff on the Department's payroll is at present 15,270; of that number, 14,370 are covered by SSP.
  507

  West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest position in discussions between the West Yorkshire PTE, his Department and the franchising director over the PTE leasing new rolling stock for the west Yorkshire electrification project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority to reach a decision on the leasing of new rolling stock for this project. My Department is assisting. For example, we are participating in discussions with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising about the role which the franchising director might be able to play in giving assurances about the future use of the rolling stock.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to clarify the procedures to be followed by management-employee buy-outs for rail franchises.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Railways Board has already provided guidance to its staff on how they might develop management/employee buy-outs, and will be issuing supplementary guidance very soon.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing, separately for men and women and as an overall total, the number of incidents of(a) violent crime and (b) sexual assault on London Underground for 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Norris
  The figures for violent crimes and sexual offences on London Underground, for the years 1992 and 1993, are set out in the table. Figures for violent crimes are not normally differentiated by gender; instead they are broken down into the two categories of robbery and assault. These are shown separately in the table.

  Violent crimes

  Sexual offences

  Overall total

  Year

  Robbery

  Assault

  Male

  1992

  479

  607

  11

  251

  1,348

  1993

  376

  464

  5

  187

  1,032

  Source: British Transport police figures supplied to London Underground.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing, by standard region, separately for men and women and as an overall total, the number of incidents of(a) violent crime and (b) sexual assault at major bus and coach stations for 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Transport Safety
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all organisations to which his Department sent, and from which it has received responses regarding the consultation paper on proposed railway drink and drugs legislation, together with the addresses of each such organisation.
  508
  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: My Department initially issued copies of the consultation paper to 212 associations or individual organisations representing the aviation industry and users, environmental and related non-aviation bodies, local authorities, airports, aiport consultative committees; and individuals. At least 1,000 further copies were distributed on request. We received 188 responses from organisations and 387 from individuals.

  Night Flights
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of the names and addresses of all organisations to which his Department sent, and from which it has received, responses regarding the consultation paper on revised restrictions on night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports, together with the addresses of each such organisation.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: My Department initially issued copies of the consultation paper to a total of 284 local environmental and other groups, local authorities and local authority organisations, airports and other aviation bodies, airport consultative committees, airlines, airline organisations, airport users and other aviation interests and to about 1,500 individuals. Further copies were distributed on request. We have so far received 96 responses from organisations and 149 from individuals.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all (i) political consultants, (ii) public relations companies, (iii) management consultants, (iv) survey organisations and (v) other outside bodies or individuals currently employed by his Department together with the date on which the contract was awarded, the length of the contract and the total amount spent by his Department on each contract; whether the contract was based on a fixed-fee or fee-plus man-hours basis; what was the name of the individual or organisation to which the contract was awarded; what are the services which were required by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: I am placing the information in the Library.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give a list of all contracts for which invitations to bid are planned to be issued by his Department from (i) political consultants, (ii) public relations companies, (iii) management consultants, (iv) survey organisations and (v) other outside bodies or individuals together with the date on which it is planned to issue invitations to bid, the length of the contract and the total amount allocated by his Department for each contract; whether the contract is based on a fixed-fee or fee-plus man-hours basis; what are the services which are required by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: The information is as follows:
  509

  Contracts or projects for which bidding is planned

  Planned date for bid invitation

  Length of contract Years

  1Fee basis

  Amount £ thousands

  Service required

  (i) Political consultants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (ii) Public relations companies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (iii) Management consultants

  February 1994

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Support to the in-house team in the market testing of the driving test booking service

  February 1994

  3

  N/a

  120

  Professional adviser on working environment

  March 1994

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  User satisfaction survey

  (iv) Survey organisations

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (v) Other outside bodies

  May 1994

  3

  N/a

  N/a

  Market testing of the driving test booking service

  February 1994

  3

  N/a

  N/a

  Space planning

  1994

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Review of building regulations

  1994

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Review of works advisers

  1994

  3

  N/a

  75

  Energy bureau services

  1994

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Furniture quality assurance

  February 1994

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Legal advice on the form/content of DBFO contracts

  February 1994

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Motorway charging: Technical consultant

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Motorway consultant: Specialist advice

  1 Information could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give a list of all contracts for which bids are currently being considered by his Department from (i) political consultants, (ii) public relations companies, (iii) management consultants, (iv) survey organisations and (v) other outside bodies or individuals together with the date on which the invitations to bid for

  Contracts or projects for which bids are currently being considered

  Date of bid invitation

  Length of contract

  Allocated amount £ thousands

  Fee basis

  Service required

  (i) Political consultants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (ii) Public relations companies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (iii) Management consultants

  20 September 1993

  N/a

  42

  N/a

  Specialist consultancy support for MSSD

  October 1993

  6 months

  N/a

  Daily rates

  Technical consultancy to inform VI's IT strategy

  October 1993

  6 months

  N/a

  Fixed fee

  User requirements for VI's IS strategy

  7 December 1993

  N/a

  140

  N/a

  Recruitment of a property consultant

  December 1993

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Study into DBFO contracts

  February 1994

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Market research into the accuracy of the DVLA database

  (iv) Survey organisations

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (v) Other outside bodies

  23 December 1993

  N/a

  25

  N/a

  Arbitration on user charges at United States airports

  17 December 1993

  N/a

  120

  N/a

  Channel tunnel rail link: Reporting accountants

  21 December 1993

  N/a

  5

  N/a

  Accident/incident database

  30 November 1993

  N/a

  200

  N/a

  Channel tunnel rail link: Technical advisers

  23 November 1993

  N/a

  42

  N/a

  The effective sealing of cracks and fissures in pavements

  27 October 1993

  N/a

  20

  N/a

  National roads network assessment system: Software programs

  23 July 1993

  N/a

  760

  N/a

  Birmingham northern relief road: Appointment of financial and technical panels

  13 July 1993

  N/a

  110

  N/a

  Cycle training

  30 December 1993

  N/a

  90

  N/a

  LATS database: Appointment of marketing agents

  6 December 1993

  N/a

  128

  N/a

  Effects and elasticities of higher car fuel prices

  19 November 1993

  N/a

  200

  N/a

  Appointment of a consultant to update and survey the network using DOT's high speed road monitor

  26 November 1993

  N/a

  10

  N/a

  Insurance advice consultancy

  510
  the contract were issued, the length of the contract and the total amount allocated by his Department for each contract; whether the contract is based on a fixed-fee or fee-plus man-hours basis; what are the services which are required by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 30 January 1994]: The information is as follows:

  511

  Date of bid invitation

  length of contract

  Allocated amount £ thousands

  Fee basis

  Service required

  18 November 1993

  N/a

  17

  N/a

  Trial audit of free issue equipment

  29 September 1993

  17 months

  N/a

  Rates

  Design and supervision of installation of new national motorway communications system (M1 J24 to J30)

  30 November 1993

  1 year

  N/a

  Rates

  Site supervision of installation of new communications equipment (M1 J38 to J42)

  7 December 1993

  N/a

  N/a

  Rates

  Monitor and survey of lighting on trunk roads in London

  10 November 1993

  3 years

  N/a

  Rates/ fixed fee

  West London trunk roads: Maintenance and improvement

  10 November 1993

  3 years

  N/a

  Rates/ fixed fee

  South London trunk roads: Maintenance and improvement

  6 January 1994

  N/a

  393

  N/a

  Alternative fuel trials extension 1

  6 January 1994

  N/a

  26

  N/a

  Revision and maintenance of technical drawings for safety fences and barriers

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give a list for each of the past five years and as a total over the same of all (i) political consultants, (ii) public relations companies, (iii) management consultants, (iv) survey organisations and (v) other outside bodies or individuals employed by his Department together with the date on which the contract was awarded, the length of the contract and the total amount spent by his Department on each contract; whether the contract was based on a fixed-fee or fee-plus man-hours basis; what was the name of the individual or organisation to which the contract was awarded; what are the services which were required by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: I am placing the information in the Library.

  Railway Lines
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the incident involving a contractor's vehicle which took place on 17 January, on railway lines in the area of Burton-on-Trent arid Clay Mills.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]I understand from the Health and Safety Executive's Her Majesty's railway inspectorate that it has received a report of an incident involving a contractor's road-rail vehicle at Elford which occurred on 16 January 1994. British Rail is investigating the incident and the inspectorate is holding discussions with BR to seek means of preventing a recurrence.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made as to the adequacy of levels of training given to the employees of private contractors before they are allowed to operate vehicles on public railway lines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: Primary responsibility rests with the railway operator. However, the Health and Safety Executive's Her Majesty's railway inspectorate monitors safety on the railways, and as part of its routine inspections programme undertakes random checks on contractors.

  Deregulation
  Mrs. Dunwooely
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the environmental organisations consulted on the proposals to deregulate goods and passenger operator licensing.

  Mr. Norris
  The following environmental organisations were consulted during our consultation last year:

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  The Environment Council

  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

  Rural Development Commission

  Cones Hotline
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total number of staff employed on the cones hotline.

  Mr. Key
  No staff are engaged exclusively on the cones hotline. Two additional staff have been temporarily employed since December to assist the hotline but are not working solely on that activity. All follow-up work related to hotline inquiries has been undertaken within existing resources.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is(a) the current cost of operating the cones hotline and (b) how many calls have been made to it since its inception.

  Mr. Key
  The cost of operating the cones hotline has been met within existing budgets. Two additional staff have been temporarily employed since December to assist the hotline but are not working solely on that activity.

  Since its introduction in June 1992 until 25 January 1994, 478 calls registered as formal inquiries have been received by the cones hotline. Until recently other calls received by the hotline have not been recorded, but they are currently running at two to three times the number of formal inquiries about specific schemes.

  Dunstable Bypass
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now announce the date for the beginning of the public inquiry into the A5 north-south Dunstable bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The need for a public inquiry will depend on the weight and nature of objections to draft orders for the
  513
  scheme which, subject to the present review of the trunk road programme, we hope to publish this autumn. An inquiry would not be held before 1995.

  Road Deaths and Serious Injuries
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last published and next intends to publish a detailed report on the achievements towards the target of reducing the road deaths and serious injuries by a third by the year 2000; and whether he will reconsider the setting of the same targets for slight injuries.

  Mr. Key
  The road safety report 1990–91 was published in November 1991 and we intend to issue a new report towards the end of this year. The casualty statistics for the third quarter of 1993, published on 13 January, included a table showing the progress made towards achieving the road safety target. The basis for the target is widely understood and I would therefore be reluctant to change it.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing, by standard region, separately for men and women and as an overall total, the number of incidents of(a) violent crime and (b) sexual assault at British Rail stations for 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the following tables show, by BR business sectors, the recorded incidents of violent crime and sexual assault at British Rail stations for 1992 514
  and 1993. A breakdown of figures, by gender, for violent crime could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For the purposes of the table, violent crime includes murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, malicious wounding, firearms and explosives offences and robberies.

  Violent crime

  1992

  1993

  InterCity

  276

  341

  Regional

  611

  496

  Network SouthEast

  1,311

  1,447

  Other Sectors

  41

  161

  Total

  2,239

  2,466

  All sexual assaults (against males in brackets)

  1992

  1993

  Intercity

  57

  (7)

  37

  (2)

  Regional

  63

  (3)

  63

  (7)

  Network SouthEast

  151

  (13)

  161

  (11)

  Other Sectors

  3

  —

  11

  (1)

  Total

  274

  (23)

  272

  (21)

  The increase in violent crime in Network SouthEast is mainly attributable to robberies in south London, which is not unique to the railways. The British Transport police, working closely with the Metropolitan police, have targeted the problem, a policy which is starting to have an impact.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what accommodation at the occupied royal palaces is designated for Prince Charles and Prince Edward; and what staff and ancillary accommodation each has.

  Mr. Sproat
  The information is as follows:

  The Prince of Wales

  (a) His Royal Highness' apartment in St. James's palace which comprises three reception rooms, one principal bedroom and two staff bedrooms, together with ancillary accommodation.

  (b) Three flats for domestic staff at Kensington palace. Two have one bedroom and one reception room and one has one bedroom and two reception rooms.

  (c) One house at Kensington palace for a Private Secretary. It has four bedrooms, three reception rooms and ancillary rooms. There is no staff accommodation.

  The Prince Edward

  (a) His Royal Highness has use of two bedrooms, one sitting room and one bathroom in Buckingham palace. These rooms do not form a self contained apartment.

  (b) one flat for a domestic employee in the Royal mews at Buckingham palace comprising one bedroom and one reception room.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 651, regarding accommodation for members of the royal family in occupied royal palaces, how much staff and ancillary accommodation is provided in each case.

  Mr. Sproat
  The staff and ancillary accommodation, on which rent is paid, or which is taken into account in salary and wage levels, is as follows:

  HRH Princess Margaret

  8 bedrooms

  4 bathrooms

  2 reception rooms

  2 kitchens

  2 utility rooms

  1 staff rest room

  Duke and Duchess of Gloucester

  8 bedrooms

  4 bathrooms

  3 reception rooms

  3 kitchens

  2 utility rooms

  1 staff rest room

  TRH Prince and Princess Michael of Kent

  1 bedroom

  2 bathrooms

  1 reception room

  1 kitchen

  2 utility rooms

  TRH The Duke and Duchess of Kent

  4 bedrooms

  2 bathrooms

  3 kitchens

  1 staff rest room

  HRH Princess Alexandra

  No staff accommodation

  Grace and Favour Accommodation
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many grace and favour apartments there are in Buckingham palace; and to whom they are allocated.
  516
  Mr. Sproat
  There are no grace and favour apartments at Buckingham Palace. There are two service apartments. One is allocated to the chief housekeeper and one to the person who is responsible for the pages, footmen, craftsmen and porters located at Buckingham palace. The Princess Royal, the Duke of York and Prince Edward use rooms at Buckingham palace, but do not have self-contained apartments.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 652, what offices were held at the time of their retirement by the military knights, pensioners, who occupy grace and favour accommodation at the occupied royal palaces.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: Of the 13 military knights, one was a major general—GOC midlands district—three were brigadiers—two from the Royal Signals (2) and one from the Royal Artillery—three were lieutenant colonels-17th/21st Lancers, King's Own Scotish Borderers and Queen's Lancashire Regiment—and six were majors—Life Guards, Royal Army Service Corps, Manchester Regiment, Royal Signals, Scots Guards and Coldstream Guards.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 652, what positions were held prior to retirement by the remaining four pensioners granted accommodation in the past on a grace and favour basis who were neither employees nor widows of employees of the royal household.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: One pensioner is a former nanny to the Queen's children, the second is the retired principal of St. Catherine's house, the third is a cousin of the Queen and the fourth is an unmarried daughter of a former Chief of the General Staff whose widow was originally provided with grace and favour accommodation.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if he will give the likely date of conclusion for his review of regulations relevant to tourism, as referred to in the Department of Trade and Industry's deregulation document as published with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill; if he will also provide a cost-benefit estimate of the review, with a separate section for each item of legislation he has examined; and what consultations he or officials have held in the course of the review;

  (2) if he will give the intended start date, finish date and cost-benefit estimate of his Department's review of the Tourism (Sleeping Accommodation Price) Order 1977 as outlined in the Department of Trade and Industry document on deregulation, published with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill;

  (3) if he will give the intended start date, finish date and a cost-benefit estimate for his Department's review of the Hotel Proprietors Act 1956, as outlined in the Department of Trade and Industry document on deregulation published with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department's inquiry into regulations affecting tourism is designed to complement the
  517
  Government's wider deregulation initiative by examining in detail the burdens on tourism-related businesses. This separate examination is warranted because of the highly important contribution which the tourism and hospitality industry makes to the economy and to employment, and will continue as long as regulatory burdens remain a matter of concern to the industry. I announced the preliminary findings of my inquiry to the House on 27 July, 1993, Official Report, columns 768–71, and a progress report will be issued in due course. The review has been conducted, at no additional cost, as part of the normal day-to-day work of my Department. During the course of the inquiry I have spoken to many individuals and organisations, both local and national, within the industry. I have received written representations from a great many more. My Department does not have primary responsibility for the regulations indentified during the inquiry, with the exception of the Hotel Proprietors Act 1956 and the Tourism (Sleeping Accommodation Price Display) Order 1977. These are currently being examined by officials. We intend to begin a public consultation exercise shortly and to complete it as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will give a likely start date, finish date and his cost-benefit estimate for his Department's review into the scope for consolidating or simplifying the legislation on sports ground safety as outlined in the Department of Trade and Industry document on deregulation published with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill.

  Mr. Sproat
  An informal consultation exercise in line with deregulation guidance will commence as soon as is practicable. I hope to consider the responses during the summer.

  Cultural Services (VAT)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration he has given to EC directives on VAT giving exemptions to certain cultural services and goods.

  Mr. Sproat
  Discussions are continuing between my officials and those of Customs and Excise about the scope of such an exemption.

  Public Libraries (Review)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is(a) the full cost of the review of public libraries and (b) the cost of the consultant to the review.

  Mr. Sproat
  The review of public libraries is expected to cost in the region of £100,000, exclusive of the DNH's own staffing costs. The bulk of this expenditure is likely to be accounted for by the cost of the consultants.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which consultant has been appointed to advise the review of public libraries.

  Mr. Sproat
  We expect to appoint a consultant very shortly.

  Battersea Power Station
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will take urgent action to secure the future of Battersea power station; and if he will make a statement.
  518
  Mr. Brooke
  I understand that the building remains structurally sound. It was inspected by officers of English Heritage on 21 January.

  I am aware from press reports that there is a dispute about girders inserted in the building which may result in legal action. Listed building consent would of course be required for any demolition or alteration of the building falling within section 7 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

  Consultants
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on which occasions since it was established his Department has employed the services of external consultants; and if he will give details of the purposes for which they were employed and the cost of employing them.

  Mr. Sproat
  Since April 1992, my Department and its two agencies have let contracts to external consultants valued at approximately £6 million. Consultants have been used for advice, information and as a management resource in the following areas: to assist in the setting up of the Department, including advice on financial and personnel management, and project management for the new headquarters; to review the Arts Council and to examine local authority management of arts facilities; to undertake preparatory work for the national lottery; to study the activities of library authorities; to review the British library St. Pancras project; to advise on the BBC and the television licence fee; to undertake reviews relating to the British film industry; to review the effectiveness of press self-regulation; to report on sports sponsorship activities; to look at the economic effects of listing buildings of historic interest; to advise on royal estate management responsibilities; to inquire into fire safety at royal palaces; to provide statistical data on tourism; various tasks on behalf of the Historic Royal Palaces agency; and various tasks on behalf of the Royal Parks agency.

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the names and addresses of the consortia which have so far bid to run the national lottery.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: The names and addresses of those organisations which have publicly announced their intention to apply for the main licence to run the national lottery are as follows:

  The Great British Lottery Company

  3 Round Wood Avenue

  Stockley Park

  Uxbridge

  Middlesex

  081-561-3090

  The UK Lottery Foundation

  Jevington House

  Knotty Green

  Beaconsfield

  Bucks

  HP9 2TY

  0494-673777

  NM Rothschild and Sons Ltd.

  New Court

  St. Swithins Lane

  London

  EC4P 4DU

  519

  071-280-5000

  Rainbow UK Ltd. 48 St. Martins Lane

  London

  WC2N 4EJ

  071-836-2424/

  Camelot Group plc

  Beaumont Burfield Road

  Old Windsor

  Windsor

  Berkshire

  SL4 2JP

  0753-833971

  Games for Good Causes plc

  Compass House

  Redan Place

  London

  W2 4SA

  071-727-9695

  The Director General of the National Lottery will publish a full list of all those who apply, after 14 February, which is the closing date for applications.

EDUCATION

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many three and four-year-olds attended maintained nursery schools or nursery classes in maintained primary schools in each local education authority in January 1993.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 21 January 1994,Official Report, columns 857–59.

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

  Mr. Patten
  I have no such plans.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the numbers and percentages of surplus places in each local education authority; if he will list in rank order the local authorities according to the proportion of surplus places in(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special schools; and what estimate he has made of the percentage of surplus school places in grant-maintained schools in each of the local education authorities.

  Mr. Forth
  The tables show the number and percentage of surplus places in each local education authority in England, in primary and secondary schools respectively, as at January 1991, the latest date for which comprehensive information is available. No information is available centrally on surplus places in special schools.

  The information set out in the tables was provided by LEAs in response to a survey by the Department and includes all primary and secondary schools which were LEA maintained at the survey date. Numbers of grant-maintained schools have increased significantly since that date and no estimate has been made of the
  520
  current level of surplus school places in grant-maintained schools in each LEA. We intend, however, to make regulations under section 21 of the Education Act 1993 which will require both LEAs and the new Funding Agency for Schools to submit annual information on the numbers of surplus places in LEA-maintained and grant-maintained schools respectively, beginning this year. LEAs and the FAS will shortly be consulted about this requirement.

  Capacity of maintained secondary schools in England—January 1991

  Surplus places

  Percentage surplus

  Hammersmith

  3,251

  41

  Lambeth

  3,852

  39

  Manchester

  13,350

  36

  Wandsworth 1

  3,908

  36

  Solihull

  6,645

  33

  Southwark

  3,837

  33

  Brent

  4,480

  33

  Sandwell

  7,722

  31

  Knowsley

  3,925

  31

  Doncaster

  8,550

  30

  Wolverhampton

  5,740

  30

  Nottinghamshire

  26,198

  30

  Liverpool

  11,545

  30

  South Tyneside

  3,528

  29

  Merton

  2,544

  27

  Sheffield

  8,730

  27

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,046

  27

  Durham

  13,626

  27

  Wakefield

  7,763

  27

  Cumbria

  9,673

  25

  Salford

  3,711

  25

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  5,425

  25

  North Tyneside

  4,942

  25

  Leeds

  15,684

  25

  Dudley

  5,134

  25

  Newham

  3,899

  24

  Hillingdon

  3,693

  24

  Birmingham

  17,171

  24

  Wirral

  6,580

  24

  Coventry

  5,657

  24

  Lewisham

  3,223

  24

  Ealing

  3,533

  24

  Leicestershire

  16,644

  23

  Avon

  14,904

  23

  St. Helens

  3,621

  23

  Cleveland

  11,298

  23

  Oxfordshire

  9,589

  23

  Kent

  26,589

  23

  Trafford

  2,955

  22

  Walsall

  4,667

  21

  Calderdale

  2,891

  21

  Humberside

  14,891

  21

  Lancashire

  20,135

  21

  Enfield

  3,976

  21

  Warwickshire

  5,796

  21

  Bexley

  3,436

  20

  Kirklees

  6,222

  20

  Waltham Forest

  2,706

  20

  Sefton

  4,519

  20

  Gateshead

  2,941

  20

  Hertfordshire

  15,153

  20

  Essex

  24,319

  20

  Surrey

  8,400

  19

  Hackney

  1,780

  19

  Islington

  1,715

  19

  Derbyshire

  12,487

  19

  Greenwich

  3,260

  19

  Rotherham

  3,761

  18

  Befordshire

  9,409

  18

  Shropshire

  5,718

  18

  Barnsley

  2,644

  18

  Wiltshire

  9,682

  18

  Rochdale 2

  2,525

  18

  Norfolk

  7,682

  17

  Wigan

  4,025

  17

  521

  Surplus places

  Percentage surplus

  Gloucestershire

  5,756

  17

  East Sussex

  6,350

  17

  Hounslow

  2,598

  17

  Croydon

  3,149

  17

  Hereford and Worcester

  9,570

  17

  Havering

  3,229

  17

  Berkshire

  8,825

  17

  Buckinghamshire

  5,564

  16

  Northamptonshire

  8,058

  16

  Hampshire

  13,601

  16

  Bradford

  8,331

  16

  West Sussex

  7,634

  16

  Lincolnshire

  5,440

  15

  Suffolk

  8,015

  15

  North Yorkshire

  7,404

  15

  Cheshire

  11,149

  15

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,117

  14

  Tameside

  1,854

  14

  Dorset

  5,941

  14

  Devon

  9,012

  14

  Stockport

  2,732

  14

  Sunderland 2

  2,566

  13

  Northumberland

  3,727

  12

  Bromley 1

  1,309

  12

  Somerset

  3,793

  12

  Westminster

  868

  11

  Tower Hamlets

  1,051

  10

  Isle of Wight

  1,101

  10

  Oldham

  1,692

  10

  Cornwall

  3,209

  10

  Staffordshire

  7,783

  10

  Camden

  1,148

  10

  Bolton

  1,612

  9

  Bury

  1,013

  9

  Barking

  717

  8

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  643

  8

  Sutton 1

  513

  7

  Harrow

  466

  6

  Barnet

  983

  6

  Cambridge

  2,642

  6

  Redbridge

  695

  5

  1Figures for secondary schools in these LEAs are incomplete.

  2Figures for secondary schools in these LEAs are calculated on a slightly different basis since directly comparable figures are not available.

  Capacity of maintained primary schools in England—January 1991

  Surplus places

  Percentage surplus

  Wandsworth

  9,096

  39

  Liverpool

  19,481

  32

  Hammersmith

  2,981

  29

  Gateshead

  6,422

  28

  Brent

  6,585

  26

  North Tyneside

  3,802

  24

  Southwark

  5,511

  24

  Doncaster

  7,076

  22

  Wigan

  7,811

  22

  Hertfordshire

  20,503

  22

  Staffordshire

  24,485

  22

  Wolverhampton

  6,116

  22

  Knowsley

  4,004

  21

  Oxfordshire

  10,004

  21

  Lambeth

  4,479

  21

  Northumberland

  4,902

  21

  Bedfordshire

  9,782

  21

  Berkshire

  14,013

  20

  Hackney

  3,019

  19

  Barnsley

  4,220

  19

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  4,515

  19

  Islington

  2,958

  19

  Newham

  4,587

  18

  Humberside

  16,347

  18

  Wiltshire

  9,682

  18

  Coventry

  6,022

  18

  522

  Surplus places

  Percentage surplus

  Durham

  11,516

  18

  Sheffield

  9,048

  18

  Nottinghamshire

  17,253

  18

  Hillingdon

  3,754

  18

  Hampshire

  24,719

  17

  Rotherham

  4,346

  17

  Suffolk

  7,902

  17

  Leeds

  8,335

  17

  Hereford and Worcester

  9,296

  17

  Cheshire

  17,045

  17

  Salford

  4,171

  17

  Buckinghamshire

  11,252

  17

  Cleveland

  10,391

  16

  Bradford

  6,370

  16

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,845

  16

  Calderdale

  3,324

  16

  Shropshire

  5,396

  16

  South Tyneside

  2,619

  16

  Essex

  22,611

  16

  Solihull

  3,332

  16

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,090

  16

  Manchester

  7,617

  16

  Bexley

  2,914

  15

  Tower Hamlets

  2,864

  15

  East Sussex

  7,955

  15

  Wakefield

  4,314

  15

  Sunderland

  4,674

  15

  Norfolk

  10,842

  15

  North Yorkshire

  9,524

  15

  Walsall

  3,823

  14

  Cambridge

  9,401

  14

  Warwickshire

  7,305

  14

  Devon

  10,575

  13

  Sutton

  1,619

  13

  Greenwich

  2,718

  13

  Stockport

  3,557

  13

  Surrey

  11,084

  13

  Lincolnshire

  7,236

  13

  Gloucestershire

  5,506

  12

  Derbyshire

  10,230

  12

  Merton

  1,639

  12

  West Sussex

  6,940

  12

  Croydon

  3,389

  12

  Cumbria

  5,674

  12

  Ealing

  3,016

  11

  St. Helens

  1,886

  11

  Kent

  15,431

  11

  Kirklees

  3,291

  10

  Trafford

  1,878

  10

  Camden

  972

  10

  Westminster

  891

  10

  Corporation of London

  21

  10

  Bromley

  2,259

  10

  Avon

  6,359

  9

  Lewisham

  1,609

  9

  Dudley

  2,551

  9

  Leicestershire

  7,204

  9

  Northamptonshire

  4,714

  9

  Barking

  1,368

  9

  Havering

  1,971

  9

  Waltham Forest

  1,445

  8

  Birmingham

  8,711

  8

  Rochdale

  1,784

  8

  Barnet

  1,463

  7

  Hounslow

  1,226

  7

  Somerset

  2,524

  7

  Sefton

  1,944

  7

  Oldham

  1,319

  6

  Bolton

  1,602

  6

  Wirral

  1,953

  6

  Redbridge

  796

  5

  Tameside

  968

  5

  Isle of Wight

  357

  5

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  485

  5

  Harrow

  888

  5

  Lancashire

  6,754

  5

  Enfield

  765

  4

  523

  Surplus places

  Percentage surplus

  Dorset

  1,165

  3

  Cornwall

  744

  2

  Sandwell

  328

  1

  Bury

  0

  0

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

  Mr. Patten
  There are six drawings by Augustus John, Royal Academy; one oil painting, "Tobias and the Angel" —late 18th century north Italian school—and one engraving of Beata Beatrice by D. G. Rossetti. I look forward to showing these to the hon. Member at an early opportunity; he is welcome to bring his camera.

  Lecturers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what changes have taken place in the past three years in the totals and proportion of(a) part-time and (b) full-time lecturers currently employed in further and higher education; and what are the financial consequences;

  (2) what is his latest calculation on the proportion of (a) part-time and (b) full-time lecturers currently employed in further and higher education in England.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information is not available in the form requested, but table A gives details of full and part-time lecturer numbers in England. Table B gives details of expenditure on lecturers' salaries since 1990–91.

  It is for individual institutions to determine their staffing levels and to meet the consequent costs within the total funding available to them from all sources.

  Table A Full-time and part-time lecturer numbers

  thousands

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  LEA maintained Institutions1

  Full-time

  55

  53

  52

  Part-time

  22

  24

  23

  Universities2

  Full-time

  39

  41

  42

  Part-time

  3

  3

  3

  PCFC Institutions

  Full-time

  22

  22

  n/a

  Part-time

  3

  4

  n/a

  Table B Expenditure on lecturers' salaries

  £ millions

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  LEA maintained Institutions1

  Full-time

  1,175

  1,254

  n/a

  Part-time

  151

  180

  n/a

  Universities2

  Total

  866

  1,017

  n/a

  PCFC Institutions

  Total

  n/a

  1,200

  n/a

  Note: Figures shown are the latest available.

  1 Institutions now within the futher education sector, but not including sixth form colleges.
  524
  2 Universities refer to universities funded by the Universities Funding Council.

  n/a = not available.

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

  Mr. Boswell
  A total of 2,127 at 1 January 1994.

  Lowestoft Middle School
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to announce a decision on the Suffolk county council application to build a new middle school at Lowestoft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Suffolk's proposals are currently under consideration. My right hon. Friend will announce a decision on them. as soon as possible.

  Muslim Girls School, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he received an application from the Muslim Girls community school in Bradford for voluntary-aided status; what further information he requires about the application before reaching a decision; when he expects to announce a decision; and if he will intake a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have received no such application. Because of the Secretary of State's role in these matters, it is not appropriate to comment on any proposals which may come before him for decision.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Staff
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will publish details of the number of people working full and part time at the House of Commons.

  Mr. Beith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 18 January 1994,Official Report, column 520.

  Committee of Selection
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Selection what criteria the Committee of Selection uses to fulfil the requirement of paragraph 2 of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of Standing Committees) to have regard to the qualifications of hon. Members nominated to serve on Standing Committees.

  Sir Fergus Montomery
  In nominating hon. Members to serve on Standing Committees, the Committee of Selection is required to have regard not only to the qualifications of hon. Members, but also to the composition of the House. For Bills certified by the Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland, the Committee is required to nominate not fewer than 16 Members representing Scottish constituencies. Hon. Members
  525
  interested in serving on particular Standing Committees may submit their names to the Committee for its consideration.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will(a) list the number of statutory instruments passed and (b) what percentage of these were subjet to the affirmative procedure for each year since 1977–78.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is available under the delegated legislation section of the Sessional Returns.

WALES

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will free from restrictions the cash held by local authorities from council house sales receipts for a phased programme of construction of homes to rent and for a phased programme of modernisation and refurbishment; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will permit an increase in the percentage of council house sales receipts being made available for use by local authorities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No changes are planned. The rules already allow all capital receipts from council house sales to be used for new capital spending where there is no outstanding loan debt. Changing the requirements of section 59 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 would increase public borrowing.

  Consultants
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on which occasions since 1979 his Department has employed the services of external consultants; and if he will give details of the purposes for which they were employed and the cost of employing them.

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

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 181, what was the result of the application for a licence in respect of a mink farm at Llanybydder, Dyfed, established in February 1988; when that farm was in operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The application for a licence was withdrawn.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what level of funding will be available for the training of teachers to enable them to teach Welsh as a second language; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  £176,000 has been made available for 1993–94 by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales to help colleges meet the criteria for primary initial teacher training courses. These require that students must have the opportunity to learn Welsh. The council has yet to decide on the level of funds for 1994–95.
  526
  Student teachers on one or two-year initial teacher training courses in Welsh receive a bursary of £1,000 under the Department for Education trainee teacher bursary scheme. This financial incentive is aimed at maintaining teacher supply in the shortage areas, including Welsh.

  The sum of £3 million has been made available in 1993–94 through the grants for education support and training programme for the in-service training and support of teachers of Welsh as a first and second language. Local education authorities have been directed to target the majority of these funds towards the training of teachers responsible for teaching Welsh as a second language. I am currently considering authority bids for 1994–95 and expect to make an announcement on the level of funding shortly.

  In deciding on the future level of funds to be made available account will continue to be taken of the supply, demand and training needs of teachers of Welsh as a second language.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funding will be available to finance the training of teachers to a level of teaching proficiency through the medium of the Welsh language; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Mainstream funding for teaching provided by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales does not distinguish between Welsh medium and English medium teaching.

  The Department has put in place an incentive supplement scheme aimed at increasing the supply of teachers trained to teach through the medium of the Welsh language. Expenditure under this scheme will amount to some £160,000 in 1993–94. I intend to make a similar level of funding available for 1994–95.

  The sum of £264,400 has been made available in 1993–94 under the grants for education support and training programme for training to enable teachers to transfer from English medium to Welsh medium teaching. In addition, £12 million has been made available through the programme in 1993–94 for the in-service training and support for teachers on subject teaching. Local education authorities have been directed to target the majority of these funds, in both English and Welsh medium schools, towards the training needs of teachers in the national curriculum subjects requirements. I am currently considering authority bids for 1994–95 and expect to make an announcement on the level of funding shortly.

  In deciding on the future level of funds to be made available account will continue to be taken of the supply, demand and training needs for Welsh medium teachers.

  Business Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers of business start-ups and bankruptcies in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  Official estimates of bankruptcy orders are compiled for Wales and England combined and are not separately available for Wales. The best available guide to trends in numbers of business starts comes from VAT data. The number of VAT registrations in Wales is available for each year from 1980 onwards and is as follows:
  527

  Wales—VAT registrations

  Number

  1980

  7,100

  1981

  7,100

  1982

  7,700

  1983

  8,000

  1984

  7,600

  1985

  7,300

  1986

  7,800

  1987

  8,700

  1988

  10,900

  1989

  10,900

  1990

  10,200

  1991

  8,400

  1992

  17,400

  1 The estimate for 1992 is not compatible with those for earlier years due to the effects of the increase in the VAT threshold from £25,400 to £35,000 introduced in the March 1991 Budget.

  Source: Department of Trade and Industry.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of the performance and effectiveness of TECs in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The performance of Welsh TECs is closely monitored against the targets agreed in their business plans and they are also subject to two formal reviews of performance each year. It is my intention to publish information on Welsh TEC performance in the context of the quartile tables of key performance indicators prepared for TECs in England. This information will be available in the early part of the 1994–95 financial year.

  Lecturers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what changes have taken place in the past three years in the totals and proportion of(a) part-time and (b) full-time lecturers currently employed in further and higher education; and what are the financial consequences;

  (2) what is his latest calculation on the proportion of (a) part-time and (b) full-time lecturers currently employed in further and higher education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Except for the university of Wales, information on part-time lecturers in the further and higher education sectors is not available. Academic staff of all grades may undertake lecturing duties, and the tables which follow give the available information on numbers of all academic staff and those in the lecturer grades at the university of Wales and at other publicly funded institutions in both sectors in Wales. Staff of the Open university are excluded.

  University of Wales1

  Lecturers2

  All academic staff

  1990–91

  Full time

  2,190

  2,764

  Part time

  175

  236

  1991–92

  Full time

  2,238

  2,853

  Part time

  131

  199

  1992–93

  Full time

  2,278

  2,913

  Part time

  121

  195

  528
  1 At December.

  2 Includes readers, senior lecturers and lecturers.

  Source: University Statistical Record.

  Other further and higher educational establishments1 Full-time only

  Lecturers2

  All academic staff

  1990–91

  4,038

  4,331

  1991–92

  4,198

  4,334

  1992–933

  4,279

  4,330

  1 At March. Includes information for the polytechnic of Wales (1990–91, 1991–92) and the university of Glamorgan (1992–93). Information on part-time staff by grade not available.

  2 Includes readers, principal lecturers, senior lecturers and lecturers.

  3 Provisional.

  Source: Department for Education.

  Decisions about the deployment of staff are for individual institutions. The deployment of staff does not affect the allocation of money to institutions from the funding bodies.

  Magor-Castleton Motorway
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many submissions were received in the consultation exercise on the proposed Magor to Castleton motorway; and how many were(a) in favour and (b) opposed to the proposal.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A report on the results of the consultation and the issues raised is in preparation. The information requested will be made public when a decision is taken on whether or not to proceed with any of the published routes.

  Milk
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many gallons of milk were consumed in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how many gallons of milk were produced in Wales in that year.

  Mr. Redwood
  Milk Marketing Board statistics for milk production in Wales are published in Welsh Agricultural Statistics. The volume of milk produced and sold through milk marketing schemes in Wales in 1992 was 1,455 million litres or 320 million gallons. Total liquid milk consumption figures are not separately available for Wales.

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

  Mr. Redwood
  The head count of Welsh Office staff eligible to receive statutory sick pay is 2,430.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Independent Review Tribunal
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussion he has had with the Home Office regarding the proposed independent review tribunal for dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice; and if he will make a statement.
  529
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. Officials in my Department and the Home Office are working together on the proposed new arrangements for considering alleged miscarriages of justice.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to improve the legal aid system.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The legal aid scheme is kept under constant scrutiny to ensure that it is operating as efficienty and effectively as possible. In addition, it is part of the subject matter of the fundamental review of my Department's expenditure which is curently under way.

  Judges and Barristers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to broaden the social background of(a) judges and (b) barristers.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's policy is to appoint to judicial office entirely on merit those members of the legal profession who satisfy the relevant statutory conditions for appointment and are best qualified to fill the posts. However, the Bar is an independent profession and the selection of prospective barristers is therefore a matter for the Bar Council and not an area in which the Government can directly intervene.

  Commercial Leases
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to amend the current law relating to privity of contract in commercial leases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government will implement the recommendations in the Law Commission's report "Landlord and Tenant Law: Privity of Contract and Estate"—Law Com. No. 174—for all future leases including commercial leases, as soon as there is a suitable legislative opportunity.

  Medical Ethics
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the work of the Law Commission in relation to medical ethics.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Law Commission is reviewing the law and procedures relating to decision making on behalf of mentally incapacitated adults, which involves consideration of ethical questions in relation to medical treatment and research.

  Leasehold Flats
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to introduce legislation to create a commonhold tenure for occupiers of leasehold flats.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government intend to introduce the commonhold legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. The commonhold system will not be restricted to flats, but will be available for use with other types of property.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts (Salaries)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the code of practice in relation to salaries and pay rises of NHS trust chief executives.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Guidance on determing rates of pay for executives in national health service trusts was set out in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's letter of 22 January 1991 to all NHS trust chairmen. That is the standing advice and copies are available in the Library. The chief executive of the National Health Service Management Executive also wrote to chairmen of all third wave trusts on 20 January 1993 explaining how the 1992 public sector pay restraint affected executive pay appointments at that time. Copies of that letter are also available in the Library. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued draft codes of conduct and accountability on 13 January to the NHS for its views and, subject to consultation, these will be put into effect from 1 April 1994. One of the main new features will be the publication, in annual reports, of the total remuneration from NHS sources of chairmen, executive and non-executive board members.

  Loans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each scheme operated by her Department under which loans are available, the objectives of the scheme, the number of unrecovered loans, the total value of unrecovered loans, the average number of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990, the average value of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990 and the annual cost of recovering loans.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table gives information on schemes operated by the Department under which loans are available. It also provides information on any unrecovered loans. It excludes loans to staff, which are recovered through their salaries. It is not possible except at disproportionate cost to provide information on the annual cost of recovering loans.
  531

  Departmental loans

  Loans

  Objective

  Loans repayable to DH when children's homes close or change use

  Under section 58 of the Children Act 1989, providers of some children's homes (which were formerly approved schools) are required to repay past grants and loans to the Department of Health when the home closes or changes its use. Central Government capital was invested under section 104 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 for the establishment and refurbishment of approved schools and this continues to be recoverable under the Act. We hold no records of any unrecovered loans.

  Loans under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968

  To support the agreed national activities of the voluntary sector in relation to the health and personal social services. This is achieved by providing grants to voluntary organisations towards their administrative (core) costs and for certain national projects and, exceptionally, for well defined regional and local activities.

  While the section 64 power allows loans to be made, none has been made under the section 64 general scheme to date. Any proposal to make a loan would require approval of the Treasury.

  Loans to the Medicines Control Agency

  There are potentially two kinds of loan which the Department can make to the Medicines Control Agency.

  When the MCA became a trading fund its net assets were financed by public dividend capital and originating debt. The originating debt is to be repaid to the Department over a five-year period in instalments. The MCA was given the option, which it has taken up, to re-borrow an equivalent amount to that repaid - this amounts to £330,000 in the current financial year.

  As regards its recurrent and capital costs, the MCA is a self-financing agency which recovers its costs through licensing fees. However, loans may be made to the MCA for effective management of cash flow. All loan repayments would be recovered as they fall due.

  Loans to NHS Trusts

  The objective of the trust loans system is to provide finance for capital expenditure and for the effective management of cash flow at NHS trusts. All loan repayments are recovered as they fall due. None of the loans can be categorised as unrecovered.

  Family Health Service Authorities
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 10 December,Official Report, column 394, what was the number of secretaries,

  Staff type

  1 October 1989

  1 October 1990

  1 October 1991

  1 October 1992

  1 April 1993

  Management and Administration1

  n/a

  573·8

  676·3

  772·1

  758·4

  Secretary/Clerical2

  405·5

  3,620·2

  1,297·0

  1,319·2

  1,197·7

  Receptionist3

  2,612·1

  —

  2,530·6

  2,497·7

  2,396·7

  The data relate to whole-time equivalent staff.

  1 No data are available for management and administrative staff for 1989; the figure for 1990 relates only to practice managers.

  2 The figure for the secretary/clerical category for 1989 relates to staff employed only as secretaries; the receptionist category relates to staff employed as receptionists, and as secretary/receptionists.

  3 The figure for secretary/clerical category for 1990 includes receptionists.

  Hepatitis B
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what target she has received from the World Health Organisation in relation to hepatitis B universal vaccination; and what plans she has to meet that target;

  (2) what plans she has to implement a hepatitis B universal vaccination strategy; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Targets for the introduction of hepatitis B vaccine into national immunisation programmes were set by the global advisory group of the World Health Organisation's expanded programme on immunisation in 1991, the recommendations being endorsed by the World
  532
  receptionists, administrators and practice managers in each of the 12 family health services authority areas which fell wholly or partly within the London initiative zone in each of the last five years.

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

  Health Assembly in 1992. These targets called for countries with a prevalence of hepatitis B virus carriers of 8 per cent. or greater to include hepatitis B immunisation into their national immunisation programmes by 1995 and for all countries to include the vaccine by 1997. Target groups and strategies may vary with local epidemiology. The carrier rate in the United Kingdom is significantly below 1 per cent.

  Hepatitis B vaccine was introduced into the United Kingdom in 1982 and is recommended for those at high risk of infection. Immunisation strategy is kept under review in the light of a range of factors, including the current low prevalence of the disease in this country.
  533
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the bodies and individuals from whom she has received representations calling for a universal hepatitis B vaccination programme in children.

  Mr. Sackville
  No recent representations have been received from organisations. We are aware that some professional interests favour universal immunisation. Policy is kept under review in the light of a range of factors including current prevalence.

  Occasional letters have been received from interested individuals. These cannot be listed for reasons of confidentiality.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies her Department has undertaken of(a) the most common method of transmission of hepatitis B and (b) the causes of primary liver cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  In the United Kingdom the most common form of acquisition of hepatitis B is known to be through unprotected sexual activity both between men and women and between men. This accounts for perhaps 60 per cent. of those cases in which a cause is identified. Transmission routes for hepatitis B are well understood. The Department has not received recent proposals for further study in this area or of the causes of primary liver cancer.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has commissioned into the duration of antibody responses to hepatitis B vaccination in children.

  Private income of the national health service

  Region, Special Health Authority, National Health Service Trust

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Northern regional health authority

  1,579,019

  1,801,937

  2,071,309

  1,877,310

  1,332,230

  Yorkshire regional health authority

  3,837,428

  4,070,335

  5,044,191

  4,541,752

  2,551,178

  Trent regional health authority

  2,838,649

  3,183,545

  2,877,057

  3,464,673

  2,615,399

  East Anglia regional health authority

  3,911,425

  4,743,750

  5,278,653

  7,318,941

  6,068,307

  North West Thames regional health authority

  10,251,108

  11,765,016

  13,377,772

  13,984,258

  11,082,874

  North East Thames regional health authority

  11,064,093

  14,063,599

  16,267,305

  11,158,170

  9,893,003

  South East Thames regional health authority

  7,857,124

  8,636,174

  11,023,826

  11,692,162

  12,558,427

  South West Thames regional health authority

  2,808,233

  3,368,424

  4,150,714

  3,527,592

  2,966,909

  Wessex regional health authority

  2,233,589

  2,516,311

  3,322,716

  4,383,335

  3,530,475

  Oxford regional health authority

  5,812,328

  8,138,495

  9,510,480

  9,724,622

  10,803,281

  South Western regional health authority

  3,192,220

  3,643,156

  4,821,114

  2,111,512

  1,484,225

  West Midlands regional health authority

  3,704,756

  4,405,253

  5,612,685

  6,326,507

  5,525,374

  Mersey regional health authority

  2,070,550

  1,706,556

  2,051,833

  2,006,183

  312,253

  North Western regional health authority

  4,568,630

  5,382,332

  6,644,907

  4,949,840

  4,127,700

  Hospitals for Sick Children special health authority

  2,843,674

  3,459,624

  3,578,948

  5,066,294

  4,987,994

  National hospitals for nervous diseases special health authority

  1,014,771

  1,099,076

  1,234,224

  1,707,059

  1,508,084

  Moorfield eye hospital special health authority

  636,115

  676,430

  739,885

  884,570

  944,319

  Bethlem Royal/Maudsley special health authority

  111,959

  128,768

  134,547

  183,815

  155,266

  National heart and chest hospitals special health authority

  2,805,264

  3,660,196

  3,636,114

  4,256,510

  4,429,254

  Royal Marsden hospital special health authority

  2,986,469

  3,883,394

  4,586,605

  6,390,534

  8,159,002

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's special health authority

  1,512,684

  2,232,927

  2,753,572

  3,003,772

  3,735,534

  Eastman dental hospital special health authority

  19,463

  24,097

  13,298

  20,140

  23,321

  National health service trusts

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  32,254,000

  58,520,000

  Total income

  77,659,551

  92,589,395

  108,731,755

  140,833,551

  157,314,409

  Source: Annual accounts for regional health authorities, district health authorities, London postgraduate special health authorities and NHS trusts.

  Notes:

  1. The figures in the table include money received from national health service patients paying for accommodation in single rooms or small wards (section 63 NHS Act 1977), private in-patients (section 65) and private non-resident patients (section 66).

  2. Overseas visitors (section 211) not eligible for free treatment have been excluded (as they are charged national health service patients).
  534
  Mr. Sackville
  None, but the possibility of the need for booster doses of vaccine continues to be kept under review.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of hepatitis B in each EC country in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information on reported cases among European Community countries which have submitted data to the World Health Organisation is:

  1991

  1992

  Denmark

  71

  51

  Germany

  5,081

  5,987

  Italy

  3,262

  2,985

  Netherlands

  264

  252

  Portugal

  609

  738

  England and Wales

  488

  488

  Differences in populations and surveillance systems should be borne in mind in assessing these figures.

  NHS Private Income
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the total private income in the NHS for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93;

  (2) what was the private income of the NHS in each region and special health authority in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.
  535

  In-patients
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the activity figures for in-patients plus day cases in terms of finished consultant episodes for each region and special health authority combined in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 for(a) NHS patients and (b) private patients.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table. Information on private patients for 1992–93 is not yet available.

  England, NHS Hospital activity data, 1990–91—1992–93 (a) Finished consultant episodes (in-patient plus day cases)1

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  England

  8,785,252

  9,306,707

  9,636,262

  Northern

  628,583

  655,287

  678,185

  Yorkshire

  722,130

  751,428

  784,549

  Trent

  809,186

  858,823

  899,532

  East Anglia

  360,934

  379,294

  388,343

  North West Thames

  536,203

  576,714

  600,446

  North East Thames

  695,279

  746,633

  762,213

  South East Thames

  629,250

  673,068

  702,475

  South West Thames

  457,600

  500,588

  522,221

  Wessex

  526,284

  562,571

  573,834

  Oxford

  383,333

  404,923

  431,021

  South Western

  588,049

  617,689

  647,201

  West Midlands

  959,648

  1,006,699

  1,029,052

  Mersey

  487,107

  523,515

  541,685

  North Western

  887,029

  927,034

  944,323

  SHAs

  114,637

  122,441

  131,182

  1 This includes a small number of private patients of which estimates are shown in the table (b).

  Source: KP70 return.

  (b) Private patients in NHS hospitals—Finished Consultant Episodes

  1990–91

  1991–922

  England1

  81,366

  89,863

  Northern

  3,349

  3,178

  Yorkshire

  4,842

  5,263

  Trent

  2,797

  3,038

  East Anglia

  4,504

  4,270

  North West Thames

  10,345

  9,337

  North East Thames

  7,402

  9,850

  South East Thames

  6,648

  8,636

  South West Thames

  5,081

  6,269

  Wessex

  2,643

  2,673

  Oxford

  6,928

  7,244

  South Western

  5,044

  5,458

  West Midlands

  6,081

  6,866

  Mersey

  2,370

  2,249

  North Western

  6,445

  7,224

  SHAs

  6,887

  8,306

  1 Total may not add due to rounding.

  2 Provisional estimates.

  Source: Hospital Episode Statistics, 1990–91; 1991–92.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 794, if she will specify the aggregate level of special grants and care in the community over the present financial year and each of the next three years.

  Mr. Bowis
  The special transitional grants for community care are planned to be:

  £ million

  1993–94

  565·4

  1994–95

  735·9

  1995–96

  647·6

  536
  In each case, the majority of the resources within the special transitional grant will be incorporated into the following year's local authority revenue support grant, so that the cumulative additional resource available for community care will be:

  £ million

  1994–95

  1,274·5

  1995–96

  1,838·0

  We propose to make available a further £418 million in 1996–97, and will determine nearer the time how much of that will be included within the special transitional grant, and how much within the revenue support grant.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to require local authorities to spend a specific percentage of special transitional community care grant in the private and voluntary sector during the next financial year.

  Mr. Bowis
  We shall shortly be announcing the conditions which we propose to apply to the special transitional grant in 1994–95.

  NHS Regional Authorities
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has reached decisions on the boundaries for the new NHS regional health authorities to be established on 1 April.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Following consultation, I have decided that the number of regional health authorities should be reduced to eight from 1 April 1994. The boundaries for the regions will, with one exception, be as set out in the consultation document "Managing the new NHS: Proposal to determine the new NHS regions and establish new Regional Health Authorities". The exception is the districts of East and West Cumbria which, in response to local representations, will be part of the new Northern and Yorkshire region and not North West region as originally proposed.

  I shall be laying statutory instruments before the House early in March to implement the required changes to regional boundaries.

  The chairmen of the eight regions will be:

  ANGLIA AND OXFORD (originally East Anglian and Oxford)

  Dr. Stuart Burgess CBE

  NORTHERN AND YORKSHIRE (originally North East and Yorkshire)

  Mr. John Greetham CBE

  TRENT

  Sir Michael Carlisle until end of July 1994 when he will be succeeded by

  Mr. Keith Ackroyd

  NORTH THAMES

  Sir William Staveley GCB

  SOUTH THAMES

  Mr. William Wells

  SOUTH AND WEST (originally South West)

  Ms Rennie Fritchie

  WEST MIDLANDS

  Mr. Bryan Baker

  NORTH WEST

  Sir Donald Wilson DL

  537

  Community Nurses
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the consultation exercise undertaken by the United Kingdom Central Council concerning proposals to amend the criteria for community nurse status; and what action her Department has taken on the conclusions of the consultation exercise.

  Mr. Sackville
  The United Kingdom Central Council is reviewing its proposal for post-registration education and practice as a consequence of its consultation exercise. We have not received its revised proposals.

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out the names and the professional background of the current members of the NHS Supplies Authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The chairman is Sir Robin Buchanan, who was previously chairman of Wessex regional health authority, and is a chartered accountant and company director. the other non-executive members are:Mrs. Alison Cook, chairman of Barnsley district health authority, and a company solicitor; formerly company secretary within ICI.
  Mr. Eric Greenhalgh, consultant and company chairman; formerly Director of Trading for the John Lewis Partnership department stores; Managing Director for David Jones, Australia, and also Selfridges; Chairman of Owen Owen plc; President of ACI; Vice-President and President-designate of the International Association of Department Stores.
  Mr. Jim Hammond, Chief Executive, East Gloucestershire National Health Service Trust and a chartered engineer; formerly director and general manager of several companies in the construction industry.
  Miss Catherine McLoughlin, Management consultant, and Chairman of Bromley Family Health Services Authority; formerly District General Manager for Haringey DHA, and Director of Nursing for the NHS Management Executive from 1989 to 1990 with extensive nursing experience.
  Mr. Fred Hoult, Chairman of the Freeman Group of Hospitals NHS Trust, and director of a transport and distribution company and three property companies.

  The executive directors are:
  Mr. Terry Hunt, National Director and former Regional General Manager to North East Thames RHA.
  Mr. Evan Sutherland, Deputy National Director and Director of Purchasing; formerly Regional Supplies Director to North Western RHA and extensive private sector procurement experience.
  Mr. Richard Chantler, Director of Finance and Information and former senior manager with TNT Express Worldwide Ltd.; Fellow of the Institute of Certified Accountants.
  Mrs. Roxanne Sutton, Director of Communications; formerly Director of Communications for North East Thames RHA, and extensive experience in NHS personnel management posts at hospital, district and regional level; Member of the Institute of Personnel Management.
  Mr. Chris Uden, Director of Human Resources; formerly Director of Management Development with the NHS Procurement Directorate with extensive experience with British Gas in marketing, customer services and management development. Member of the Institute of Training and Development and Associate Member of the Institute of Personnel Management.

  Drug Overdoses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people die each year from deliberate or accidental overdoses of prescribed drugs.
  538
  Mr. Sackville
  In 1991, 1,783 people were recorded as having died from accidental, self-inflicted or undetermined, whether accidentally or purposely inflicted, poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances. Whether or not these were prescribed is not recorded at death. However, most categories of these substances are only available on prescription. Major exceptions are "analgesics, antipyretics and antirheumatics" which accounted for 753 of the deaths and "other unspecified drugs and medicaments" which accounted for a further 294 of the total.

  Detailed data about these deaths and the substances involved are published each year in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys "Mortality Statistics Series DH2 and DH4", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the 10 prescribed drugs used in the largest numbers of deliberate or accidental fatal overdoses.

  Mr. Sackville
  Table 10 in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys "Series DH4 Mortality" statistics, injury and poisoning, shows the substances involved where deaths were recorded as accidental, self-inflicted or undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted. Whether or not these were prescribed is not recorded at death.

  Copies of the relevant OPCS publications are available in the Library.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the medical ill-effects of cannabis on users.

  Mr. Bowis
  Consideration of the short and long-term effects of cannabis use is part of the normal medical assessment of any drug-taking individual who presents for treatment. In general, concentration, short-term memory and manual dexterity tend to be impaired during intoxication. Long-term, regular and heavy cannabis smoking may also cause respiratory diseases such as bronchitis or lung cancer.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the medical applications of cannabis in the treatment or prevention of(a) glaucoma, (b) multiple sclerosis and (c) Alzheimer's disease.

  Mr. Sackville
  Cannabis is known to lower intraocular pressure in glaucoma and to relieve muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis, although in neither case is it as effective as other drugs. We are not aware that cannabis has any benefit to patients with Alzheimer's disease.

  Drug Prescriptions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost to the NHS of the medical service provided to those patients addicted to prescribed drugs.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally in the form requested. However, since 1986–87 top sliced funds have been made available to health authorities for the development of drug misuse services, including services
  539
  for people addicted to prescribed drugs. This allocation, which totals over £24 million in 1993–94 represents a minimum that health authorities will spend on drug misuse services.

  Heroin
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost to the NHS per prescription, of providing prescribed heroin to a patient.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The average net ingredient cost per prescription item for all diamorphine products dispensed in the family health services authorities in England in 1992 was £27·16.

  Prescriptions for diamorphine products are issued both to drug addicts and to patients with terminal illness as part of their symptom control.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to reduce the numbers of deaths resulting from variation in purity of heroin.

  Mr. Bowis
  On 6 January we launched a £2·6 million media campaign on the dangers of drug and solvent misuse. The campaign is supported by leaflets for young people, parents, professionals and others giving the facts and advice on drug misuse. This includes the fact that the strength of drugs made illegally or without medical supervision is unpredictable and dangerous.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid Essex area were waiting over one year for hospital admissions in(a) March 1991 and (b) the latest available month.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The area covered by Mid Essex and West Essex district health authorities in March 1991 is now covered by Mid Essex hospital services trust and North Essex district health authority.

  At March 1991 in Mid and West Essex district health authorities 3,143 patients had waited more than a year for treatment and 1,018 of these had waited more than two years. At September 1993 in the Mid Essex hospital services trust and North Essex district health authority the number waiting over one year had fallen by 56 per cent. to 1,379 and no one had waited more than two years.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of hospital admissions in the Mid Essex area are(a) immediate, (b) within five weeks, (c) within three months and (d) longer than a year; and what the figures were in March 1991;

  (2) what was the average waiting time for admission to hospital in the Mid Essex area in (a) 1988, (b) March 1991 and (c) the latest available month.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is available only on a national or regional basis rather than district health authority or trust.

  Chelmsford Hospitals
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list all those services provided for patient care at Broomfield and St. John's hospitals, Chelmsford that have been enhanced since May 1979; and if she will make a statement;
  540
  (2) if she will list any totally new services for patient care provided by Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford and St. John's hospital, Chelmsford since May 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are aware of a number of new or enhanced services at these hospitals.

  My hon. Friend may wish to contact Sir Jeffrey Bowman, chairman of Mid Essex hospital services national health service trust, for full details.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money in cash terms at current prices, has been spent on capital projects at Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford and St. John's hospital, Chelmsford, since May 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  During the last 15 years, more than £25 million has been spent on various developments and improvements at Chelmsford. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Sir Jeffrey Bowman, chairman of Mid Essex hospital services national health service trust, for details of the schemes.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all those new services in health care which have been recommended or are being considered for moving to Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford from other hospital sites outside the Chelmsford area.

  Mr. Sackville
  Statutory consultation is taking place on a proposal to transfer the regional plastic surgery and burns unit from St. Andrew's hospital, Billericay to Broomfield hospital.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent on the national health service in pounds sterling per head of the population in Mid Essex in(a) May 1979, (b) April 1991 and (c) the expected spending level in April 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available centrally in this form. However, Mid Essex's revenue outturn increased from £35,554,483 in 1982–83—1982–83 cash —to £93,892,755 in 1991–92—1991–92 cash. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. Alec Sexton, the chairman of North Essex health authority, for full details.

  Patients, Mid-Essex
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the Mid Essex area have been treated in the latest month available for every 100 patients treated in March 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  For every 100 finished consultation periods—ordinary admissions plus day cases—in the general and acute sector in national health service hospitals in the Mid Essex district in the financial year 1990–91, there were 105 in 1992–93.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a figure for the number of staff in her Department covered by statutory sick pay.

  Mr. Sackville
  As at 31 December 1993 the Department of Health had 5,379 staff entitled to statutory sick pay.

  Continuing Care
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rights a patient has to receive continuing care in NHS hospitals for(a) dementia and (b) other chronic conditions; and what regulations and guidance her Department has issued on this matter.

  Mr. Bowis
  The "Caring for People" White Paper—Cm 849—sets out clearly that all health authorities have a responsibility to secure continuing care for people who require it for reasons of ill-health.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps her Department is taking to ensure that there are sufficient long-stay beds for people wishing to receive continuing care in hospital.

  Mr. Bowis
  The White Paper "Caring for People" made it clear that the national health service has a continuing responsibility to secure long-term care for those who need it for reasons of ill-health. Health authorities as purchasers are encouraged to consider the range of options which may be available for the long-term care needs of their resident populations: whether by placing contracts for services with their own directly managed units or by other district health authorities, NHS trusts, or the independent sector.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures her Department has taken to publicise to patients and their relatives the options available to them for continuing care.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government have made it clear to health authorities and local authority social services departments that they should explain to all people who may require continuing care the options available to them. Under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 local authorities are expected to publish community care plans in collaboration with health authorities which take into account the needs of the local population. The Department has produced a leaflet, "Community Care changes in April 1993", on community care services, which was made generally available to the public, and an information pack for voluntary and private sector providers explaining the new arrangements. These were also sent to voluntary organisations who represent patients/residents and their relatives.

  Hospital Charges
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in what circumstances a person with the right to permanent residence in the United Kingdom is classed as an overseas visitor and liable to charges for treatment in hospital;

  (2) in what circumstances a British citizen is classed as an overseas visitor and liable to charges for treatment in hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  The services of the national health service are intended for people ordinarily resident in the

  Number of cases reported

  Age (years) at diagnosis

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  16

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  17

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  18

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  19

  5

  2

  3

  4

  3

  5

  3

  542
  United Kingdom regardless of nationality or origin. The NHS (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989—1989 SI No. 306—as amended by the NHS (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Amendment Regulations 1991—1991 SI No. 438—apply.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where she expects to identify efficiency savings in the national health service for 1994–95 in addition to the 2·25 per cent. announced in the budget for spending on direct patient care.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Hospital and community health services will be required to demonstrate efficiency improvements of at least 2¼ per cent. in 1994–95. How these are achieved is a matter for local decision in the light of local circumstances.

  NHS Productivity
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued or plans to issue to health authorities and trusts about improved productivity in the service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Specific guidance on productivity is not issued by the Department. However, health authorities and national health service trusts are assisted in their efforts to improve productivity by the National Audit Office, the Audit Commission and the value for money unit of the NHS Management Executive, which report on key areas and make appropriate recommendations. The NHS reforms have also given an incentive to improve productivity as providers have to compete for contracts.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been given to health authorities and trusts about pay levels for 1994–95.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The chief executive of the national health service management executive wrote to general managers of health authorities and chief executives of NHS trusts on 30 November 1993 about the increase in public spending on health in 1994–95. The letter set out the implications for real growth, efficiency targets and pay rises. A copy of the letter EL(93)110 will be placed in the Library.

  AIDS
  Mr. Peter Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of AIDS in the age groups(a) 16 to 18, (b) 18 to 21 and (c) over 21 years were notified to the Department in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested for the United Kingdom is shown in the table.
  543

  Number of cases reported

  Age (years) at diagnosis

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  20

  —

  2

  4

  4

  2

  4

  3

  21

  6

  4

  3

  1

  3

  3

  3

  22+

  613

  737

  826

  1,232

  1,320

  1,437

  1,577

  Not known

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  Total

  627

  746

  837

  1,245

  1,331

  1,451

  1,590

  "Food—a Fact of Life"
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice her Department gave to the British Nutrition Foundation in developing the material for "Food—a Fact of Life"; and what steps she took to ensure the content was consistent with the advice of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy and "Dietary Reference Values for Food Energy and Nutrients" for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department participates in the group monitoring the progress of the project and seeks to ensure consistency with departmental policy where relevant.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost to her Department of the British Nutrition Foundation's "Food—a Fact of Life".

  Mr. Sackville
  The costs to the Department for the two years 1991–92 and 1992–93 was £170,000 and for the current year £50,000.

  Selected List
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will make a final decision about the selected list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs maintains a continual review of the drugs in the categories covered by the selected list scheme. It will produce recommendations about drugs in these categories within the next few months for Ministers to consider.

  NHS Trust Federation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 21 January,Official Report, column 898, what action has been taken to correct the answer given on 26 July 1993, Official Report, column 546, concerning money received by the NHS Trust Federation from her Department; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  No correction is necessary. The National Health Service Trust Federation does not receive funding from the Department to meet its running costs. The payment without statutory authority was made in the financial year 1991–92 and has since been recovered. The Department has also provided funds to the federation to meet the costs incurred in organising conferences on information on behalf of the Department. These conferences were open to all NHS trusts, whether or not they were members of the federation.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the known party-political affiliations of trust chairs and non-executive directors.
  544
  Dr. Mawhinney
  We do not seek information on political affiliation. Some appointees' political affiliation may be a matter of public record, but it would be inappropriate for us to maintain our own records on the basis of political allegiance.

  Nuts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has about the number of people suffering from an allergy to nuts and the number of deaths that have resulted in recent years.

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 January 1994, c. 391]: I regret that my previous reply could give rise to a misunderstanding on the extent of information held centrally on cause of death. While there is no information centrally available on the number of people suffering from an allergy to nuts, the information held centrally on number of deaths is that for the latest 10 years, 1983–1992, for which data are available, there were no deaths registered where allergy to nuts was the assigned underlying cause.

EMPLOYMENT

  Sex Discrimination
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average award of industrial tribunals for sex discrimination cases.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available information relates to 1992–93, when the average award made by industrial tribunals in cases where sex discrimination was the main complaint was £1,416.

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of the teacher placement service, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses(a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the administration of the teacher placement scheme rests with training and enterprise councils. The Department does not hold details of the administrative costs involved.

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

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the administration of TEC challenge rests with training and enterprise councils. The Department does not hold details of the administrative costs involved.
  545
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of the programme development fund, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses(a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 31 January 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the expenditure on the administration of the Programme Development Fund (PDF).

  We do not collect the information that you have requested. It may help if I explain a little about the background to PDF and the way it is administered.

  The Programme Development Fund is a fund held by all ES Regional Directors and by Directors for Scotland and Wales. It is there to support local initiatives for assisting people who need special help to get back to work.

  These initiatives run alongside the mainstream work of ES offices and are a small, but important part of an overall total. Since, in the main, staff who administer PDF are also involved in a range of other activities it is impossible to separate out costs.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of the business start-up scheme, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses(a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the administration of the business start-up scheme rests with training and enterprise councils. The Department does not hold details of the administrative costs involved.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of the local initiative fund, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses(a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the administration of the local initiative fund rests with training and enterprise councils. The Department does not hold details of the administrative costs involved.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of compacts and inner-city compacts, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses(a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the administration of compacts and inner-city compacts rests with training and enterprise councils. The Department does not hold details of the administrative costs involved.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of the education-business partnerships, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses(a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed.
  546
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the administration of the education business partnerships rests with training and enterprise councils. The Department does not hold details of the administrative costs involved.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases have been brought before industrial tribunals since 1983; how many and what percentage of cases have been successful; and how many and what percentage of cases were about race discrimination.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The details are as follows:

  All Jurisdictions

  Racial Discrimination (where this is the main complaint)

  Cases heard

  Number/ per cent, successful

  Number/ per cent. of cases heard

  1983

  10,381

  3,229 (31·1)

  166 (1·6)

  1984 to March 1985

  9,690

  2,921 (30·1)

  195 (2·0)

  1985–86

  13,357

  5,405 (40·5)

  265 (2·0)

  1986–87

  13,124

  5,342 (40·7)

  296 (2·3)

  1987–88

  10,464

  4,185 (40·0)

  265 (2·5)

  1988–89

  9,023

  3,829 (42·4)

  324 (3·6)

  1989–90

  10,229

  4,598 (45·0)

  336 (3·3)

  1990–91

  11,430

  5,503 (48·1)

  316 (2·8)

  1991–92

  13,778

  7,022 (51·0)

  323 (2·3)

  1992–93

  17,836

  9,351 (52·4)

  345 (1·9)

  Programme Funding
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount of funding made available over the last year by(a) the programme development fund, (b) education business partnerships, (c) the teacher placement service, (d) compacts and inner-city compacts, (e) the business start-up scheme,
  (f) the local initiative fund and (g) TEC challenge.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 30 November 1993,Official Report, column 512. This lists the funding made available for 1993–94 by (a) the programme development fund, (b) education business partnerships, (c) the teacher placement service, (d) compacts and inner-city compacts, (e) the business start-up scheme, (f) the local initiative fund.

  In addition, £16·9 million has been made available for training and enterprise councils for TEC challenge in the current year.

  Race Discrimination
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average award of industrial tribunals for race discrimination cases.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available information relates to 1992–93, when the average award made by industrial tribunals in cases where race discrimination was the main complaint was £3,333.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recruitment of staff is planned by the Health and Safety Executive before April 1994.
  547
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Executive is considering plans to announce recruitment competitions for certain groups of specialist inspectors such as railways inspectors. The timing of any such recruitments has not been decided.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people in receipt of unemployment benefit within the Cunninghame, South parliamentary constituency have been unemployed for(a) more than six months, (b) more than 12 months and (c) more than two years; and if he will give these figures for (i) men and (ii) women for each month since April 1992;

  (2) how many people in receipt of unemployment benefit within the Irvine travel-to-work area have been unemployed for (a) more than six months, (b) more than 12 months and (c) more than two years; and if he will give these figures for (i) men and (ii) women for each month since April 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Figures on the numbers of people claiming unemployment and related benefits, by duration, are available on the unadjusted basis only, for the months of January, April, July and October and can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those companies giving statutory notice of redundancies to his Department within the Irvine travel-to-work area from April 1992 to date; how many job losses were notified by each of the companies; and when statutory notice was given.

  Notified vacancies December 1993

  Average Number of vacancies displayed

  Permanent Full Time

  Permanent Part Time

  Temporary Full Time

  Temporary Part Time

  Total

  Irvine Jobcentre

  77

  51

  99

  1

  228

  260

  Kilwinning Jobcentre

  13

  9

  10

  0

  32

  165

  Amosite Asbestos
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list previous changes in Health and Safety Executive guidelines on the level of brown amosite asbestos considered to be safe.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Executive has not issued specific guidelines on the level of amosite which is considered safe; a safe level of exposure to any type of asbestos has yet to be identified. However, there is a practical level of exposure below which an increased risk of contracting an asbestos-related disease cannot be detected.

  The guidelines which have applied to workplace exposure to amosite are listed in the table. These standards were used by Her Majesty's inspectors of factories to establish whether satisfacory control had been achieved under the Asbestos Regulations 1969. The exposure standards are expressed as fibres per millilitre of air averaged over a continuous period of four hours and were:

  (a) 2 fibres per millilitre with effect from May 1970,

  (b) 0·5 fibres per millilitre with effect from 1 January 1983,

  (c) 0·2 fibres per millilitre with effect from 1 August 1984.

  548
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information given to the Department under the redundancy handling provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is provided in confidence.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies were listed in(a) Irvine jobcentre and (b) Kilwinning jobcentre during December; and what was the nature of these vacancies.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 31 January 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of vacancies listed in Irvine and Kilwinning Jobcentres in December.

  I attach a table showing the notified vacancies for both offices.

  Vacancies notified to Jobcentres are displayed in the self-service area of the office for selection by job seekers. This display will also include suitable vacancies from Jobcentres in the surrounding area. I have therefore included in the table the average number of vacancies on display in Irvine and Kilwinning Jobcentres in December 1993.

  You asked for information about the nature of the vacancies which were notified and the table gives a breakdown according to whether they were permanent or temporary, full-time or part-time. Because this was the Christmas period the number of temporary vacancies notified was high.

  You may also be interested to know that during December Irvine Jobcentre found jobs for 219 people and Kilwinning Jobcentre for 44 people.

  I hope this is helpful.

  The value of 0·2 fibres per millilitre of air became the statutory control limit for amosite, on the advice of the Health and Safety Commission, when the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 came into effect on 1 March 1988.

  Women's Earnings
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of women who have earnings below(a) the tax threshold and (b) the national insurance threshold, broken down into married women, lone parents and single women at the latest date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Broad estimates, based on the new earnings survey and estimates of the number of employees in employment, are as follows: in April 1993 there were 2·6 million women employees earning less than the PAYE threshold, of whom 2·3 million earned less than the national insurance lower earnings limit. Using the results of the family expenditure survey it is estimated that approximately 75 per cent. of each of these categories were married women, 5 per cent. lone parents and 20 per cent. single women.

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

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total number of staff in the Department of Employment eligible for statutory sick pay is 53,082.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of youth unemployment in the city of Sunderland.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: Claimant unemployment data by age are available quarterly for the months of January, April, July and October and are on the unadjusted basis. On 14 October 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of unemployed claimants under 25 years of age in the Sunderland local authority district was 5,463, 4 per cent. lower than in the same month a year earlier.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many redundant churches are being preserved by use of the redundant churches fund; and if he will make a statement on the flexibility exercised by the Church Commissioners regarding the sale of redundant churches for alternative use.

  Mr. Alison
  At the end of 1993, 289 redundant churches were vested in the redundant churches fund.

  When a Church of England church is closed for regular public worship, the Pastoral Measure requires that a suitable alternative use be sought for it. The Commissioners make the final decision and regard as suitable a use which is consonant with the former use of the building as a place of worship, and with its historic and architectural qualities and which has planning permission.

  Housing Investment
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the Church Commissioners' policy on investing in providing low-cost family homes to rent.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners' primary responsibility is to produce a proper return on their assets for the support of the clergy, so financial considerations must take priority in investments decisions. Furthermore, they are not a housing charity. However, the Commissioners are sensitive to the needs in this area and are, therefore, alert to opportunities to dispose of land for the provision of affordable housing where this does not conflict with their duty as trustees. Furthermore, their Octavia Hill residential estates in central London provide about 1,500 homes for people on modest incomes.

  Clergy (Pay)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many(a) incumbents and (b)
  550
  assistant clergy are currently in the pay of the Church Commissioners; how much money is involved during the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  There are about 10,500 stipendary clergy; I will write to my hon. Friend with the precise breakdown. The total annual cost of paying clergy stipends last year, including senior clergy, was approximately £155 million, of which the Commissioners met £63 million. An increasing proportion of this cost will fall on parishes as the Commissioners reduce their support to a more sustainable level. The active ministry will therefore depend far more on the giving of Church members.

  Ethical Investment
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what efforts are made to ensure that investments made conform to the ideals of ethical investment.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners' primary responsibility is to produce. a proper return on their assets for the support of the clergy, so financial considerations must take priority in investment decisions. However, the Commissioners have always operated, and regularly reviewed, a strong ethical policy which takes account of social, ethical and environmental issues and which is sensitive to the views of Church people. They do not, for example, invest directly in companies whose main business is armaments, gambling, alcohol or tobacco. I have arranged for the hon. Member to receive a copy of the Commissioners' leaflet "A Question of Ethics".

SCOTLAND

  NHS Staff Costs
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost of employing managers, advisers, administrators and clerical staff in the NHS in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his previous question on this subject on 27 January,Official Report, column 345.

  Development Corporations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contacts his Department plans to have with Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise, Irvine development corporation and Cunninghame district council concerning the transition of the development corporation's economic powers.

  Mr. Stewart
  The guidance issued by the Scottish Office Industry Department places the responsibility on the development corporation to prepare successor arrangements for economic development. Corporations are to consult fully the local enterprise company and local authorities about the preparation of proposals appropriate to their area. I understand that local discussions are going on at present between the development corporation and Enterprise Ayrshire. The development corporation is required to submit proposals for consideration by my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the additional
  551
  costs involved in winding up Irvine development corporation and Livingston development corporation before their original wind-up dates; and if the costs of winding up Irvine and Livingston new towns were accounted for in the Touche Ross report "Structure of Local Government in Scotland: Advice on Financial and Qualitative Appraisal of 'Options for Change—.

  Mr. Stewart
  I am satisfied that there are no additional costs in bringing forward the winding p dates of Irvine and Livingston development corporations. There will be transfers of resources between new town and local government programmes to reflect the transfer of functions and these will be effective from the dates on which the transfers are made. The Touche Ross report did not examine the costs of winding up the new town development corporations.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff currently employed by Irvine development corporation will be transferred to the bodies taking over the development corporation's economic and housing functions.

  Mr. Stewart
  Discussions towards establishing successor arrangements for economic development are taking place between Irvine development corporation and Enterprise Ayrshire. I hope that it will be possible to retain the expertise of appropriate staff, but it is for those bodies to make recommendations on this matter as part of the proposals the development corporation is required to submit to my right hon. Friend. In respect of the corporation's housing function, the successor bodies will not be determined until the outcome of the ballots are known. Again, it is too early to say how many staff may transfer.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contact there has been between his Department and Scottish companies concerning the current review of the Forestry Commission's status.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Officials have, from time to time, had useful discussions with wood processors and companies which have interests relevant to the work of the Forestry Review Group.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many persons in each health board area, admitted to private residential or nursing homes since 1 April 1993(a) are paying the full cost and (b) have had charges recovered from their estate following their death;

  (2) if he will conduct a survey of how many residents of private residential or nursing homes have sold their homes to meet the charges for their residential care.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information relating to numbers of people paying the full cost of accommodation in residential care and nursing homes is not held centrally, nor is information about the numbers of residents who have had charges recovered from their estate following their death.

  Information concerning the number of people who have sold their homes to meet the charges for their residential care is not held centrally, nor do I intend to conduct a survey on this.

  Hospitals (Car Parking)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the income from car parking charges implemented by hospitals for each health board in Scotland for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: There are two health boards whose hospitals receive income from car parking. The information available is as follows:

  Financial Year

  Health Board

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–941 £

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  —

  1,750

  1,750

  Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  65,000

  1 estimated.

  New Towns
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual budget and turnover of each of Scotland's new towns for each year since their establishment.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information on development corporations' income and expenditure is contained in their annual reports, which are available in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Wormhoudt Murders
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the titles and general details of the 20 files released by his Department into the investigations of the murder of British service men on 28 May 1940 at Wormhoudt.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  BAOR War Crimes Group

  WO309/26–27 —Investigation papers (Wormhoudt)

  WO309/28–31 —Investigation papers (Wormhoudt/LeParadis)

  WO309/1801–1803—Correspondence etc. on wanted persons

  WO309/1804–1812—Statements, interrogation reports etc.

  WO309/1813 —Lt. Col. Scotland's report on investigation

  WO309/1814 —As WO309/1813 (later, updated version)

  Military Deputy Judge Advocate-General's Papers

  WO311/100 —MD/JAG file on Wormhoudt case

  WO311/680 —Visit of survivors to scene, in connection with investigation

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what further records his Department retains following the release of his Department's records on the investigation of the murder of British service men at Wormhoudt on 28 May 1940; and whether they are covered by(a) the 75-year or (b) the 30-year rule;

  (2) if his Department retains any files which show the results of the requests to the Russian authorities in 1947 from British war crimes investigators for the return of General Willem Mohnke for questioning about the murder of British service men on 28 May 1940 at Wormhoudt.

  Mr. Hanley
  All surviving files on the original investigation of the killing of British soldiers at
  553
  Wormhoudt on 28 May 1940 have now been released. Records created within the last 30 years are covered by the Public Records Act, including any raised on this subject since the case was reopened in 1988. These records are subject to the Department's normal review procedures and the revised criteria contained in the White Paper on openness, Cm 2290.

  Consultants
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which occasions since 1979 his Department has employed the services of external consultants; and if he will give details of the purposes for which they were employed and the cost of employing them.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Department's central contracts branch has placed in excess of 500 contracts with consultants in each of the last few years. In addition to this figure, consultancy contracts are placed as part of specific projects and as low value orders of under £10,000. Under the Department's arrangements for the delegation of contractual authority, such contracts are placed without reference to the central contracts branch and so cannot be identified separately.

  In view of this and the large number of centrally placed contracts involved over the last 15 years, an answer to this question could be provided only at disproportionate cost and effort.

  Tank Shells
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what date British tank regiments were supplied with shells fitted with fin stabilised discarding sabots.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Army was first supplied with armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot rounds in January 1982. The rounds are stored centrally, and issued to individual tank regiments only when they deploy on operations.

  Boards of Inquiry
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what manner, and by whom, serving soldiers due to appear before a regimental board of inquiry are given verbal and written details of the procedure to be followed, including their right of representation; and who is responsible for selecting any such representative.

  Mr. Hanley
  Witnesses or persons who, in the opinion of either the convening officer or the president of the board, may be affected by a board of inquiry or regimental inquiry are notified of the proceedings and are given the opportunity to be present and to be represented if they so wish. Such notification is not required to be in writing, but the convening order for all boards of inquiry and for most regimental inquiries will be published and displayed throughout the unit.

  Such witnesses or persons may, if they wish, be present at the proceedings and give evidence, question witnesses, or produce witnesses to give evidence on matters affecting them. In addition, if represented, their representative may question witnesses and, with permission of the president, address the board of inquiry.

  Selection of a representative is a matter of choice for the witness or person concerned. That representative may be an officer, solicitor or barrister.

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

  Mr. Hanley
  As at January 1994, just over 130,000 staff at the Ministry of Defence were covered by statutory sick pay regulations. This figure excludes some 1,500 casual staff, some of whom may be covered by these regulations.

  South Africa
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the British military personnel who have undertaken official visits to South Africa in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1990, British Ministry of Defence personnel have made official visits to the South African authorities on three occasions as follows:

  October 1993

  1 Assistant Under-Secretary of State, 1 Assistant Secretary and 1 Principal (all civilian members of the MOD)

  December 1993

  1 Brigadier

  January 1994

  1 Rear Admiral, 1 Commander and 1 Principal (MOD civilian)

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the forthcoming visit of the Royal Navy frigate HMS Norfolk to South Africa from 27 to 31 January; and if the Transitional Executive Council of South Africa or the European Union were consulted over arrangements for the visit.

  Mr. Hanley
  HMS Norfolk, accompanied by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Grey Rover, is visiting South Africa from 27 January to 1 February. The purpose of the visit was to re-establish relations between the Royal Navy and the South African navy. The Transitional Executive Council and our European Union partners were fully aware of the visit and raised no objections. The visit has been welcomed by a broad range of opinion in South Africa.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretaryof State for Defence if he will make a statement on the appointment of the British military attaché to the Republic of South Africa; what are his functions, responsibilities and activities; and how these are restricted by the European Union's criteria for the relaxation on the exchange of military attachés with South Africa.

  Mr. Hanley
  The' British defence attaché in Pretoria took up his post on 22 November 1993. His primary role is to establish contacts with the defence forces of the new South Africa and to advise Her Majesty's ambassador on defence issues. European Union sanctions concerning the exchange of attachés were lifted on 4 October 1993.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all South African defence force personnel who have made official visits to the United Kingdom in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1990, South African defence force personnel have made official visits to the United Kingdom at the invitation of the Government as follows:
  555
  May 1993—the Chief of the South African navy and the ship's company of the Drakensberg, a South African naval support vessel, to take part in ceremonies to mark the Battle of the Atlantic.
  July 1993—the South African Chief of Air Staff to attend celebrations marking the 75th annniversary of the RAF.

  Special exceptions to the embargo on defence contacts then in force were made in view of the particular historical circumstances of both visits.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) all visits by British military personnel to South Africa and (b) all visits by South African defence force personnel to the United Kingdom expected between 1 February and 27 April.

  Mr. Hanley
  On current plans, official visits by British Ministry of Defence personnel at the invitation of the South African authorities in the period between 1 February and 27 April will take place as follows:Early February—1 Brigadier, 1 Lieutenant Colonel and 1 Principal (MOD civilian)

  No visits to the United Kingdom by South African defence force personnel in that period are currently planned.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there will be any co-reprocessing of military and civil materials in THORP at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply. No.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Feeding Stuffs (Salmonella)
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many plants producing animal protein for incorporation into animal feeding stuffs which were found on first sampling in each year since 1981, to be salmonella positive(a) gave subsequent positive samples and (b) were prosecuted.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The numbers of plants producing animal protein for incorporation into animal feeding stuffs where salmonella was isolated both on the first official sampling of each year and subsequently during the year were as follows:

  Number

  1981

  1—

  1982

  13

  1983

  10

  1984

  7

  1985

  10

  1986

  9

  1987

  6

  1988

  3

  1989

  2

  1990

  1

  1991

  2

  1992

  1

  1993

  —

  1 Figures not available.

  Where salmonella contamination is found the serving of notices preventing the movement of material until it is shown to be free of salmonella contamination is considered the appropriate action rather than prosecution.
  556
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inspections were carried out by her officials of processing plants producing animal protein for incorporation into animal feeding stuffs in each year from 1981; and how many of the plants gave samples which were found to be salmonella-positive.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Details of inspections of plants producing animal protein for incorporation into animal feeding stuffs and the number of plants which gave samples positive for salmonella were as follows:

  Inspections

  Number of plants where positive salmonella was isolated

  1981

  1—

  1—

  1982

  193

  35

  1983

  250

  29

  1984

  251

  30

  1985

  224

  27

  1986

  206

  22

  1987

  185

  21

  1988

  154

  15

  1989

  315

  23

  1990

  245

  18

  1991

  230

  14

  1992

  194

  8

  1993

  189

  9

  1 Figures not available.

  Inspections ranged between one and five days duration depending upon the type of plant.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many samples were taken from processing plants producing animal protein for incorporation into animal feeding stuffs in each year from 1981; and how many in each year were found to be salmonella-positive.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of official samples from processing plants producing animal protein for incorporation into animal feeding stuffs and the numbers found to be positive for salmonella were as follows:

  Number of official samples

  Number of official samples found to be positive

  1981

  1—

  1—

  1982

  1,085

  114

  1983

  1,410

  107

  1984

  1,403

  115

  1985

  1,253

  111

  1986

  1,202

  111

  1987

  971

  53

  1988

  847

  44

  1989

  1,673

  87

  1990

  1,388

  40

  1991

  1,360

  46

  1992

  1,320

  22

  1993

  1,274

  26

  1 Figures not available.

  557

  Milk
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many gallons of milk were consumed in England in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how many gallons of milk were produced in England in that year.

  Mr. Jack
  The volume of milk produced and sold through milk marketing schemes in England in 1992 was 9,743 million litres or 2,143 million gallons.

  Total liquid milk consumption figures are not separately available for England. However, for England and Wales as a whole the volume of milk produced and sold through milk marketing schemes and subsequently used for liquid milk was 5,857 million litres, or 1,288 million gallons, in 1992. Except for the effect of trade in liquid milk, this will equate closely to consumption as measured in whole milk equivalent. This represents 52 per cent. of the total sales through marketing schemes for England and Wales of 11,198 million litres, or 2,463 million gallons.

  These figures exclude milk sold outside milk marketing schemes, milk consumed on-farm, wastage and milk fed to stock.

  The consumption of milk in the form of all products is difficult to assess because of problems of double counting when milk is manufactured into more than one product. However, approximately 15,880 million litres of milk were required to produce all the milk and milk products consumed in the United Kingdom in 1992. This figure is available only at the United Kingdom level. It should also be noted that some elements of this milk—for example, the skimmed milk by-products of imported butter production —are not consumed in the United Kingdom. Total United Kingdom production sold through milk marketing schemes in 1992 was 13,525 million litres.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research her Ministry has carried out into the ways in which bovine tuberculosis is transferred from badgers to cattle.

  Mr. Soames
  Research is continuing at the Department's central science laboratory in Gloucestershire on the ways in which bovine tuberculosis is transferred from badgers to cattle. Detailed observations are made on the way in which badgers infected with bovine tuberculosis may contaminate the environment. This work has demonstrated the potential importance of badger excretory products in disease transmission to cattle, with field margins having been identified as areas of highest risk.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of her Department's badger culling in terms of the reduction of bovine tuberculosis.

  Mr. Soames
  There have been no cases of confirmed bovine tuberculosis in cattle in the areas of Steeple Leaze, Dorset and Thornbury, Avon, since the ending in 1979 and 1981 respectively of the experimental programmes under which badger control operations were carried out continuously. The incidence of bovine TB in cattle in those areas had previously been high.

  Analyses at the Department's central veterinary laboratory suggests that the effect of the routine badger
  558
  control operations carried out in other areas between 1975 and 1982 reduced the incidence of infection in cattle herds by around 60 per cent, compared with no control.

  Similar studies have shown that badger removal operations between 1986 and 1993 on farms which suffered a breakdown may have reduced the chances of a subsequent cattle breakdown by between 40 and 65 per cent.

  The new strategy announced on 8 December will include a trial element to measure its effectiveness. Further details are set out in the background note in the Library of the House, a copy of which I have sent to the hon. Member.

  Mr Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will declare a moratorium on the culling of badgers; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I have no such plans; I announced a new programme to control bovine TB in the House on 8 December,Official Report, columns 260–61.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give details of(a) the incidence of bovine turbercolusis and (b) the numbers of badgers culled on the authority of her Department in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of cattle herds experiencing new confirmed breakdowns of tuberculosis in Great Britain for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available were as follows:

  Year

  New confirmed breakdowns

  Badgers culled

  1983

  79

  1,239

  1984

  73

  1,337

  1985

  52

  1,119

  1986

  82

  782

  1987

  108

  711

  1988

  122

  778

  1989

  125

  727

  1990

  143

  811

  1991

  125

  993

  1992

  155

  1,054

  1993

  1273

  11,093

  1 Provisional figures.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will provide a figure for the number of staff in her Department covered by statutory sick pay.

  Mr. Jack
  Approximately 11,000 of the staff employed by the Department and its agencies are eligible for statutory sick pay.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people there are in her Department's meat hygiene service.

  Mr. Soames
  The meat hygiene service will be an agency of MAFF and will be launched in April 1995, taking over hygiene and welfare responsibilities in fresh meat plants from 300 local authorities. It will employ up to 1,300 plant-based staff, a saving of some 5 per cent. on
  559
  current numbers. Management and administrative support will total no more than about 70, which will be less than is currently required.

  At present approximately 230 man years are devoted to meat hygiene policy and its implementation within the core Department. This level of effort will be reduced significantly after the setting up of the meat hygiene service.

  "Food—a Fact of Life"
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total cost to her Department of the British Nutrition Foundation's "Food —a Fact of Life".

  Mr. Soames
  The total level of support provided by this Department since 1990 has been £796,000. This educative tool is held in high regard by teachers and others and the Department is therefore planning to provide a further £250,000 worth of support in the coming financial year to enable it to be extended to the 11 to 16-year-old age group.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice her Ministry gave to the British Nutrition Foundation in developing the material for "Food—a Fact of Life"; and what steps were taken to ensure the material was in line with the Ministry's policy.

  Mr. Soames
  This Department has been closely involved with the development of this programme since its inception. Officials currently participate in the group monitoring its progress where they seek to ensure consistency with departmental policy where relevant.

  Food Surpluses
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total sum expended by member states and by the EC itself on the storage and disposal of food surpluses in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and if she will publish a table showing the relevant expenditure of the EC and by member states in each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Jack
  The guarantee section of the European guidance and guarantee fund—EAGGF—provides funding to member states for the costs of intervention storage, export refunds, and other disposal measures for products subject to the CAP. Information on expenditure on these measures for 1992 and for the previous five years can be obtained from the annual financial reports of the EAGGF guarantee section, copies of which have been deposited in the Library of the House of Commons. Annex 7 of these reports provides details of expenditure on intervention

  Search of persons by IC Division 1 January to 31 December 1993

  Collection

  IC1

  IC2

  IC3

  IC4

  IC5

  IC6

  Total

  Belfast

  337

  2

  5

  —

  1

  3

  348

  Birmingham

  328

  10

  35

  29

  5

  —

  407

  Dover

  1,054

  45

  71

  42

  9

  7

  1,228

  East Anglia

  1,833

  99

  271

  77

  13

  13

  2,306

  East Midlands

  186

  —

  11

  7

  —

  —

  204

  Edinburgh

  186

  —

  2

  —

  5

  1

  194

  Glasgow

  256

  8

  7

  5

  7

  3

  286

  Leeds

  335

  6

  15

  4

  —

  1

  361

  Liverpool

  85

  5

  22

  3

  9

  1

  125

  London Airports

  6,200

  2,034

  8,243

  2,238

  493

  383

  19,591

  London Port

  370

  24

  49

  21

  6

  8

  478

  560
  storage, and withdrawals and similar operations, and annex 5 on export refunds. The breakdown of expenditure by member state for these measures can be derived from annex 2 of these reports.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on farm incomes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Total income from farming is estimated to have risen by 40·7 per cent. in 1993 compared with 1992. This is welcome news for farmers and I hope will be recognised as such. Detailed estimates of income, output and productivity of United Kingdom agriculture in 1993 were published this morning and these have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Whaling
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what exemptions from EC law governing whaling activities have been sought by the Norwegian Government in their submission to the Council of Ministers; and what has been the outcome of the Norwegian demands.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Norwegian Government have requested exemptions from the EC habitats directive annex IV(a) in respect of fin, minke and killer whales and from the EC convention on international trade in endangered species regulation in respect of fin and minke whales. The member states of the European Union have rejected these requests.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Customs and Excise (Searches)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 December,Official Report, column 767, if he will list, for each United Kingdom port of entry, the breakdown by ethnic origin of persons stopped and searched by Customs and Excise officers during 1993.

  Sir John Cope
  The number of persons subject to search of persons of all kinds by Customs and Excise during 1993 distinguished by collection and ethnic origin is given in the table. Information for each port of entry is not held centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.
  561

  Collection

  IC1

  IC2

  IC3

  IC4

  IC5

  IC6

  Total

  Manchester

  1,061

  24

  125

  248

  16

  1

  1,475

  Northampton

  574

  75

  19

  9

  2

  5

  684

  Northern England

  182

  15

  37

  13

  37

  15

  299

  Southampton

  684

  38

  40

  82

  15

  31

  890

  South Wales and Borders

  224

  5

  13

  6

  1

  2

  251

  South West England

  212

  31

  9

  —

  —

  1

  253

  Thames Valley

  11

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  15

  Total

  14,118

  2,421

  8,974

  2,788

  619

  475

  29,395

  Notes:

  1. IC=Identification code for ethnic origin.

  2. IC1 Northern European.

  IC2 Southern European.

  IC3 Afro/Caribbean.

  IC4 Asian.

  IC5 Oriental.

  IC6 Middle Eastern.

  3. London Airports includes Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

  VAT
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will exempt cultural bodies which have charitable status from VAT on certain cultural services and goods;

  (2) what considerations he has given to EC directives on VAT giving exemptions to certain cultural services and goods;

  (3) whether he will exempt non-profit-making cultural bodies from VAT on certain cultural services and goods;

  (4) what steps he is considering to harmonise the application of VAT to certain cultural services and goods in the United Kingdom with other EC countries.

  Sir John Cope
  On 22 July,Official Report, column 303, I announced that I would be holding discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage with a view to examining the case for exempting certain cultural services and associated goods supplied by public authorities. Discussions are continuing and when these have been completed a consultation paper will be issued to seek the views of interested parties.

  Russia
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums have been disbursed by the International Monetary Fund to Russia.

  Mr. Nelson
  Russia joined the IMF in June 1992. In August 1992, the IMF disbursed 1 billion under a first credit tranche drawing. In July 1993 a further drawing of $1·5 billion was made under the systematic transformation facility.

  European Parliament Pension Scheme
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the payment of death gratuities and dependants' benefits to beneficiaries under the European Parliament (United Kingdom Representatives) pension scheme.

  Mr. Portillo
  Parliamentary approval will be sought later this year in an order under the European Parliament (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979 to changes to the European Parliament (United Kingdom representatives) pension scheme. These changes will bring the scheme's provisions 562
  for death gratuities and dependants' benefits into line with those introduced for the parliamentary contributory pension fund by the Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 1991. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £700 will be met from repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund. Once the order has been approved, the Contingencies Fund will be repaid upon approval of the Contingencies Fund repayment vote.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a figure for the number of staff in his departments covered by statutory sick pay.

  Mr. Nelson
  The number of staff in post at 1 January 1994 in my departments covered by statutory sick pay was 114,052.

  Weapons (Customs and Excise)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many weapons have been seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise for each of the past 10 years(a) at each port and (b) by raids on suspects.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs does not hold central statistics on seizures of weapons that can be broken down in this way. However, the table sets out the number of illegal weapons seized by Customs and Excise nationally in the last 10 years.

  Seizures of weapons by HM Customs and Excise over the 10 years to 1992–93

  Year ended 31 March

  Hand guns

  Rifles

  Shotguns

  CS gas canisters

  Stun guns

  Total

  1984

  908

  155

  10

  152

  11

  1,236

  1985

  150

  52

  7

  174

  2

  385

  1986

  108

  156

  11

  141

  30

  446

  1987

  1,071

  28

  21

  114

  291

  1,525

  1988

  168

  31

  6

  276

  309

  790

  1989

  130

  55

  28

  395

  73

  681

  1990

  1,489

  144

  44

  414

  301

  2,392

  1991

  253

  535

  49

  1,132

  48

  2,017

  1992

  176

  126

  82

  692

  53

  1,129

  1993

  138

  41

  39

  2,580

  427

  3,225

  TOTALS

  4,591

  1,323

  297

  6,070

  1,545

  13,826

  Income Support
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a breakdown of the average weekly spending on items in the family expenditure survey of(a) an individual of over 24 years and (b) a family of one parent and two children who are wholly dependent on income support.

  Mr. Nelson
  The figures in the table are from the 1992 family expenditure survey. The survey has a small number of households in these categories, so the figures are subject to large sampling variations. Figures are rounded to the nearest 50p. The figures refer to households whose gross income is made up of income support, child benefit and one parent benefit where appropriate and up to £2 of other income.

  Expenditure Items

  (a) An individual of over 24 years £

  per week (b) One adult and two children £

  Housing (net)

  11·00

  8·50

  Fuel light and power

  9·00

  13·00

  Food

  14·00

  27·50

  Alchohol

  3·50

  ·50

  Tobacco

  3·50

  4·00

  Household goods

  7·00

  6·00

  Household services

  3·00

  4·50

  Personal goods and services

  1·50

  4·50

  Motoring

  2·50

  1—

  Fares and other travel costs

  2·00

  3·50

  Leisure goods

  3·00

  4·50

  Leisure services

  2·50

  4·00

  Miscellaneous

  —

  ·50

  Total expenditure

  65·50

  88·50

  1 Data not available as the sampling error is greater than 50 per cent.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ethnic Minority Business Grant
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of the ethnic minority business grant, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses(a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The ethnic minority business grant is administered by a small number of staff, equivalent to less than one full-time post, who have a range of other duties. The itemised expenditure requested for the last year, and since the scheme was developed, is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of section 11 grants, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses(a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed;

  (2) if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of the ethnic minority grant, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses (a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed.
  564
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial provisions was made in respect of the cost of implementing the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in(a) 1992 and (b) 1993; and on which sub-heads of which vote it appeared.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No separate financial provision was made in respect of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Costs have been contained within existing financial provisions.

  Prison Visits (Homosexuals)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much public money was used, in the latest year for which figures are available, to fund prison visits for homosexual couples under the assisted prison visitors' scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None.

  Foreign Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) male and (b) female foreign nationals from either the United States of America or Canada were either remand prisoners or sentenced prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales as of 20 January;

  (2) how many (a) male and (b) female foreign nationals from each south Asian country were either remand prisoners or sentenced prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales as of 20 January;

  (3) how many (a) male and (b) female foreign nationals from Hong Kong were either remand prisoners or sentenced prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales as of 20 January;

  (4) how many (a) male and (b) female foreign nationals from each middle eastern country were either remand prisoners or sentenced prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales as of 20 January;

  (5) how many (a) male and (b) female foreign nationals from each of the Caribbean countries were either remand prisoners or sentenced prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales as of 20 January;

  (6) how many (a) male and (b) female Australian nationals were (i) remand or (ii) sentenced prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales as of 24 January;

  (7) how many (a) male and (b) female foreign nationals from each south Pacific country, were (i) remand or (ii) sentenced prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales as of 24 January;

  (8) how many (a) male and (b) female foreign nationals from each south American country, were (i) remand or (ii) sentenced prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales as of 24 January;

  (9) how many (a) male and (b) female foreign nationals from each of the countries of south-east Asia, were (i) remand prisoners or (ii) sentenced prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales as of 24 January;
  565
  (10) how many (a) male and (b) female foreign nationals whose nationality was not known, were (i) remand or (ii) sentenced prisoners held in prisons in England and Wales as of 25 January;

  (11) how many (a) male and (b) female Chinese nationals were either (i) remand or (ii) sentenced prisoners in prisons in England and Wales as of 25 January;

  (12) what was the number of (a) male and (b) female Vietnamese nationals who were either (i) remand or (ii) sentenced prisoners in prisons in England and Wales as of 25 January.

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

  Population in Prison Service Establishments, in England and Wales, by type of prisoner and nationality as at 30 September 1993

  Type of prisoner

  Nationality

  Remand

  Male Sentenced1

  All1

  Remand

  Female Sentenced1

  All1

  United Kingdom

  10,251

  30,839

  41,090

  365

  1,024

  1,389

  Irish Republic

  157

  372

  529

  2

  10

  12

  All foreign natonals

  553

  1,767

  2,320

  70

  185

  255

  Not recorded

  45

  553

  598

  2

  16

  18

  Europe

  Albania

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Andorra

  2

  8

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Austria

  1

  4

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Belgium

  9

  13

  22

  —

  1

  1

  Cyprus

  8

  36

  44

  1

  1

  2

  Czechoslovakia

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Denmark

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Finland

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  France

  13

  16

  29

  2

  2

  4

  German Democratic Republic

  2

  2

  4

  —

  —

  —

  German Federal Republic

  11

  26

  37

  3

  —

  3

  Gibraltar

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Greece

  1

  11

  12

  —

  1

  1

  Hungary

  1

  2

  3

  —

  1

  1

  Italy

  19

  43

  62

  —

  4

  4

  Luxembourg

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Malta

  2

  6

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  35

  53

  88

  4

  6

  10

  Norway

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Poland

  —

  7

  7

  —

  1

  1

  Portugal

  13

  14

  27

  3

  —

  3

  Romania

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Spain

  15

  20

  35

  2

  —

  2

  Sweden

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Switzerland

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Turkey

  16

  54

  70

  —

  1

  1

  Yugoslavia

  1

  9

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Middle East

  Afghanistan

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Egypt

  —

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Iran

  2

  22

  24

  —

  1

  1

  Israel

  3

  10

  13

  —

  —

  —

  Iraq

  1

  5

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Jordan

  2

  6

  8

  1

  —

  1

  Kuwait

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Lebanon

  3

  9

  12

  —

  —

  —

  Saudi Arabia

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  2

  7

  9

  —

  —

  —

  Syrian Arab Republic

  2

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  United Arab Emirates

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Yemen Arab Republic (North)

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Yemen Peoples Democratic Republic (South)

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  India

  35

  169

  204

  —

  10

  10

  Pakistan

  55

  199

  254

  2

  7

  9

  Bangladesh

  6

  36

  42

  —

  —

  —

  Hong Kong

  —

  5

  5

  —

  1

  1

  566
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 31 January 1994:

  FOREIGN NATIONALS

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your twelve recent Questions asking how many (a) male and (b) female foreign nationals from either the United States of America or Canada, each South Asian country, Hong Kong, each Middle Eastern country, each of the Caribbean countries, Australia, each South Pacific country, each South American country, each South East Asian country, China, Vietnam and unrecorded countries were either remand prisoners or sentenced prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales as of 20, 24 and 25 January.

  The latest available provisional information is for 30 September 1993. The attached table gives a complete breakdown of the prison population by nationality as recorded centrally, including the nationalities specified in your questions.
  567

  Type of prisoner

  Nationality

  Remand

  Male Sentenced1

  All1

  Remand

  Female Sentenced1

  All1

  Other Asia

  Burma

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  China

  3

  7

  10

  —

  1

  1

  British India Ocean Terr

  2

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Korea Republic (South)

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  Malaysia

  3

  5

  8

  1

  —

  1

  Nepal

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Philippines

  —

  3

  3

  1

  1

  2

  Sri Lanka

  3

  12

  15

  —

  —

  —

  Singapore

  3

  3

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Thailand

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  Vietnam

  5

  8

  13

  —

  —

  —

  Africa

  Algeria

  —

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Angola

  —

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Benin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Central African Republic

  4

  2

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Ivory Coast

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Ghana

  16

  41

  57

  5

  18

  23

  Gambia

  —

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Kenya

  2

  25

  27

  1

  —

  1

  Liberia

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Libya

  1

  7

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Morocco

  6

  18

  24

  —

  1

  1

  Mauritania

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  Mauritius

  1

  8

  9

  —

  —

  —

  Malawi

  —

  3

  3

  —

  1

  1

  Nigeria

  37

  134

  171

  14

  48

  62

  Seychelles

  1

  4

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Sudan

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  St. Helena

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Somalia

  9

  9

  18

  —

  —

  —

  Tunisia

  —

  6

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Tanzania

  4

  5

  9

  1

  —

  1

  Uganda

  4

  15

  19

  —

  —

  —

  South Africa

  3

  17

  20

  —

  2

  2

  Zambia

  4

  3

  7

  —

  1

  1

  Zaire

  2

  6

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Zimbabwe

  2

  9

  11

  —

  —

  —

  Caribbean

  Antigua

  2

  7

  9

  —

  —

  —

  Barbados

  2

  13

  15

  1

  1

  2

  Costa Rica

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Cuba

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Dominica

  —

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Dominican Republic

  1

  3

  4

  —

  1

  1

  Grenada

  2

  5

  7

  —

  1

  1

  Haiti

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Jamaica

  109

  322

  431

  16

  31

  47

  St. Lucia

  4

  12

  16

  —

  —

  —

  Monserrat

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  St. Christopher and Nevis

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Trinidad and Tobago

  4

  10

  14

  —

  —

  —

  St. Vincent and Grenadines

  —

  10

  10

  —

  1

  1

  United States of America

  15

  40

  55

  3

  17

  20

  Canada

  4

  14

  18

  —

  1

  1

  America (North and South)

  Argentina

  3

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Belize

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Bolivia

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  Brazil

  —

  4

  4

  1

  2

  3

  Cayman Islands

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Chile

  —

  4

  4

  2

  —

  2

  Colombia

  2

  43

  45

  1

  4

  5

  Guyana

  6

  20

  26

  2

  6

  8

  Mexico

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Peru

  —

  6

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Surinam

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Uruaguay

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Venezuela

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  568 569

  Type of prisoner

  Nationality

  Remand

  Male Sentenced1

  All1

  Remand

  Female Sentenced1

  All1

  Australia

  6

  18

  24

  1

  —

  1

  New Zealand

  3

  11

  14

  1

  1

  2

  Oceania

  Fiji

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Guam

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Papua New Guinea

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Solomon Islands

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1 Includes Immigration Act detainees, non-criminal prisoners and persons committed in default of payment of a fine.

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual cost to his Department of enforcement of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Misuse of Drugs Act provides the legal framework for controlling drugs to prevent their misuse and for dealing with social problems connected with their misuse. It also regulates the legitimate trade in drugs. For England and Wales, the cost to this Department of enforcing the provisions of the Act, including police activity and the costs of dealing with convicted offenders, was estimated at about £147 million for the year 1992–93.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of court cases involving the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 are(a) cannabis, (b)cocaine and (c) heroin related.

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1992, the last year for which figures are available, the percentage of persons found guilty of offences against the Misuse of Drugs Act in respect of each type of drug was: cannabis, 65 per cent.; cocaine, 3 per cent.; and heroin, 4·5 per cent.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the estimated annual cost of drug-related crime;

  (2) what have been the changes in (a) the number of drug-related crimes and (b) the percentage of all crime that is drug related since 1979;

  (3) what is his estimate of the percentage of crime committed annually that is drug related.

  Mr. Maclean
  The involvement of drug misusers in criminal activity is difficult to quantify. It is not possible to estimate with any accuracy the amount of crime which is drug related or the cost of such crime.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the changes in(a) the number of drug-related crimes involving firearms and (b) the percentage of all crimes involving firearms that are drug related.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in the United Kingdom have a criminal record for possession of cannabis; and how many police officers in the United Kingdom are solely engaged in combating drug-related crime.
  570
  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the total number of persons who have a criminal record for possession of cannabis is not collected centrally. The number of persons who have been found guilty, cautioned or compounded for possession of cannabis in each year from 1982 to 1992 is given in table 3.3 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Statistics of drugs seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1992"—issue 30/93—a copy of which is in the Library.

  By the end of 1992 over 1,400 police officers were wholly engaged in the investigation of drug-related crime in England and Wales; in Scotland more than 120 police officers were specifically engaged in drugs work; and in Northern Ireland some 34 officers were so occupied.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number and proportion of the prison population serving sentences for convictions on drug-related offences.

  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 Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 31 January 1994:

  DRUG RELATED OFFENCES

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what is the total number and proportion of the prison population serving sentences for convictions on drug-related offences.

  Figures for the population in Prison Service establishments by offence group are published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales", Table 1.8 of the volume for 1991 (Cm 2157). Provisional information for 30 September 1993 shows that 3,244 prisoners were recorded centrally as being sentenced for drug offences, just over 10 per cent. of the total sentenced population for whom an offence was recorded.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number and proportion of prisoners convicted for drug-related offences who reoffend.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information on the reoffending of prisoners is the rate of reconviction within two and four years after discharge from prison.

  The latest statistics are for those discharged from prison service establishments in 1987 after completion of a prison sentence for which the principal offence was a drugs offence. Within two years of discharge, 1,136 or 37 per cent. of those discharged had been convicted of a further offence; within four years, 1,506 or 49 per cent. of those discharged were reconvicted. The numbers exclude the reconviction of a small number of discharges whose criminal histories could not be traced in the offenders' index.

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for the future of the Passport Agency.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The performance and options for the future of the United Kingdom Passport Agency are currently being reviewed in accordance with the normal procedure for triennial reviews of executive agencies. A decision on the future of the Passport Agency will be made in the light of these reviews. An announcement will then be made.

  Dr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost of issuing a passport by(a) the passport Agency and (b) equivalent agencies in each of the other European Union countries

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The cost of 10-year standard British passport is £18. I am advised that the cost of the passports of each of the European Union countries is as shown in the table:

  £

  Belgium1

  36ߝ48

  Denmark

  40

  France1

  40

  Germany

  11·50

  Greece1

  19

  Ireland

  43

  Italy1

  39

  Luxembourg1

  4

  Netherlands1

  32

  Portugal

  13

  Spain1

  6

  1 Passports valid for five years.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the financial results for the past two years of the Passport Agency and the expected results for the next two years.

  Mr. Charles
  The Passport Agency's financial performance is measured by efficiency reductions in the unit cost of passport services. Over the period 1991–92 and 1992–93 the agency has made significant reductions in unit costs amounting to 4·2 per cent. compared with an aggregate target of 3·9 per cent. in this period. In the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95 the agency expects to achieve further efficiency savings of around 3 per cent. in each year.

  Prison (Drugs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) those prisons in which there is a problem with trafficking in illegal drugs and (b) those in which there is no problem with drug trafficking.

  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 Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 31 January 1994:
  572
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about drug trafficking in prison.

  The attached figures show establishments where there have been convictions in the last two years for offences of "trafficking" ie selling or delivering controlled drugs and attempting, assisting or inciting the selling or delivery of controlled drugs. The figures also show the number of such convictions. There have been no trafficking convictions at any other Prison Service establishment.

  The Prison Service is committed to taking all reasonable measures to prevent drugs entering prisons and to eliminate the use of drugs within prisons. Existing programmes include the extensive use of searching and intelligence, as well as support for drug abusers to help them overcome their addiction.

  Number

  Aylesbury

  1

  Birmingham

  1

  Brinsford

  2

  Cardiff

  1

  Deerbolt

  2

  Drake Hall

  1

  Durham

  1

  Elmley

  1

  Feltham

  4

  Glen Parva

  2

  Glen Parva

  4

  Hollesley Bay

  2

  Holloway

  1

  Holme House

  1

  Hull

  2

  Leeds

  2

  Leicester

  1

  Lincoln

  1

  Liverpool

  3

  Low Newton

  1

  Manchester

  1

  Morland

  1

  Norwich

  1

  Onley

  2

  Pentonville

  1

  Pucklechurch

  1

  Rochester

  1

  Rochester

  2

  Shrewsbury

  2

  Stocken

  3

  Stoke Heath

  2

  Styal

  1

  Swansea

  1

  Swinfen Hall

  1

  Wormwood Scrubs

  3

  Total

  57

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's estimate of the annual expenditure by users on drugs.

  Mr. Maclean
  Drug misuse is an illegal and, therefore, clandestine activity. It is not possible to produce a reliable estimate of the amount spent annually on drugs by users.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the changes in the consumption of(a) heroin, (b) cocaine and (c) cannabis since 1979.

  Mr. Maclean
  Reliable information on levels of consumption of the drugs mentioned is not available. Information on the percentage change in the number of recorded seizures of each drug over the period in question is given in the table.
  573

  United Kingdom

  Number of seizures

  1979

  1992

  percentage change

  Heroin

  600

  2,968

  +395

  Cocaine

  348

  2,365

  +580

  Cannabis

  14,116

  57,663

  +308

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many registered addicts are addicted to prescribed drugs in the United Kingdom;

  (2) if he will list the 10 prescribed drugs to which the largest number of addicts are addicted in the United Kingdom and the totals of addicts.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the identity of the drugs, dependence on which requires medical practitioners to notify the Home Office, and the numbers of persons addicted to those drugs, is given in table 2 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Statistics of drug addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1992"—issue 15/93—a copy of which is in the Library.

  All these drugs are legitimately prescribed or administered on occasion, but the proprietary names of those drugs in the list, where they exist, are: methadone (Physeptone); dipipanone (Diconal); dextromoramide (Palfium); and phenazocine (Narphen). Methadone is the drug normally used to treat dependence on heroin.

  Air Guns
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what controls exist on the sale of air guns and air rifles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The acquisition, possession and use of air weapons are regulated by the Firearms Act 1968 which prohibits their sale of hire to anyone under the age of 17. Young people under 14 may not buy, hire, be given, or own an air weapon and may use one only if they are supervised by someone over 21. Those air weapons which are classified as "specially dangerous" under the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969 are subject to firearm certificate control.

  In its second annual report the Firearms Consultative Committee, the independent statutory body established to advise Government on the firearms legislation, concluded that the law as it stands is adequate to deal with current levels of misuse. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to introduce further controls.

  Weapons Smuggling
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has made to other EC Governments concerning the smuggling of weapons into Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No specific representations have been made. A directive on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 18 June 1991. All member states of the European Union are bound by the directive which came into effect on 1 January 1993.

  Under the directive, movements of firearms are subject to a new licensing system. As before, anyone bringing a firearm into this country must have prior permission. In
  574
  addition to this, though, each transfer of a firearm into this country will be notified to my Department via a new information system. The information will be passed to police and customs officers who will investigate any irregularities.

  Secure Establishments
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the secure establishments to which youngsters aged 12 to 14 years will be remanded by the courts while awaiting trial or sentence, giving the number of places available at each and the normal resident age range in each.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have tabled an amendement to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which will provide courts with the power to remand 12 to 14-year-olds to local authority accommodation with a security requirement. The responsibility for placing a juvenile so remanded will rest with the local authority. The pool of secure accommodation available to local authorities to assist them in discharging this duty will be expanded. The Government will be providing further funding to local authorities for this purpose.

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

  Mr. Howard
  The number of Home Office staff covered by the statutory sick pay scheme is about 49,500.

  Firearms Licences
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are held by the Metropolitan police to assess the suitability of an individual for a firearms licence.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Before issuing a firearm certificate a chief officer of police must be satisfied that the applicant is not prohibited from possessing a firearm, can be permitted to possess a firearm without danger to public safety or the peace, and has a good reason for having a firearm. These criteria are set out in the Firearms Act 1968 to 1992 and apply equally to all police force areas.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of firearms certificates issued per year for each of the last 10 years by the Metropolitan police; how many in each year were renewals; and what was the total number of valid certificates at each year.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following table shows for the Metropolitan police district for the years 1986 to 1992 the number of new firearms certificates granted, the number of renewals and the number on issue at 31 December. Figures for the years prior to 1986 are not readily available and those for 1993 are not yet available.

  Firearm certificates granted, renewed and on issue at 31 December in the Metropolitan police district, 1986 to 1992

  Year

  Granted

  Renewed

  On issue at 31 December

  1986

  1,066

  2,625

  9,084

  1987

  993

  2,568

  9,036

  1988

  738

  2,278

  8,877

  575

  Year

  Granted

  Renewed

  On issue at 31 December

  1989

  825

  2,249

  8,615

  1990

  864

  2,657

  9,929

  1991

  746

  2,432

  9,975

  1992

  855

  2,531

  9,427

  Young Offenders
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements exist within the Prison Service statistical divisions for providing information on juveniles and young people in prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 27 January 1994]: Information on the Prison Service establishment in which held, the age, type of offence, length of service, type of custody, previous convictions, time served and on the frequency of reoffending following release of young offenders is compiled by the research and statistics department. It is published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales". Summary information is monitored on a monthly basis. Operational information about the numbers of young offenders is monitored daily.

  The provision of full information has only recently been reinstated following completion of changes to the computer system to reflect the implementation in October 1992 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The publication of the 1992 issue of "Prison Statistics" has been delayed.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of people on disability living allowance and attendance allowance at any one time; and what were the equivalent figures for mobility allowance and attendance allowance in 1979.

  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants are on disability living allowance and attendance allowance at any one time; and what were the comparable figures for mobility allowance and attendance allowance in 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the table:

  Receipt of attendance allowance, mobility allowance and disability living allowance

  1979–80

  1993–94

  Attendance allowance

  285,000

  830,000

  Mobility allowance

  140,000

  n/a

  Disability living allowance

  n/a

  1,005,000

  Totals

  1425,000

  21,835,000

  Sources: The Government's expenditure plans 1984–85 to 1986–87 Cmnd. 9143-II and social security departmental report 1993–94 to 1995–96 Cmnd. 2213.

  1 People getting both benefits are counted twice underestimating the real increase between 1979–80 and 1993–94.

  2 From April 1992 disability living allowance replaced attendance allowance and mobility allowance for people who became disabled before age 65.
  576

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average pensioner's income from savings.

  Mr. Hague
  Pensioners' estimated average weekly income from savings is as follows:

  £30·30 for all pensioners1;

  £45·10 for pensioner couples; and

  £21·60 for single pensioners.

  1 Single people over state pension age and couples where the husband is over state pension age.

  Source: The 1990–91 family expenditure survey. Figures are at January 1991 prices.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much total pension incomes have increased per annum between 1979 and the latest year for which figures are available; and what was the equivalent figure between 1974 and 1979.

  Mr. Hague
  The estimated average annual increase in pensioners' total income in the years 1979 to 1990–91—the latest year for which figures are available—was:

  3·1 per cent. for all pensioners1;

  2·9 per cent. for pensioner couples; and

  2·9 per cent. for single pensioners.

  The available information, although not directly comparable, shows an increase of 0·6 per cent. per year between 1974 and 1979.
  1 Single people over state pension age and couples where the husband is over state pension age.

  Note: Information for the period 1979 to 1990–91 derives from the family expenditure survey, and is consistent with the methodology of the households below average incomes survey. For years prior to 1979 the FES is not consistent with the HBAI. In particular, there is no breakdown between single pensioners and pensioner couples.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the rise in pensioners' total average net income since 1979.

  Mr. Hague
  The estimated rise in pensioners' total average net income, in real terms, from 1979 to 1990–91 —the latest year for which figures are available—was:

  Before housing costs:

  42 per cent. for all pensioners1;

  39 per cent. for pensioner couples; and

  39 per cent. for single pensioners.

  After housing costs:

  54 per cent. for all pensioners1:

  53 per cent. for pensioner couples; and

  49 per cent. for single pensioners.

  1Single people over state pension age and couples where the husband is over state pension age.

  Source: The 1990–91 family expenditure survey.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the value of the average pensioner's income from savings and occupational pensions; and what were the comparable figures in 1979.

  Mr. Hague
  The latest estimate of the average weekly income to pensioners from savings and occupational pensions is:

  £63·20 to all pensioners1

  £99·50 to pensioner couples and

  £41·80 to single pensioners.

  The comparable figures for 1979 are:

  £27·80 to all pensioners1

  £46·40 to pensioner couples and

  £18 to single pensioners.

  1Single people over state pension age and couples where the

  577
  husband is over state pension age.

  Source: 1990–91 family expenditure survey. All figures are at January 1991 prices.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many severely disabled people have received payments from the independent living (1993) fund; what percentage of its budget the fund has so far used; and how many clients received funding from its predecessor independent living fund in each of the last two years of its existence.

  Mr. Scott
  On 20 January, 108 people had received payments from the independent living (1993) fund and a further 28 cases had been approved for payment. The fund had spent 13 per cent. of its budget. The old ILF made 7,319 new awards in the year 1991–92 and 10,620 such awards in 1992–93. support for those cases continues through the independent living (extension) fund which is now paying 18,500 people at an estimated cost of £120 million in the current year. The 1993 fund is an integral part of the Government's community care initiative. It is therefore inappropriate to compare the performance of the two funds.

  Family Credit
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual spending on family credit; and what was the spending on family income supplement in 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  The published forecast for family credit expenditure for 1993–94 is £965 million. This is 14 times more in real terms than the £24 million spent on family income supplement in 1978–79. The 1994 departmental report, to be published in March, will give a revised estimate.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the results of the introduction of payment of family credit as a lump sum.

  Mr. Burt
  Since 25 October 1993, over 3,000 awards of family credit of £4 a week or less have been made by lump sum payment.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of people who will receive invalidity benefit two years after the introduction of the proposed incapacity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Invalidity benefit and sickness benefit will, subject to parliamentary approval, be replaced by a single new benefit—incapacity benefit—from April 1995. The estimated average number of people who will receive incapacity benefit in 1996–97 is 1,814,000.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made in entitlement to and the method of calculating invalidity benefit since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the table:

  Changes affecting entitlement to invalidity benefit since 1979

  Date of change

  Change

  April 1979

  Additional pension introduced

  April 1979

  Change to invalidity allowance age bands

  578

  Date of change

  Change

  November 1980

  Uprating linked to retail price index

  November 1980

  5 per cent. abatement of invalidity pension and invalidity allowance

  November 1981

  5 per cent. abatement of invalidity allowance restored

  November 1983

  Extension of provision of dependency increase for dependent husbands

  November 1984

  Men and women able to claim an increase for a child and for person looking after children on the same basis as each other

  November 1984

  Occupational pension treated as earnings for adult and child dependency increases

  November 1984

  Earnings rule for child dependency increases introduced

  November 1984

  Child dependency increase no longer payable for non-resident children

  September 1985

  Introduction of a common earnings rule for men and women claiming an increase for their spouse

  September 1985

  Abolition of dependency increases for other adult relatives

  September 1985

  Invalidity allowance reduced by entitlement to additional pension and/or guaranteed minimum pension

  November 1985

  5 per cent, abatement of invalidity pension restored

  October 1986

  Reduced rates of sickness benefit abolished1

  February 1987

  Married women no longer subject to a second downrating of benefit after 104 weeks in hospital

  April 1988

  Benefit became payable in certain circumstances with statutory maternity pay

  April 1988

  Hospital downrating changed to take place at six weeks and 52 weeks instead of eight weeks and 104 weeks

  October 1988

  Two-year national insurance contribution test introduced for sickness benefit1

  October 1989

  Local authority councillor's allowances disregarded when considering incapacity for work; benefit offset against allowances in excess of therapeutic earnings limit

  October 1989

  Personal pensions treated as earnings for adult and child dependency increases

  April 1990

  Therapeutic earnings limit increased by 23 per cent. —1990 benefit uprating 7·6 per cent.

  April 1990

  People on employment rehabilitation courses allowed to keep invalidity benefit, or receive the rehabilitation allowance

  April 1992

  People allowed to sit as members of disability appeal tribunals one day a week without losing benefit

  April 1992

  Entitlement to additional pension curtailed for earnings after the 1990–91 tax year; accrued rights preserved

  April 1994

  Benefit uprating to include extra increase to provide help towards VAT on fuel

  1 Changes to the entitlement conditions for sickness benefit which affected the numbers subsequently qualifying for invalidity benefit.

  579
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people receiving invalidity benefit on 1 December 1993 were at that time aged (i) between 45 and 49 years, (ii) between 50 and 54 years, (iii) between 55 and 57 years and (iv) 58 years or over.

  Mr. Scott
  Information for 1 December 1993 is not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The latest available information relates to 4 April 1992, and is in the table.

  Invalidity benefit recipients by age1

  Invalidity benefit recipients

  Number2

  Aged 45–49

  127,000

  Aged 50–54

  187,000

  Aged 55–57

  154,000

  Aged 58 and over

  674,000

  1 Age as at 31 March 1992.

  2 Based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants in Great Britain at 4 April 1992, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Income Support
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children in Britain are dependent on income support; and how many were dependent on supplementary benefit in 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  In February 1993, 2·97 million children were dependent on an adult receiving income support. In November 1979 there were 0·92 million.

  Notes:

  1. Sources: supplementary benefit statistics annual inquiry, November 1979/income support statistics quarterly inquiry, February 1993.

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  3. Children are defined as being under 16 years of age. Dependants are young people under the age of 19 still living in the parental home.

  Pensioner Households
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households there were in 1979 and in the year for which the latest figures are available below the 1979 supplementary benefit level.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available. Supplementary benefit rates varied widely between households and it is therefore not possible to refer to a single level.

  Since 1979, pensioners' average income has increased by 42 per cent.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for further changes to the operation of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The recently announced changes were formulated in the light of representations received from hon. Members and the public, and of the recommendations of the Social Security Select Committee. They form a balanced package which takes account of the interests of children, parents with care, absent parents, and the taxpayer.

  There are no plans for further change.
  580
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether there is a distinction under the terms of the Child Support Act 1991 between who can be notified of the outcome of a maintenance assessment decision dependent on whether the case is being dealt with in England and Wales or in Scotland.

  Mr. Burt
  The only such distinction is that a child who is over the age of 11 years and is resident in Scotland may apply to the Child Support Agency for maintenance assessment to be made in respect of him. If he makes such an application he, together with the parent with care and the absent parent are notified of the outcome of the application. There is no provision for a child resident in England or Wales to make an application under the Child Support Act.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland considers representations made by residents of Wales on Child Support Agency matters.

  Mr. Burt
  Where an application for child support maintenance is made by a parent with care who is resident in Northern Ireland in respect of an absent parent who is resident in Wales, the application would be dealt with in Northern Ireland, in accordance with the Child Support (Great Britain Reciprocal Arrangements) Regulations (Northern Ireland). Similarly, if a number of cases are linked together because they share a parent in common all the cases are dealt with under the legislation under which the first application was considered. In these cases, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would consider representations other than those proper to the independent adjudicating authorities.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what revenues or savings to public funds are expected to accrue as a result of the creation of the Child Support Agency; and what changes in the expected revenues or savings will arise from the implementation of the proposed changes in the agency's rules.

  Mr. Burt
  The amount of child support maintenance originally estimated to be collected in 1993–94 is £530 million. The actual amount will be lower than the estimate, but it is not possible to provide an accurate revised figure, since the full impact of the proposed policy changes is not yet known.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement summarising changes the Government are introducing into the operation of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The proposed changes include: a significant increase in the margin of protected income which all absent parents keep above income support levels; reductions in the element within the formula which reflects the care needed by children, when the youngest child reaches age 11 and 14; reductions in the rate of contribution towards the additional element, above the basic maintenance requirement, where there are fewer than three children; and a substantial extension of the provisions for phasing in new payments for absent parents who previously had a formal maintenance agreement.

  The changes form a balanced package which takes account of the interests of parents with care, absent parents, children and the taxpayer.

  "A Lost Generation"
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what responses he has made to the report "A Lost Generation", published by the National Children's Home, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  I received a copy of the report about a month after it was published, but not directly from the National Children's Home. I replied to the sender and drew attention to the Department's expenditure on income support in 1993–94 which is to exceed £16 billion—an increase of £1·6 billion over 1992–93.

  Benefits
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent measures his Department has taken to maintain the real level of benefits.

  Mr. Hague
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shall shortly be laying before the House the annual uprating order which, subject to parliamentary approval, will increase social security benefit rates from April. Benefits will be increased in line with inflation with additional increases for those on income-related benefits, pensioners, and the sick and disabled.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish an analysis of the estimated per capita expenditure in England, Wales and Scotland on(a) supplementary benefit, (b) unemployment benefit, (c) sickness and invalidity benefit, (d) industrial disablement benefit (e) housing benefit and (f) other benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Estimated per capita expenditure

  £ per person per year

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Income support

  257

  295

  288

  Unemployment benefit

  32

  30

  25

  Sickness benefit/invalidity benefit

  102

  178

  247

  Industrial disablement benefit

  10

  11

  19

  Housing benefit/council tax benefit

  86

  122

  87

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for 1992–93 and are estimates only.

  2. Estimates are based on benefit expenditure per head of population in England, Scotland and Wales and not an average of the number receiving each benefit.

  State Pensions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people per annum lose their entitlement to part of their state pension because of incomplete contributions.

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

  The number of men and women resident in Great Britain who reached state pension age—65 for men and 60 for women—in the year ending 31 March 1993—the latest date for which information is available—and who were awarded a state retirement pension based on their own contributions at less than the standard rate due to insufficient contributions was 130,920.
  582
  Information is not available where state pension is claimed after age 65 for men or 60 for women or where a person has no entitlement to state pension.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average number of years of national insurance contributions per claimant which have been paid by people now receiving invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Children (Unemployment)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the latest figures showing for the Durham area(a) the number of children who live in families with an unemployed head and (b) the number of children living in families with a long-term unemployed head.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the form requested. For information on Great Britain as a whole I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) on 28 January,Official Report, column 449..

  Benefit Overpayments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases action has been taken to recover overpayments of benefits under common law in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the 1994–95 social fund budget will be broken down between(a) mandatory grants, (b) budgeting loans, (c) crisis loans and (d) community care grants.

  Mr. Scott
  No decision has yet been made on the breakdown of the discretionary social fund budget between loans and grants. Regulated payments from the social fund are not subject to a cash-limited budget.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what is the administrative cost as a proportion of expenditure on the social fund for each year since its inception.

  Mr. Scott
  Administration costs as a proportion of programme expenditure are published annually in the departmental report. Annual social fund administration costs have only been included since 1990–91. Details are in the table.

  Social fund administration costs (in £ millions)

  Administrative cost as a percentage of benefit expenditure

  1990–91

  132

  47·1

  1991–92

  163

  45·2

  The information for 1992–93 will be contained in the next departmental report due to be published in March 1994.
  583
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish a table showing the gross and net social fund discretionary budget in each year since 1988–89 in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms in 1993–94 prices, broken down into (i) budgeting loans, (ii) crisis loans and (iii) community care grants.

  Social fund expenditure since 1988–89

  all figures are £ million

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 outturn

  1992–93 outturn

  Crisis loans (gross)

  17

  22

  28

  37

  43

  Budgeting loans (gross)

  108

  119

  128

  160

  181

  Crisis loans (net)

  9

  8

  9

  11

  9

  Budgeting loans (net)

  68

  25

  22

  38

  27

  Community care grants

  41

  60

  67

  79

  90

  Total gross expenditure

  166

  201

  223

  276

  314

  Total gross expenditure 1993–94 prices1

  218

  248

  254

  297

  324

  1 Real terms figures have been calculated using the current GDP deflator and may alter. In any event the social fund budget is based on a number of factors, including the level of gross allocation permitted by expected loan recoveries; and is not linked to inflation forecasts.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing(a) the gross and (b) the net discretionary social fund budget on a per capita basis of the number of income support claimants in (i) cash and (ii) real terms for each year from 1988–89 to 1994–95.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is in the table.

  Expenditure and caseload figures for 1993–94 and subsequent years will not be available until after the end of the relevant financial year. However, the net social fund discretionary budget was increased by £5 million in 1993–94 which will lead to significantly higher expenditure in that year.

  Social fund expenditure per capita of income support claimants

  Year

  Cash terms £

  1Real terms £

  1988–89

  38·52

  50·81

  1989–90

  48·38

  59·69

  1990–91

  53·22

  60·62

  1991–92

  59·23

  63·52

  1992–93

  59·02

  60·90

  1 Real terms figures are expressed at 1993–94 prices and have been calculated using the current GDP deflator and may alter.

  Compensation Payments
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of the benefits claimants who have been awarded compensation for injury and disease and who have repaid benefits to the compensation recovery unit subsequently had their compensation payment reduced because of contributory negligence;

  (2) what is 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 and who have had their compensation payment reduced because of contributory negligence.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  584
  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the table. Gross expenditure has risen in real terms since 1988–89. Direct comparisons between net expenditure in 1988–89 and subsequent years would ignore the additional expenditure made possible by the recycling of money received from loan repayments.

  Goode Report
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new proposals he has to implement the conclusions of the Goode report.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department issued a series of consultation papers in December to promote discussion of the issues raised by the Goode report. The responses to the consultation exercise will inform decision making, and the Government will make proposals in due course.

  Advisory Panel on Assessment of Incapacity
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) for what reasons the identity of the members of the advisory panel on assessment of incapacity is regarded as confidential;

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of briefing and background papers supplied to members of the advisory panel on assessment of incapacity;

  (3) whether members of the advisory panel on assessment of incapacity have access to the responses to the consultation document on the subject;

  (4) if he will publish the form of invitation to join the advisory panel on assessment of incapacity.

  Mr. Scott
  The consultation exercise and the associated consultation document seek views from all interested parties on the proposed new, more objective, medical incapacity test. The assessment panel has been formed to help us construct incapacity scales to be used in the test. The work of the panel is an important part of the consultation exercise.

  The panel is being asked to complete a series of exercises which focus on technical questions, and to give their individual expert opinions, not to act as representatives. We are not seeking to influence the decisions of panel members, and we hope they will be free from other pressures, although we do encourage them to discuss tasks with colleagues if they wish.

  The panel has been drawn as widely as possible from the medical and scientific communities and from groups of and for disabled people so that a full range of views can be heard. We welcome the comments of individual panel members on the wider issues discussed in the consultation document as well as their views on the incapacity scales.
  585
  We are committed to producing a report on the results of the consultation exercise and on the new test. Parliament will then have the opportunity to consider the detail of the new test when the relevant regulations are made. This will allow the widest possible public scrutiny of the methods used.

  A copy of the background paper used by the assessment panel and a form of the invitation to join the panel have been placed in the Library.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the projected savings from the arrangements for the dependents of new incapacity benefit claimants under pensionable age during weeks 28 to 52 of any period of sickness.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that there will be a net saving of £5 million in 1995–96 and £10 million in 1996–97.

  Note: Estimate expressed in constant 1993–94 prices, rounded to nearest £5 million and is net of offsetting changes in expenditure on income-related benefits.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the projected savings from the introduction of higher rate incapacity benefit payable to claimaints from weeks 28 to 52 in any period of sickness.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that paying the higher rate of short-term incapacity benefit between the 28th and 52nd weeks of incapacity will produce net savings of around £110 million in 1995–96, and around £150 million in 1996–97.

  Notes:

  (1) Estimates expressed in constant 1993–94 prices, rounded to the nearest £10 million, and net of offsetting changes in income related benefit expenditure.

  (2) Estimates take account of the effect on incapacity benefit recipients of the planned changes in the qualifying conditions for the disability premium paid with the income-related benefits.

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will exempt benefits claimants who are awarded compensation for asbestos-related diseases from repaying benefits under the Social Security Act 1990.

  Mr. Hague
  The compensation recovery scheme is now administered under the Social Security Administration Act 1992. We have no plans to add awards for asbesto-related diseases to the list of exempt payments.

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

  Mr. Scott
  Including casual staff, approximately 100,000 as at 31 December 1993.

  Mortgage Payments
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to provide means-tested assistance towards mortgage payments for people in low-paid employment who are excluded from income support.
  586
  Mr. Burt
  We have no such plans. A mortgage benefit scheme which helps such people would be very costly as well as significantly increasing dependence on state assistance both by individuals and the market.

  Job Seeker's Allowance
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what distinction will be made in payment of the job seeker's allowance between(a) claimants under 25 years old and (b) claimants over 25 years old, from April 1996.

  Mr. Burt
  Job seeker's allowance will be a single, integrated benefit with unified rates of payment aligned to those for income support. Therefore, differential rates will apply to people aged 18 to 24 and those aged 25 years or over.

  Social Security Tribunal
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many times in the last six months he has not accepted the recommendation of the social security tribunal regarding a reduction in the repayment of benefit owed to the Department where the person has been sentenced through the criminal courts and is still in receipt of state benefits;

  (2) how many times in the last six months he has used his powers to overturn a decision of the social security tribunal and instructed that no benefit repayment should be made where a person has been sentenced by the criminal court and is still in receipt of state benefit;

  (3) what discretion the social security tribunal has to recommend that no repayments of state benefits are made where an illegal claim for benefit has been made, and the claimant has been sentenced by the criminal court.

  Mr. Burt
  Social security appeal tribunals can only determine whether the adjudication officer has applied the law correctly in determining an overpayment. The decision to enforce recovery of an overpayment is a matter solely for the Secretary of State. Therefore there is no discretion nor any recommendation in these circumstances.

  State Earnings-related Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much SERPS pension is payable in 1994–95 to a contracted-out employee with average earnings who retired at pension age at the end of each year from 1980 to 1993.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 19 January 1994]: The information is in the table.

  Year of Award1

  Amount £2

  1979–80

  1·56

  1980–81

  2·82

  1981–82

  3·91

  1982–83

  5·18

  1983–84

  5·61

  1984–85

  6·49

  1985–86

  7·28

  1986–87

  7·37

  1987–88

  8·23

  1988–89

  8·82

  1989–90

  8·93

  1990–91

  8·56

  587

  Year of Award1

  Amount £2

  1991–92

  5·90

  1992–93

  5·41

  1993–94

  5·29

  Source: estimate prepared by Government Actuary's Department based on "all persons" average earnings in each year.

  Notes:

  1Tax year 6 April—5 April

  2Weekly amount of additional pension at proposed rates from 11 April 1994 net of "contracted-out deduction".

  Pension Statistics
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Langaurgh (Mr. Bates) of 1 December,Official Report, column 598, if he will give figures for the numbers of employees opted out of state earnings-related pensions in each region of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 21 January 1994]: Information for 1991–92, the latest year for which information is available, is in the table.

  Number of people paying class 1 contributions during 1991–92 with an appropriate personal pension or an occupational pension, by region.

  Region

  Number (thousands)

  Total United Kingdom

  14,686·7

  Northern

  813·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  899·5

  Number of people paying class 1 contributions during 1991–92 with an appropriate personal pension or an occupational pension by region

  (Thousands)

  Region

  Class 1 contracted out contributions only

  Class 1 contracted-out and contracted-in contributions1

  Appropriate personal pension

  Total United Kingdom

  8,159·0

  1,197·9

  5,329·8

  Northern

  481·6

  57·0

  274·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  326·7

  95·2

  477·6

  East midlands

  559·0

  82·1

  408·1

  East Anglia

  272·9

  40·8

  207·5

  South-east

  2,534·4

  396·0

  1,643·6

  South-west

  639·8

  92·0

  413·9

  West midlands

  761·5

  103·9

  525·3

  North-west

  955·0

  120·8

  566·2

  Wales

  414·1

  54·7

  225·4

  Scotland

  818·2

  115·4

  455·8

  Northern Ireland

  212·1

  25·0

  108·6

  Region unknown

  183·7

  15·0

  23·1

  Note: Figures relate to numbers of people not number of employments. Data derived from Inland Revenue statistics, 1 per cent. Sample.

  1 People who are contracted out for part of the year and contracted in for the remainder.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electricity Supplies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what(a) costs and (b) benefits accrue to Britain from the reduction in electricity voltage agreed with the European Community.

  Mr. Eggar
  All EC countries are changing their low voltage supply systems to a nominal voltage of 230/400 volts to provide voltage harmonisation throughout the EC. The United Kingdom decided to do so after extensive consultation.
  588

  Region

  Number (thousands)

  East midlands

  1,049·2

  East Anglia

  521·2

  South-east

  4,574·0

  South-west

  1,145·7

  West midlands

  1,390·7

  North-west

  1,642·0

  Wales

  694·2

  Scotland

  1,389·4

  Northern Ireland

  345·7

  Region unknown

  221·8

  Note: Figures relate to numbers of people not number of employments. Data derived from Inland Revenue statistics, 1 per cent. sample.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of state for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of people holding(a) personal and (b) occupational pensions (i) in total and (ii) in each region of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 21 January 1994]: The number of people accruing benefits with personal pensions in 1991–92 was 7·8 million. The number of people accruing benefits in an occupational pension scheme in 1991–92 was 10·7 million. Only the numbers of people with appropriate personal pensions and contracted-out occupational pensions can be broken down by region. Information for 1991–92, the latest year for which information is available, is in the table.

  The costs to Britain of this standardisation will largely be borne by the electricity supply industry. Estimates put these at £680 million, at 1992 prices, over a 30-year period, together with an annual increase in distribution losses of £20 million.

  The benefits are less readily quantified but are those arising from standardisation which brings greater market opportunities to manufacturers, exporters and importers, and to consumers.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the conversion costs of the electricity supply industry to reduce voltage on supplies.

  Mr. Eggar
  The electricity supply industry has advised that to move from a reduction of 230 volts+10 per
  589
  cent./-10 per cent. to, say, +6 per cent./-6 per cent. will require the replacement of many distribution transformers. The cost is estimated to be £680 million at 1992 prices assuming a phased replacement programme over a 30-year period.

  GATT
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what agreements were reached at the trade negotiations committee of GATT, held on 20 January, in regards to preparation of a work programme on trade and the environment for the forthcoming Marrakesh meeting of GATT.

  Mr. Needham
  The GATT trade negotiations committee decided on 15 December to draw up a programme of work:

  to identify the relationship between trade measures and environmental measures, in order to promote sustainable development and

  to make appropriate recommendations on whether any modifications of the provisions of the multilateral trading system are required, compatible with the open, equitable and non-discriminatory nature of the system.

  It was agreed that the TNC would present the programme of work for adoption as soon as possible and no later than the ministerial meeting in Marrakesh.

  Nuclear Fuel Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new opportunities will become available to the British nuclear fuel industry following the recent decision of the French nuclear authorities to reopen its fast breeder reactor project at Creys Malville.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the companies concerned.

  Malaysia (Exports)
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the value of exports from the United Kingdom to Malaysia in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is given in the following table.

  Value of United Kingdom exports to Malaysia

  Year

  £ million

  1980

  223·3

  1981

  196·2

  1982

  210·6

  1983

  248·3

  1984

  283·1

  1985

  281·7

  1986

  226·9

  1987

  258·0

  1988

  310·4

  1989

  441·5

  1990

  550·7

  1991

  582·3

  1992

  635·9

  Sources: Annual Abstract of Statistics Business Monitor MA20, Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.
  590

  Pergau Project
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many files marked "Not for NAO eyes" his Department holds in relating to the Pergau hydro-electric project in Malaysia.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department holds two files marked "Not for NAO eyes" relating to the National Audit Office inquiry into the Pergau hydro-electric project.

  As explained in the answer I gave to the right hon. Gentleman on 6 December 1993, Official Report, column 38, the marking "Not for National Audit Office eyes" is used only in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which current documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the National Audit Office.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what options he is considering for the scope and format of the review of the future prospects of nuclear power in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) on 16 December 1993,Official Report, column 759.

  Coal Mines
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 645, if a subsidy may be paid by the Government to British Coal if the mine in question is not expected to return to profit shortly without the aid of a subsidy.

  Mr. Eggar
  The aim of the subsidy is to provide temporary financial support to pits that have long-term potential, to provide them the time needed to reduce costs and become competitive. In order to qualify for subsidy my Department must therefore be satisfied that the pit has a realistic chance of supplying coal on a commercially viable basis in the longer term, without the need for subsidy.

  Regional Enterprise Grants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what total amount of funding has been made available over the last year by(a) regional enterprise grants and (b) the English Estates scheme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The provision for regional enterprise grants in 1993–94 in England is £8·8 million. Forecast capital expenditure by English Estates on behalf of my Department in 1993–94 is £71 million.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has examined a copy of the Touche Ross report on the prospective profitability of the THORP plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 17 December 1993,Official Report, column 986.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many copies of the final recommendations document of his deregulation task forces were printed; at what cost; to whom were they distributed; and if he will make a statement on the proposals for reform contained in the documents.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A total of 10,000 copies of the booklet setting out the proposals of the seven business deregulation task forces have been printed at a cost of £1,100. Copies were made available to Members via the Vote Office and were distributed to Government Departments, the press, business and consumer organisations, people who submitted evidence to the task forces and members of the public on request. Of the 605 proposals, 250 have been agreed, 280 are under review and 75 have been rejected.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the methods used by his Department to assess whether particular regulations are a burden to business.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The principal methods of assessing whether regulations are an undue burden upon business are compliance cost assessment and risk assessment. The CCA methodology is set out in a booklet "Checking the Cost to Business: A Guide to Compliance Cost Assessment" and guidance on risk assessment is given in a booklet "Regulation in the Balance: A Guide to Risk Assessment". Copies of both booklets have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent on information technology in each of the last five years within the Insolvency Service; and what is the projected expenditure over the next five years.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The expenditure on information technology on behalf of the Insolvency Service during the last and next five years is in the table:

  £ million

  1989–90

  1·9

  1990–91

  2·0

  1991–92

  1·5

  1992–93

  3·0

  1993–94

  5·2

  1994–95

  3·5

  1995–96

  2·6

  1996–97

  2·5

  1997–98

  2·5

  1998–99

  2·5

  The current and earlier years figures include, where appropriate, capital expenditure paid, on behalf of the Insolvency Service, from the DTI's capital computer budget.

  Figures for 1994–95 onwards include committed current and capital expenditure plus minor amounts for project enhancements. Future major projects are excluded as these are yet to be quantified or approved.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many bankruptcy prosecutions were 592
  successfully obtained by the Insolvency Service for each of the last five years; and how many of those cases in each year were prosecuted under each of the relevant sections of the Insolvency Act 1986.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The numbers of bankrupts successfully prosecuted by my Department on reports received from the Insolvency Service were 249 in 1989, 209 in 1990, 220 in 1991 and 192 in 1992. The total for 1993 will not be known until all court returns have been received.

  Information on the number of convictions obtained under the relevant sections of the Insolvency Act 1986 and associated legislation is regularly published in the Insolvency Service general annual report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Disqualification Proceedings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many directives he has issued in each of the last five years for the institution of disqualification proceedings showing the number issued(a) after receipt of a report from the Official Receiver and (b) after receipt of a report from insolvency practitioners.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The following number of directions to proceed have been given:

  In official receiver cases

  In insolvency practitioner cases

  Total

  1988–89

  201

  218

  419

  1989–90

  160

  302

  462

  1990–91

  204

  295

  499

  1991–92

  304

  396

  700

  1992–93

  164

  400

  564

  19931

  50

  273

  323

  1 9 months to 31 December 1993.

  Bio-ethics
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which aspects of the report of the Nuffield committee on bio-ethics in relation to the use of genetic screening information by insurance companies are being considered by his Department.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Lord President on 11 January 1994,Official Report, column 83. My Department, in consultation with others, is considering those aspects of the report concerned with the balance to be struck between the commercial freedom of insurance companies, considerations of public health and the individual's right to privacy.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the chairperson of BNFL about the redistribution of the surplus in the pension fund.

  Mr. Eggar
  I meet the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  Employees of British Nuclear Fuels plc are members of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority pension schemes. There is no pension fund and consequently no

  593
  surplus as these schemes are unfunded public service pension schemes. Payments to members are met through class IV, vote 3 of the supply estimates.

  Energy Savings Trust
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ensure that new gas suppliers maintain the support the Government have established for the energy savings trust.

  Mr. Eggar
  I shall consider what obligations it is appropriate to impose upon suppliers to the new competitive gas market in the light of the response to the consultation which I shall be carrying out jointly with the Director General of Gas Supply.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what requirement he(a) imposes and (b) plans to impose on the director-general of Ofgas to take into account energy efficiency in her decisions.

  Mr. Eggar
  Section 4 of the Gas Act imposes upon the Director General of Gas Supply the duty to exercise her functions under the Act in the manner which she considers is best calculated, inter alia, to promote efficiency and economy on the part of gas suppliers and the efficient use of gas.

  Consultants
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the cost of employing consultants to advise on the future of(a) the Accounts Services Agency, (b) the industrial research establishment agencies, (c) the Insolvency Service Agency and (d) the Patent Office Agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  The fees paid to the consultants employed in each case are confidential for commercial reasons.
  594
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the relevant consultants' report dealing with the future of(a) the Accounts Services Agency, (b) the industrial research establishment agencies, (c) the Insolvency Service agency and (d) the United Kingdom Patent Office Agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  These reports may contain information which is managerially or commercially sensitive. Decisions on whether to place copies in the Library of the House will be taken when the findings of each report are considered.

  Advisers
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the terms on which(a) Francis Maude and (b) Ray Reardon are employed as advisers to his Department.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Francis Maude has agreed to chair, in a voluntary capacity, the new deregulation task force.

  Ray Reardon has been asked to consider how various corporate restructuring techniques could be applied to parts of the Department. He has also agreed to do this in a voluntary capacity.

  They are not being paid to undertake these tasks although the Department has agreed to reimburse them their necessary travel expenses.

  Iron and Steel Readaptation Benefit Scheme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will reconsider his decision to end the iron and steel readaptation benefit scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) on 27 January 1994,Official Report, columns 369–70.

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.

Life Sentence Prisoners: Escapees
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have investigated the escape of Stanley Greenfield and Anthony Pilditch while serving sentences of life imprisonment for murder, and in particular the reasons why these persons were able to escape as the result of temporary release from prison.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the two escapes from escort have been fully investigated. Staff disciplinary hearings are being conducted, but they are not yet complete.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not clear that the placing of these two men in a position from which they could escape was a grave error of judgment? Can I be assured that this will be brought home to the officials concerned?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that it was a grave error of judgment. These two people were not on temporary release, but they were out in the community. That is allowed as part of the system which permits a person to familiarise himself with outdoor conditions. It so happens that on both occasions the gentlemen went to the lavatory, which is not an unusual thing to do. It was from there that they absconded.

National Curriculum
2.38 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the time allowed for modifying the national curriculum and assessment system in the light of Sir Ron Dearing's report and the associated advisory arrangements are adequate for the task.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, yes. We have every confidence that the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority will meet the timetable recommended in Sir Ron Dearing's report.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. Nevertheless, does she agree that to allow only three months to dismantle a system which took five years to set up smacks of insane haste? In practice, it is likely to lead to incoherent curricular and testing arrangements, driven through at very high speed by the officials of the authority, which will not command
1108
public confidence, will not work, and will therefore not bring about the peace between the Government and the teachers which we all want.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's anxiety. The exercise is, in fact, slimming down the existing orders and modifying the existing 10-level scale. It is responding to the wishes of the teachers that the system should happen very quickly and that the system should be in place by 1995. Sir Ron Dearing has given his word that the work can be done. Each subject order is being done simultaneously which will help enormously.
Baroness David: My Lords, surely, the advisory groups have a great deal of work to do? Can the Minister say that they really have time? Considering all the other mistakes which have been made about the curriculum over the past few years, would it not be sensible to give a little more time, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, asked? Have the Government given any consideration to the suggestion made by the Labour Party that the Scottish system of assessment should be introduced, which emphasises the professional judgment of the teacher and the interests of the individual child rather than the publication of school league tables?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I made the point in response to my noble friend that it is a slimming-down exercise of what is already there. It is a simplification of the 10-level scale system which is in existence. It is as a direct response to the anxieties of the teachers that this change should happen very quickly. The work is being done simultaneously across all subject orders. Although it is a tight timetable, Sir Ron Dearing is confident that it can be done and I believe that we must take him on trust. Certainly, the teachers are very involved. As regards the noble Baroness's second question, if she wishes I can give her a copy of Sir Ron Dearing's report because he does address that. very question. He says that the Scottish system would not be appropriate in England.
Lord Elton: My Lords, should we not welcome the willingness of the teachers to pursue this matter swiftly, which is replacing something that will not work with something that they say will work and at a speed which means that there will be no gap between the two and that the children will suffer the least possible disadvantage?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments, which are absolutely right. Not only is the work being carried out simultaneously, but there are also committees which are charged with the overview to make sure that the whole of this work comes together as a manageable package for teachers. To that extent, I am confident that it can be done in the time. It is the teachers' wish that that should be so.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say why the Scottish system is not suitable for England?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Scotland does not have a national curriculum in the way that England does. The systems are very different and start from a different

1109
base. For example, in Scotland there is very much more central prescription in the sense that it is a much more manageable system. It does not have, for example, 25,000 schools comprising about 19,000 primary schools and 5,000 or so secondary schools. The more detailed reasons are in the Dearing report. He gave very serious consideration to that aspect and he dedicates a whole annex to it.
Baroness David: My Lords, are the parents to be involved in the advisory groups? Perhaps the Minister can inform me whether parents are involved as well as teachers and others?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that they are involved. Mrs. Margaret Morrissey, who is the chairman of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, is involved. I understand that some of her colleagues are involved, too.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, perhaps I may draw my noble friend's attention—
Noble Lords: No, ask a question!
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am sorry. May I ask my noble friend to consider the fact that a number of members of the advisory committees have said that owing to the timetable they fear that they will be used as rubber stamps for policies that the officials wish to drive through?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no, I am not aware of that. The work is only just under way. We shall have to await the completion of that work, but the advisory committees are working extraordinarily hard and will be the only source of advice for Sir Ron Dearing when he comes to finalise the work.

Gibraltar: 2nd Banking Directive
2.43 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken affecting the Financial Services Commission in Gibraltar since implementation by the Gibraltar Government of the 2nd Banking Directive adopted by the Council on 15th December 1989.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we notified the European Commission on 15th November 1993 that the Government of Gibraltar had made the necessary changes to Gibraltar law for the transposition of the 2nd Banking Directive (89/646/EEC) in so far as it relates to incoming EC credit institutions and Gibraltar banks. Discussions are continuing with the Gibraltar Government with a view to ensuring the effective implementation and discharge of Community obligations in the Gibraltar financial services sector.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but am I right in saying that the UK
1110
position is that Gibraltar is Community territory as far as the other 11 member states are concerned? Therefore, is it not reasonable that the Gibraltar Banking Supervisor should be empowered to inform the Supervisor of a host state that a bank that is established in Gibraltar wishes to set itself up in that member state?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this is a slightly complicated matter. The 2nd Banking Directive establishes so-called banking "passports" between member states. As Gibraltar is a separate jurisdiction within the UK member state for these purposes, the EC legislation governing the UK's relations with other member states does not automatically apply to the UK's relations with Gibraltar. We are investigating this. There is a further Banking Advisory Committee of the Community in March. When we implemented the 2nd Banking Directive by regulations under the European Communities Act 1972, it was doubted that there were sufficient vires to establish a passport regime between the UK and Gibraltar in those regulations. When parliamentary time allows, we shall bring forward the necessary primary legislation. The whole matter is under discussion at this time.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a simple and uncomplicated question? Can she tell the House what effect the directive has had on the economy of Gibraltar?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, it has had very little effect on the economy of Gibraltar up to the present time. We are seeking to ensure that there is proper regulation of financial services in Gibraltar. It is with that in mind that the discussions continue with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as we have a little time, may I ask the Minister whether she will educate us? Is it not the case that any bank that is eventually accepted in Gibraltar can then open up anywhere else in the Community? Is not that the case? If it is the case, the question of how well the banks are supervised in Gibraltar is a serious matter; if it is not the case, the matter is less serious.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, what I sought to say in reply to my noble friend Lord Merrivale was that the legislation which governs our relations with other member states does not automatically apply to the UK regulations with Gibraltar. Therefore, the passporting of banking services in one member state, which allows its banks to operate in another member state, does not automatically allow financial services or banking that are begun in Gibraltar to operate in another member state. The noble Lord may know that Luxembourg refused to recognise the Gibraltar licensing system. Others may do likewise.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that is why I asked the question. As we are meant to do these things on a European Union basis these days, it is still not clear what determines what happens in such circumstances. We seem to hear the unilateral view, "We do not recognise this", which rather puzzled me the first time

1111
that I came across it. I thought that that could not happen. I thought that "passports" meant "passports". Is the noble Baroness saying that they do not mean passports any more?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are clear that Gibraltar-based banks and building societies are eligible to take advantage of the right to passport to other member states in the single market, but other member states do not so agree. At present there is a discussion going on. But if any banking or financial service in Gibraltar is to take advantage of the passporting, the regulations must ensure that the banking or financial service is properly founded and on the same basis as it would be in the United Kingdom itself.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, did I understand my noble friend's earlier answer aright: that this can be put right by primary legislation in the United Kingdom Parliament? If I am right about that, can we not have a rather more rapid programme for parliamentary time, by agreement between the parties, than she seemed to indicate?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is a difference of opinion between the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who has one legal opinion, and Her Majesty's Government, but we have said that we will bring forward primary legislation, if necessary, at an appropriate time. We shall do so as soon as we can, but plenty of discussions are going on at the present time. We want arrangements in Gibraltar, which we are now discussing with the Government of Gibraltar, to ensure that there are the necessary standards of regulation and security in Gibraltar. That can help us to ensure effective implementation and discharge of Community obligations in the Gibraltar financial services sectors. But that will require primary legislation.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the strength of the 2nd Banking Directive of 1989 is that it is the member states who are to give authority for a bank to be set up within the member state, and thereafter a passport can be given from that bank? Surely it must depend upon the United Kingdom's view of what is the position in Gibraltar rather than anyone else's.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right. That is why I spoke about how the necessary arrangements would be introduced to enshrine sufficient standards and regulations in Gibraltar. That, as I understand it, will be the responsibility of the British supervision. Until that has happened, the next step forward cannot be taken.
Lord Elton: My Lords, do I infer from my noble friend's reply to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that the protection available to British investors in Gibraltar is not the same as it would be if they were to invest in this country?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble friend is referring to one problem that we have, which is mortgage indemnity, which
1112
forms an important part of the financial sector. We are not ready to extend arrangements to Gibraltar until we are fully satisfied about the supervisory and regulatory systems there. That implies what he said in his question.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this matter, but we do have a great deal of time. Will the Minister tell the House how the French Government deal with similar issues in relation to Monaco?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, 1 am afraid that the noble Baroness will have to ask a French Minister, because I cannot tell her from this Box at this moment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this has been a model of questioning in your Lordships' House? We have extracted information as questioning has proceeded. Is that not in contrast to a good deal of the way in which your Lordships conduct Question Time?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the ability of the person answering at this Dispatch Box to give clear advice often depends upon the Question asked in the first place.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. and after the Report stage of the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on BMW's acquisition of Rover.

Social Security (Contributions) Bill
2.53 p.m.
Report received.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Report by Secretary of State
The Secretary of State shall publish and lay before Parliament a Report on the impact of the increase in the main primary percentage under section 1 of this Act upon contributors to the National Insurance Fund who pay primary Class 1 contributions but who do not pay income tax.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to monitor, and ask the Secretary of State to report on, the poverty of those in low-paid work: those 500,000 workers, mainly women, who pay national insurance and earn over £57 a week, but who earn too little, nonetheless, to pay tax. In other words, they are earning between £57 and £66 a week, if single, or less than £100 a week if they are a lone parent or married: 500,000 people earn too little to pay tax but they pay national insurance. Currently they pay 2 per cent. on their earnings up to £56 a week and 9 per cent.—soon to be 10 per cent.—thereafter.
We accept fully, as was said in Committee, that the increase from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. represents a few pence for a single person or 38p a week for a lone parent

1113
or couple. The increases are not large, although the total national insurance contribution on the earnings of someone who earns too little to pay tax still represents some £5 a week on income of, perhaps, £90 a week. That is a significant sum.
It is because that group is the point at which several worrying trends in taxation, earnings, and social security expenditure come together that we move the amendment. It is moved in the hope that the Secretary of State will report to Parliament. What are those trends? First, that the pay of the low paid has been falling. Today's Independent carries a report from the Greater Manchester Low Pay Unit which shows that the average pay for low paid younger people fell by nearly 7 per cent. between April 1990 and April 1993; and that, whereas 28 per cent. of jobs in 1990 for them paid less than £1.50 an hour, it is now 42 per cent. of jobs for those at 16 years old. The low pay unit reported a year ago delivery drivers earning 1.75 an hour; warehouse handlers £1.86 an hour; security guards £1.65 an hour; garage mechanics £1.81 an hour; shoe repairers £1.88 an hour; and clerical workers £1.75 an hour. The follow up report of six months ago showed sales assistants at £2 an hour; cleaners £2 an hour; switchboard operators £2 an hour, and so on.
On such pay, those people will not pay tax, but if they work more than 30 hours or so a week they will be paying national insurance. All the evidence shows that the abolition of the wages councils is pressing down that low pay even lower. It is being pressed down to income support levels. On their behalf, we want those trends —the deliberate consequences of deliberate government policy in abolishing the wages council—to be monitored. That is the first reason for wanting the report.
The second reason is that our concerns are reflected also in another worrying development reported in the latest edition of Social Trends, which was published last week. We all knew, and we discussed it in this House, that the income of the bottom 10 per cent., after housing costs, has fallen in real terms since 1979 while the income of the rest of us, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said in Committee, has risen by an average of 35 per cent. We knew that the bottom 10 per cent. had seen their real incomes fall. What Social Trends told us last week was that it is not just the bottom 10 per cent. but the bottom 20 per cent.—some 11 million people—who have seen their income, after housing costs, fall by 3 per cent., and a third of them are in full or part-time work. While the national average has increased by 35 per cent. and the top fifth by over 50 per cent., the bottom fifth has fallen by 3 per cent. in real terms.
The country has become wealthier while inequality has grown. There has been no trickle-down of wealth. Our prosperity has been accompanied by, and perhaps has even been carried by, the poverty of those people.
Thirdly, we have a public policy interest in wanting the report. The Government, in this Bill and others, have been reducing the incidence of national insurance on employers while increasing it on employees. The Government will say, and I am sure that they are right, that that is in part to finance statutory sick pay by
1114
employers, but we all know, as we saw in "The Money Programme" on Sunday, that the costs of sick pay will be exported rapidly out to the DSS when employers sack their sick. So, at the very time when employers have a permit to drive down the wages of the lowest pay, they are also enjoying a reduction in national insurance for them, a deficit which is picked up by the low paid themselves.
There is a fourth reason for wanting the report. It is because the low paid are so poor that they are not paying tax that the state has to supplement their income by family credits. Like the old Speenhamland system, employers know that low pay will be partly offset for families by higher state benefits. At the very time that we require fathers rather than the state to support their children, the abolition of the wages councils will allow employers to reduce their wages, knowing that they will be made up by the state. There is therefore for us all a key interface between wage levels, state benefits and family poverty. We need to monitor it properly, and the amendment would secure that.
The final reason for wanting the report is that this group of people—that is, the 500,000, mostly women, who are earning too little to pay tax but are paying national insurance—is experiencing some of the most regressive effects of the Government's fiscal policy. If the Government had increased direct taxation by one penny, which all of us earning above the personal allowance would have paid—that is above £66 per week as a single person and £100 per week in marriage—that would have brought in £360 million less than by raising national insurance by 1 per cent. The difference is that that £360 million extra is paid by the poorest who are too poor to pay income tax—and the amount is capped for those earning more than £22,000 per year.
So that group of 500,000 people, mostly women, who are earning too little to pay tax but are paying national insurance earn only low pay which is falling lower, their hours of work are increasing, they have lost the protection of the wages councils, their incomes have fallen in real terms since 1979, and their national insurance benefits will be cut should they be sick, disabled or unemployed. Yet they are being asked to pay more in national insurance so that the better off pay less in direct taxes. That is unfair. In order to monitor those deeply disturbing trends we have tabled this amendment and ask the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the developments of that group. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is obvious from the speech that we have heard that the amendment has little to do with the Bill. It is designed to enable Members of the Opposition Front Bench to discuss what they feel strongly about, in particular the abolition of wages councils. We discussed the abolition of wages councils at great length only a short time ago and I do not believe that either side of the House convinced the other. I remain convinced that we were right to abolish the wages councils.
The point is that the issue does not arise in this Bill at all. The amendment is simply an attempt to write into the Bill a certain amount of propaganda on behalf of

1115
noble Lords opposite, in particular the Front Bench, which have little to do with the Bill and its working. Therefore, it would be an abuse of our procedure to put the amendment into the Bill.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I rise in support of the amendment and in total opposition to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The amendment makes no reference to wages councils. Admittedly, in speaking to it and in giving the background, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, properly drew attention to the changes in social security contributions. But to suggest that the amendment is an abuse of the process is totally wrong. It is a necessary amendment to ensure that Parliament and the rest of the country can see the impact of what the Government are doing in this field. I support it.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The amendment tabled by the Opposition relates to one area only. Surely, if one wants a report, one wants to consider all contributors and the effect on the whole economy. Several reports relating to such matters are published regularly by the Government and if specific information is required Ministers can be asked to reply to Questions tabled in this House and in another place. Therefore, the amendment appears to be totally otiose and I hope that the House will reject it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, your Lordships will be well aware that the present system of earnings-related national insurance contributions was introduced in 1975. The structure and contribution rates for employees, and also for employers, have changed a number of times since then. The present two-tier contribution structure for employees, which we introduced in 1989, is particularly helpful to those with lower earnings because the first £57 of weekly earnings is subject to a contribution rate of just 2 per cent.—and that is not changing from April.
This means that low-paid workers pay proportionately more of their contributions at the initial rate of 2 per cent. Therefore, someone on £100 a week, which is about the level at which a married man starts to pay tax, will continue to pay contributions at only 2 per cent. on his earnings up to the lower earnings limit of £57. The increase of 1 per cent. in the main contribution rate applies only to those earnings above £57. Thus the increase in contributions from April will be only 36 pence a week.
For a single person the tax threshold is about £66 a week and the maximum increase in national insurance contributions at that level of pay will be 2 pence—I repeat, 2 pence.
The contribution payable in these two cases will be £2.04 and £5.44 respectively. The House may wish to note that as a percentage of pay, these contributions represent 3 per cent. and 5.4 per cent respectively. Under Labour these people would have paid 6.5 per cent. of their pay in contributions; that is £4.29 and
1116
£6.50 respectively. The single person would have been paying more than double under Labour than we now propose and the married person £1.06 more.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has commented on the effect of the contribution increase on people earning about £6,000 a year; for example, a nursing auxiliary. That level of pay is, of course, subject to tax even for someone with the married person's allowance and is not therefore strictly within the terms of the amendment. However, from next April such a person would pay about 6 per cent. of their pay in national insurance contributions. This compares to the 6.5 per cent. of earnings which all contributors paid under the Labour Government when they left office.
There is a further point which your Lordships should not lose sight of when considering the effect upon the low paid. People paying contributions at a relatively low level compared to higher paid people are earning the rights to the full range of pensions and other benefits —for example, widows' pensions, sickness and invalidity benefits, unemployment and maternity benefits—as well as going towards the state earnings related pension. For the single person it really is very good value to be earning a pension for £2 or less a week.
It is, nonetheless, worth emphasising that many of the people concerned will be second wage earners for whom it is convenient to work part-time in order to supplement a main wage.
The amendment asks for a report on the effects of the increase on contributors who do not pay tax. I have explained that the effect on the lower paid will be marginal. We already provide Parliament with full details of the financial effects of contribution changes, by means of a report by the Government Actuary. This, will be published next month. As my noble friend Lady Elles said, we publish a full report, which is important. An extra report is totally unnecessary, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said.
This Government have protected the low paid by the re-structuring of national insurance, which we introduced, and we shall continue to do so. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion. I was a little disappointed in the Minister's reply. It appeared that he was replying to a speech made in Committee, when perhaps his notes did not arrive in time. At no point today did I mention the figure of £6"000 or discuss people earning £6,000. I did so in Committee but today I gave the hourly pay rates of people from whom wages council protection has been withdrawn.
As that argument was made in Committee, I accept the figures which the Minister gave today and that the increases are modest, even though for someone earning £90 per week a £5.50 contribution in national insurance is a significant sum. I also wish to challenge the Minister's comments about the full range of benefits, which was a point made in Committee. Those benefits are being cut.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I do not understand the nature of the Government's opposition.

1117
If, on the one hand, the Minister is saying that the information is already available in a wide range of reports and therefore that the report is—I use the word of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles—otiose, then it involves little effort and cost to bring it together in a targeted way.
However, if that information does not exist and it cannot be brought together in an easy way, then that should be done so that we know what is the impact of the Government's changes, which have a knock-on effect on us all as regards fiscal and benefits policy. If we have the information already, then it is not expensive to provide it. If we do not have it, we should do. We need to know. That is the basis of pressing for the amendment; namely, so that we know in future how the import of those contributions will bear on the lowest-paid members of our society at a time when all the other information that we have suggests that their poverty is worsening relative to the rest of us.
I shall look at the Minister's reply. Perhaps on Third Reading he will reply to the speech that I have made on Report.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will permit me to intervene. I replied to the speech that she made this afternoon. However, I had looked very carefully—as I imagine she hoped I would do—at what she said in Committee. Therefore, I was able to amplify what she said in Committee. Finally, perhaps I may put the noble Baroness straight on one matter. She keeps announcing that contributions are going up and benefits are being reduced. That is not the case. This proposal increases national insurance contributions by 1 per cent. in 1994–95. I emphasise that in 1994–95 there will be no reduction in benefits.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, do I take it from the noble Viscount's statement that the Secretary of State for Social Security is misinforming Parliament when he draws attention to the cuts in benefit and the savings which will come from altering the jobseeker's allowance and invalidity benefit?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness is mistaken, and she should read rather more carefully what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said. He said that we are proposing changes to invalidity benefit but those changes will not take effect until 1995. The Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill, currently in another place, introduces a benefit which has a more objective test for incapacity. For example, our proposals for a single new benefit, the jobseeker's allowance, does not come into effect until 1996.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are well aware of when the benefits are due to be introduced. The point is that those alterations will result in a reduction in their value and will ensure a saving for the Treasury. That has been made perfectly clear in question after question and debate after debate in another place. I am surprised that the Minister suggests that that is not the case. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Statement of change in contribution and benefit levels
The Secretary of State shall, on request, but not more than once in each financial year, supply every contributor to the National Insurance Fund with a statement of the change (as against the level at 5th April 1994) in the level of his annual contributions consequent upon section 1 of this Act and of any change (as against the level at 5th April 1994) in the rate of, and in the period of entitlement to, the benefits from the National Insurance Fund for which that contributor might qualify.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Carter moved an amendment to ensure that contributors receive an annual statement of the increase in contributions together with information on any changes in the value of the benefits to which they are entitled.
The reason for the amendment was that we believed that individuals are entitled to know what they are paying and if there is an increase, what that increase will buy. Contributors to private insurance schemes will expect to receive that information.
If one looks at what the Minister said in Committee at col. 840 of Hansard, he seemed to find the objective of the amendment laudable, although he opposed it on the ground that it would be administratively difficult. He also gave lack of up-to-date computer facilities as a reason for resisting the amendment. He indicated that a fair amount of information is already made available, particularly in the pensions area. He said that a retirement pension forecast is made available to contributors. Of course, we are concerned with general benefit entitlement, including unemployment benefit. As my noble friend Lady Hollis has already said, we are anxious about the prospect that that will be reduced by the prospective jobseeker's allowance which will be paid for only six months as of right and thereafter on a means tested basis, as the Minister has agreed, from 1996.
I wonder also for how long it has been the practice to tell contributors what are their pension forecasts and how they are arrived at. I ask that because in recent years I have been approached by women nearing retirement who are devastated to learn that they will not be entitled to the basic retirement pension until their husbands reach the age of 65. As many women are younger than their husbands by two or three years and retire at the age of 60, it will be seen that that is a cause of some concern to them.
The problem is that those women took the married women's option many years ago and decided to rely on their husband's insurance. I told them that it was foolish to do that; but many simply did not realise what would happen. They tell me that had it been made clear to them earlier, they would have opted to pay the full amount. That is just one example of people not understanding what their contributions will or will not buy. For most people, deductions from salary are merely accepted. They know when they are increased, but they often have no idea why or what they are buying in the way of social insurance benefits.
Of course the married women's option in regard to pensions is a thing of the past but the Government may be considering other options in regard to social insurance for the future.
I had the impression in Committee that the Minister was quite sympathetic to what we seek. The wording of this amendment is altered slightly so that it says:
"The Secretary of State shall, on request, but not more than once in each financial year, supply every contributor to the National Insurance Fund with a statement of the change".
The Minister may have considered this matter further since Committee. If he does not accept the wording of the amendment, perhaps he will take the matter on hoard and do something about it. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, at first sight, I was unenthusiastic about the amendment; but the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has convinced me that certainly the second half of the amendment has great merit. It is true that many people do not know what their benefits are buying in the long term. This amendment is extremely helpful in prompting them to find out. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the amendment before the House would now make a statement available to contributors on request. As the noble Baroness said, it is slightly different from the amendment moved in Committee.
However, the first part of the amendment which deals with a statement of contributions as opposed to benefits would still, in my view, be of very limited value to people, providing as it does for a statement of the change in the level of people's contributions as against the level at April 1994. That will be an unhelpful piece of information, which might amount to a few or many pounds depending on the person's earnings, periods of employment and so on, and not necessarily related to the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance at all. It would tell people nothing which they cannot deduce for themselves by looking at their pay slip or end of year P60.
Of course, if people seek a statement from my department of their contribution records, we are only too willing to provide it as a matter of good service. The Contributions Agency has produced its own charter, as part of the Government's Citizen's Charter initiative. That is widely available and reviewed regularly.
The requirement in the amendment is to provide on request a statement of any change in the rate and period of benefits available from the National Insurance Fund, but I feel once again that that would not be especially helpful. In my view people want to know to what, exactly, they may be entitled.
As I explained in Committee, there are already existing measures to advise contributors of their entitlements under the national insurance scheme. The Contributions Agency issues over 3 million annual notices following the end of any year to those contributors whose contribution record is insufficient to count towards their basic retirement pension. The statement provides details of contributions paid and gives contributors the opportunity to pay voluntary
1120
contributions to bring the year up to the qualifying level and thus secure benefit entitlement. In addition to that administrative arrangement, the Benefits Agency also provides a retirement pension forecast service to contributors: they can request a forecast by completing an application form obtainable at local social security offices. The forecast gives details of the pension entitlement based on the national insurance record held. It states the number of qualifying years required in the future to obtain the maximum pension which can be achieved, and offers advice on the payment of additional contributions, if required.
If there is more information which people need, their enquiries can be dealt with on an individual basis, either by letter or by our special Freeline telephone inquiry service. Of course, there is also a very wide range of explanatory leaflets available covering every benefit in detail. I agree entirely that people should be able to get information about their entitlements and that we should inform them where there is a risk that they will lose out on qualifying for benefits. 'We already haw substantial administrative arrangements towards meeting those aims.
The noble Baroness asked me a few questions about married women with a reduced rate pension and election. The reduced rate option was abolished in 1977, except for those women who had exercised the right to retain it. The January 1977 and February 1978 editions of the leaflet National Insurance 1, for married women, publicised the introduction of home responsibilities protection, drawing attention to the fact that the latter was not available to those who retained their non-paying election. The same message is repeated in current editions of the leaflets which mention HRP.
The noble Baroness also referred to pension entitlement. The service to provide a future pension estimate has been available for at least six years on a formal, structured basis and also, before then, an individual calculation would be made on request. I should emphasise that the service is provided on request. It is for contributors to ask for a forecast. As I said, the Contributions Agency is considering how far the issuing of statements should be developed. We are also considering the possible issue of a fuller statement but have yet to evaluate the costs or benefits of such a move. It might include more details of people's prospective benefit entitlement as well as their contribution record.
I hope I have been able to give the noble Baroness some reassurance. While I sympathise with her intentions, I trust that my explanation will provide her with sufficient information to show that we are going a long way to produce substantially what she requires.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that explanation. As he indicated, there is now a great deal more information available than used to be the case. I am very glad to learn that in the pensions area in particular consideration is being giving to developing the issue of statements and information generally. There really was a problem as regards some older women who opted for the married women's option many years ago. Thankfully, that is

1121
now a thing of the past. As I said, they opted for that option many years ago and it was not until they were approaching retirement age and began to think about pensions (as most people do) that they suddenly realised they would have to wait until their husbands were 65 before they could collect their pension. That was a problem of the time. I am glad that steps are apparently being taken to deal with the matter.
I accept what the noble Viscount said with regard to the wording of my amendment. However, I still feel that there is a case for writing into legislation somewhere the requirement that contributors should have, on request, a statement informing them of the contributions that have been made on their behalf and of the benefits to which they are entitled. I believe that that is a very reasonable request to make.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would the noble Baroness consider adding to that request a provision that requires the department concerned to give such information within a given space of time? People are asking for statements on their entitlement but not receiving them for many months. I have personal knowledge of a colleague who asked for a statement on his retirement pension for which he is still waiting.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, that is a most useful intervention. There is not much point in having the information unless you receive it at the appropriate time; for example, when you are making decisions about retirement, and so on. In view of the points made in today's debate, we would like to take back the wording and re-examine it with the purpose of perhaps producing something a little more appropriate and apposite which even the Minister may feel able to accept. I sense that the noble Viscount is very sympathetic to our arguments this afternoon, just as he was to the viewpoint expressed in Committee. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, we shall look most carefully at all the points made in debate with a view to advancing something a little more acceptable on Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Annual Report to Parliament
The Secretary of State shall publish annually a report to Parliament setting out the yield from the increase in primary Class 1 contributions payable as a consequence of the provisions of section 1 of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the above is a similar amendment to one which we tabled in Committee. I said then that we wanted to look at what was said and, perhaps, return to the matter if we felt that it was not entirely acceptable. We are suggesting that the Secretary of State should publish annually a report to Parliament setting out the yield from the increase in primary Class 1 contributions payable as a consequence of the provisions of Section (1) of the Act.
As we have seen from the statement in the Bill headed, Financial effects of the Bill:
"Clause 1 will increase contributions to the National Insurance Fund by some £1.9 billion in a full year."
Clearly, that is a very substantial amount of money. In our view, it should be possible for Parliament to consider in a formal way each year whether such a large yield is still necessary and whether, indeed, the Treasury should begin to make a bigger contribution.
As we all know—and, indeed, we said so in Committee—when the system was first inaugurated it was believed that Beveridge had in mind that there should be a fund on a tripartite basis with the employers, employees and the Treasury making a contribution. As time went on the Treasury contribution eventually disappeared, although I believe that it is now being reinstated.
We are dealing with very large sums of money and an increase becoming payable by large numbers of employees at a time when those same employees will also have to consider a further tax burden. I know that we do not discuss tax in your Lordships' House and we have repeatedly been told that this is not a tax. However, for employees it is additional money that will be deducted from their pay packets. At a time when large numbers of people are having to pay a substantial increase in taxation all round, there surely is a case for a separate accounting as regards social security contributions.
Therefore, despite the noble Viscount's response to a very similar amendment in Committee, we think it quite reasonable to require that the Secretary of State should publish annually a report to Parliament setting out the yield from the increase. That would give Parliament the opportunity to decide whether such an increase is still required and whether further contributions might more usefully be made from the Treasury. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I wonder whether the amendment is really necessary. I am quite sure that noble Lords on both sides of the House will insist on very full information being given by the Government on the working of the national insurance system; indeed, they always have and they always will. Whether it is necessary to entrench such a provision in the terms of the Bill seems to me to be most doubtful. I am all against cluttering up the Bill with additional provisions unless they are really necessary.
So far, I have not encountered any indication that your Lordships' House—or, indeed, the other place—has not been kept fully informed of almost every detail of the complex financial arrangements of the national insurance scheme. Therefore, to pick out such a provision and put it into the Bill seems to me to be unnecessary.
Perhaps I may refer to another point made by the noble Baroness. She suggested that the Exchequer contribution should be higher, but I noticed that she referred all the way through her remarks to payment by the Treasury when of course what she meant was payment by the taxpayer. It is important that we should be clear in our minds that the Treasury is not sitting on an enormous, easily acquired fund but that if it is desired to shift something from the contributors it would have to be shifted onto taxpayers. If we are not clear about that, we shall deal with the matter under a happy sense of illusion.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, this is an identical amendment to the one moved last week. As I explained to the Chamber then, there is an existing statutory requirement for a report by the Government Actuary to be laid each year with the affirmative resolution orders which set the rates of benefits and contributions for the coming year. These reports describe expected changes to contribution income and benefit expenditure in considerable detail, and they highlight the financial effects of changes in structure or rates. Because the orders are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses, there is an opportunity for your Lordships' House to debate the changes in detail.
In Committee I also mentioned the requirement for the Government Actuary to undertake a five-yearly examination of the National Insurance fund and report on the extent to which it may be expected in the longer term to bear a proper relation to demands in respect of benefit. This is also a statutory requirement and the report must be laid before Parliament. The last such report was presented in July 1990, so another will be due before too long. The last quinquennial review, as it is known, ran to some 70 pages and took account of legislation enacted in the period 1980 to 1989. It then looked in great detail at the possible effect on contribution rates of maintaining the national insurance scheme over the next 60 years.
The report by the Government Actuary on the benefits and contribution orders will be laid before your Lordships next month. It will need to give full details of changes which have occurred to the contributions system and will set out the yield deriving from them. This will include the financial effect of the 1 per cent. increases, which is exactly what this amendment is seeking.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned the Treasury contribution. However, it is already set at a maximum of 17 per cent. of annual spending on benefits. We must keep a limit on the extent to which the taxpayer—my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was right to point out that we are discussing the taxpayer here—underwrites the spending on benefits. The fund must be principally funded by contributors if this is to be a contributory scheme. The grant will, of course, be set out in the Government Actuary's report next month.
However, this amendment would also require reports in respect of 1995–96 and each subsequent year separately to identify the yield deriving from the 1 per cent. increase. I feel that this would be an unnecessary burden and, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out in Committee, it is a figure which any noble Lord could obtain by tabling a Question in advance of the annual debate on the contribution re-rating order. Furthermore, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out in Committee why this amendment is unnecessary. As your Lordships know, the noble and learned Lord is always prepared to propose the affirmative instrument where he thinks it is necessary.
We already have ample statutory requirements for the provision of information concerning the National
1124
Insurance Fund to Parliament and it would not be helpful to oblige the Secretary of State to provide, on an ongoing basis, a particular piece of information which would soon cease to have any relevance and, as I have said, would have to identify separately the yield deriving from the 1 per cent. increase.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation, although of course I find it a little disappointing. I am not surprised that both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, should have said that the amendment is not necessary. Perhaps the whole Bill might not have been necessary had the Government not decided to forgo a substantial sum to the National Insurance Fund by giving people bribes to get into the personal pension field. However, they did so and it seems to me that that was done at a large cost to the taxpayer.
My understanding of the position is that we have this Bill as part of a social security package. It does not stand on its own. We shall deal with the Statutory Sick Pay Bill tomorrow, and there may be other social security measures in the pipeline. It was because we understood this Bill was part of a social security package which the Government were arranging that we felt there was a case for treating it differently and for arguing that there should be annual reports to Parliament as regards the amount of yield from this increase. However, I fear that there is no point in pressing the amendment this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In The Title:
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1994
3.35 p.m
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th December be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I bring to the House today an order which plays an important role in the development of health and social services Northern Ireland. The purpose of the draft Health arid Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 is to enable health and social services trusts in Northern Ireland to carry out certain statutory functions which at the moment are the legal responsibility of the health and social services boards there.
The order is a local solution to a local problem. It may be helpful to the House if I comment briefly on the background to it and the present organisation of the services in the Province. In Northern Ireland health and personal social services were integrated into one structure in 1973. We have therefore had an integrated service for over 20 years. During that period the services have been provided by four health and social services boards. This integrated system has served Northern Ireland well through 20 turbulent years, and the people of the Province are quite justifiably proud of this unique

1125
service. The draft order seeks to preserve this integration and to enable services to continue more or less in their present form. It is needed only to remedy a weakness in the existing law and not because the present services are deficient in any way.
The Government's reforms for health and social services provide for the separation of the purchase and provision of services. The Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 redefined the role of the four boards as being responsible primarily for assessing the needs of their populations and commissioning services to meet those needs. Their direct management role in the services was removed and general management was introduced at unit level. The order provided for units to be established as health and social services trusts, fully independent of board management but wholly—I stress the word "wholly" —within the statutory sector.
However, although the 1991 order enabled trusts to be established and allowed boards to contract with them for services, it did not permit trusts to carry out certain functions associated with those services except for mental health functions, for which specific provision was made. These functions flow from a range of existing legislation such as the Children and Young Person's Act 1968 and the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. Some are sensitive powers involving the restriction of civil liberties, for example taking a child into care. This legislative weakness prevents some units such as those providing personal and social services from becoming fully operational as trusts and the order is concerned with putting that right.
In bringing forward the order we aim to provide a legal framework for the discharge of functions by trusts which ensures clarity about where responsibility lies and secures full accountability for the work undertaken by trusts. Within that framework the order enables boards, with the approval of the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland, to delegate certain statutory functions, which will be specified by the department, to health and social services trusts. The functions involved were set out in the explanatory document published with the proposal last summer and a draft copy of the regulations dealing with them was placed in the Library when the order was laid on 9th December. The order allows trusts to carry out those functions and makes provision for schemes to be agreed between trusts and boards on how the functions are to be carried out.
Since the proposal for legislation was published last June many people have voiced anxieties about its effect on services, particularly in relation to those for children. Some have expressed doubts about the accountability of trusts within the new arrangements. Questions about fragmentation and inequality of provision have been raised. My noble friend and predecessor and, more recently, I have considered very carefully the anxieties raised and have devoted much time and effort to listening and then explaining the issues. I think it is fair to say that many of the anxieties expressed stemmed from a misunderstanding of the role of trusts, and perhaps I can clarify that point.
1126
Health and social services trusts are state bodies, established firmly within the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland. They are fully accountable for all that they do and are closely monitored both by the department and by the boards. They are not independent companies and are bound by the same guidance and directions that govern the operation of health and social services boards at present. Like my noble predecessor, I recognise that people have anxieties and I appreciate their concerns. They are genuinely held, but they have not been ignored. Regardless of which side of the debate we are on, we have one interest in common—the welfare of children and other vulnerable groups in our society. For that reason the shadow trusts and boards concerned have been working very hard to establish procedures which will ensure that those who are entrusted with the discharge of statutory responsibilities at local level will be clear about their role and fully accountable for all that they do.
For my part I have been concerned to get to grips with the issues involved since I took up my new post. I have met with representatives from the British Association of Social Workers to hear at first hand its concerns. I have visited units which are preparing for trust status and talked with people who are directly involved in providing services and who are preparing the ground. From my conversations with managers and professionals alike, and on the evidence that I have seen, I have no doubt that the schemes being developed between boards and trusts will address clearly and comprehensively the key issues that have been raised. Under the terms of the draft order they will have to be approved by my department.
There are two other important issues which, although not technically part of this legislation, are intended to underpin it. First, those trusts which will be providing personal social services will need to have access to expert advice and guidance in providing those services and carrying out the functions I have mentioned. To ensure that they have we are making it a legal requirement for any trust providing these services to appoint a qualified social worker as an executive director. At the same time the department will be asking all health and social services boards to appoint a director of social services if they have not already done so. Guidance on the roles and responsibilities of both posts will be issued.
Those changes, taken together, represent a significant strengthening of the structures involved in personal social services in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I should point out also that chief executives of trusts have gone to great pains to build in safeguards for existing social work structures, both organisationally and professionally, within trusts.
Perhaps I may briefly say a word or two about three other changes to Northern Ireland health and social services legislation which are contained in the order. First, the order amends existing law on the audit of health and social service bodies. The law in that area is no more than adequate at present and the order is designed to modernise and strengthen it. Secondly, it amends the law on the registration of pharmaceutical chemists by requiring people seeking registration to

1127
satisfy prescribed conditions as to character, health and other matters. This will bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with that in other countries. Thirdly, the order repeals an existing provision in relation to the employment of nurses which is no longer needed because of the changes in the way nurses are recruited and trained.
The proposals before the House present no threat to the welfare of patients or clients. They are no threat to standards. They are no threat to vulnerable groups. Rather, they are concerned with ensuring that our services are structured and organised in such a way as to maximise their capacity to respond to people's needs quickly and effectively. I am confident that the trusts which the legislation will affect by focusing on the needs of local people will be best placed to make that response in meeting both health and social welfare needs. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th December be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out from ("That") to the end arid insert ("this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft order laid before the House on 9th December 1993; and to re-lay it in a month, having considered whether it should extend to social services.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper perhaps I may, first. thank my noble friend the Minister for explaining the order. Perhaps I may also welcome her to her post as Minister for Northern Ireland.
I should like to thank my noble friend and her predecessor, my noble friend Lord Arran, for the time that they have given to explaining the Order in Council to me. Alas, I have been unable to agree with their explanations, particularly as they have not accorded with the views of social workers working in the statutory sector who are members of the British Association of Social Workers. Nor have they accorded with the views of social workers in the voluntary sector, which consists of some outstanding voluntary organisations, among them Barnardo's, which I know well.
I have moved the amendment in this form because an Order in Council must be accepted in total or totally rejected. That is different from the position relating to primary legislation when Bills before your Lordships' House can he debated, discussed and amendments moved to improve the Bill. The amendment therefore takes the form of providing a month for further consultation and discussion. The amendment is in accordance with standing rules and orders and has been approved by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
My noble friend the Minister has done much to explain the order. At present the social work service is covered by four health and personal social services boards. The health and social services were amalgamated some years ago, as the Minister said. I have to say that at that time I disagreed with the amalgamation. The
1128
social work service is responsible for carrying out the implementation of the children Acts dealing with delinquency, care and protection, and the prevention of suffering, the chronically sick and disabled persons Acts, the mental health Acts, adoption Acts, and work with the education service. Within each of the health and social services boards at present there is a director of social services and a staff of social workers divided into units.
Under the Order in Council before your Lordships' House today, the health and social services board will continue with a director of social services. However, as the Minister said, 12 trusts will be formed to carry out the work which at present is the duty of the four health and personal social services boards. The grass roots social workers will be given the opportunity of moving to the trusts.
What is the exact ethos and purpose of this change? The Minister has stated that it is to provide a mechanism for purchasing and providing, but she has given no other reason. She said that the work at present being undertaken is being done well. If it is being done well, why change the system? Why move the service in particular as that will be costly? If the work is not being done well, can the Minister give examples of malpractice? Can she give examples of where the work is not being done well which would justify a change? Am I right in thinking that the present four health and social services boards will continue in their present form?
In her opening address the Minister spoke of accountability. I am still not quite sure exactly to whom the trusts will be accountable. Will it be to the four personal and social services boards, the Department's executive board, and then the Minister? Should there be a mishandling of a case—for instance, the death of a child; a sexual abuse case not properly dealt with; people in an old people's home not cared for—who would be responsible? Would it be the trusts, which are non-statutory bodies? Would it be the hoard which is not doing the work? Would it then be the Minister who is two steps away, divorced from the work? Even in the Minister's outstanding speech the position has not been made clear.
I understand that the members of the 12 trusts will be appointed by Her Majesty's Government. As has been stated, the trusts are non-statutory bodies. Am I right in thinking that the chairman of each of the 12 trusts will be paid £15,000 a year, and each of the five board members £5,000 a year? Will an experienced and qualified social worker, a director of social services as the Minister stated in her speech, be paid a salary as an executive member? There will then be the clerical and administrative staff. I estimate that the trusts will be far more costly than the present system. Is that riot so? Has the new system been costed against the present system? Do we know the extra costs and whether the change will be worth them?
I am not clear how non-statutory community trusts can carry out work under Acts and orders. The Minister has referred to that aspect; and I look to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to clarify the legal position.
Roughly speaking, the 12 trusts will cover an area the size of Kent, with approximately the same population. How is consistency of work between the 12 trusts to be carried out? From a social worker's point of view, consistency is important. If you have a child wanting to be adopted and do not have an adopter for that child, you ask another area for help with adopters. If there is no consistency of practice, there will be difficulties.
If the purpose is to give a better service to the vulnerable of the Province, it must be proved that the present system is not efficient and effective. Are we wise to agree to a new, bureaucratic and expensive machine without clear answers to those questions?
I have kept my speech short; I hope that I have made it clear. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to a first class service for the vulnerable in their society. I do not believe that the present system has failed. I do not understand how the new system will give a better service. The only reason given by the Minister is the introduction of the purchaser-provider principle. I suspect that that does not give a better service. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out from ("That") to the end and insert ("this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft order laid before the House on 9th December 1993; and to re-lay it in a month, having considered whether it should extend to social services.")—(Baroness Faithfull.)

Rover: Acquisition by BMW
3.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, it may be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about BMW's acquisition of Rover.
"This morning, British Aerospace announced its decision to accept an offer from BMW to acquire its wholly-owned subsidiary Rover Group Holdings Ltd.
"BAe bought the Government's shareholding in Rover Group in July 1988. In accordance with assurances given at the time of the sale, BAe has helped transform Rover into one of Europe's most efficient vehicle manufacturers. Many factors have contributed to this, notably the management of Sir Graham Day, Mr. George Simpson and Mr. John Towers; the receptiveness of the Rover workforce and of Rover's suppliers to changing demands; and the close involvement and valued support of Honda. BAe has played a major part, and put in very substantial capital investment which has averaged £200 million a year.
1130
"BAe wants to concentrate on its role as a world player in the defence and aerospace sector, and has been giving consideration to the future of its shareholding in Rover.
"Late on 26th January, BAe received a formal bid from BMW to acquire Rover Group Holdings Ltd. It was for BAe to take the commercial decision about how to respond to that bid. In particular it has to have regard to the interests of its shareholders, whose approval at an extraordinary general meeting is still a condition to the deal. But BAe immediately informed us of the bid and, in the absence of the President of the Board of Trade on an overseas visit, I met the chief executives of both BAe and BMW to discuss their plans.
"But the reality is that BAe owns two cash-hungry businesses: Rover and its defence and aerospace activities. BAe could not invest as much as it wanted in both businesses. The sale to BMW will therefore allow BAe to pursue plans for the turboprop and regional jet businesses in Prestwick and Manchester. This is good news for the UK's aerospace industry.
"For Rover, the new relationship with BMW offers some significant opportunities. BMW have stated that they will: maintain Rover as a separate enterprise with its own manufacturing plants and its own design and development capabilities; be able to offer better access to the very substantial funds needed for investment in new models; encourage Rover to build on the progress it has made in developing long term relationships with its suppliers; and be able to offer Rover additional export opportunities which should increase volumes.
"BMW have also stated that they hope that Rover will be able to maintain and to build on the existing links with Honda. These intentions are set out in more detail in a letter which BMW have sent to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. I am today sending a copy of that letter together with a letter from BAe confirming their strategy to all Members of the House. And I am placing copies in the Library.
"BMW is one of the most highly regarded car and engine manufacturers in the world. The fact that BMW is making this very substantial investment in Britain is evidence of the dramatic improvements in competitiveness that have been achieved by the British vehicle industry. BAe and BMW believe that this deal can significantly strengthen Rover, and consequently the UK vehicle industry as a whole. This should be welcomed by our vehicle industry and all those who work in it."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. The first question to ask—and perhaps it ought to be asked by Peers who sit on the Conservative Benches—is why a Statement on this subject is being made at all. I hasten to say that I did not believe in the Conservative economic policies of the 1980s; but anyone who believed in them might ask is this not simply a private

1131
transaction between two businesses? Where do the Government get to poke their nose in? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. He quoted his right honourable friend the Minister for Industry as saying:
"I met the chief executives of both BAe and BMW".
Can the noble Lord tell us why his right honourable friend met the chief executives of those two companies? What was his purpose? What could he have done? What was involved?
It is interesting that we understand that the formal bid came on 26th January. Can the noble Lord tell us whether that was the first time his department had heard anything about the matter? Was the bid made and then his department told but it knew nothing about it earlier?
I ask those questions because this is in a sense a considerable test of whether the Government believe in their own economic policies. As I have pointed out on many occasions, they never appear to. This is a startling example of what we are asked to respond to. In particular, I should like to know what was and is the locus of the Minister's department and his right honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry in all this.
We have not had the Statement for more than a few minutes but I am genuinely puzzled about what it tells us. I look at it and can see nothing in it at all. When the Minister replies, perhaps he may tell me what he thinks the Statement tells us that we could not have picked up by looking at Teletext at approximately this time. Is there anything in the Statement? Is there what professors of English literature call "a hidden message" which needs re-interpreting so that eventually we understand what is going on?
The Statement is right to talk about the excellent performance of Rover. I would put it the other way round: I believe that there has been a brilliant achievement by Rover's workforce, assisted to some extent by the management. Whichever way one cares to put it, the outcome is the same. Since there is still a trade union element at Rover—I do not know whether there is one at BMW—I should like to know whether the workers were consulted or is there any suggestion that they will be'? I see that quite rightly the shareholders will be consulted; but I wish to know what has happened about consulting the workers.
The Statement says:
"BMW have stated that they will",
do four things, and they state them. Then we are told that there is a letter which we can read subsequently in the Library which spells it out in more detail. Will the Minister confirm that "stated that they will" is simply a statement of intention: "if we can, we will do these things"? In no sense is the statement a guarantee; it is simply that: "if we maintain Rover as a separate enterprise" means: "we will try to maintain Rover as a separate enterprise if we can"; "we will offer better access to funds if we can"; "we will encourage Rover to build if we can and we will offer Rover additional export opportunities if we can". In other words, if BMW do none of those things, they do not do them; it is simply in the commercial interests of the company not to do them. Can the noble Lord tell us what is the point of "the best intentions" statement?
1132
A minor matter is that some of the Rover success is connected with Honda. There is no Honda statement. Can the noble Lord tell us whether there is any danger that the Honda connection will be damaged by this? I take it—and I certainly hope—that there is none. I am not the kind of person who would dream of driving a BMW. It is the kind of car that always cuts in on one from the inside. But I recognise that BMW is quite a good car manufacturer. I hope that I do not have to make that point, having already said how excellent the Rover achievement is. I do not wish to denigrate BMW at all.
However, I am led to the point that British Aerospace has taken a commercial decision and that is what the Statement is meant to tell us. On elementary arithmetic, considering what BAe paid for the company originally and what it will receive for it now, it looks as though it will have quite a good return. At the time of the sale I believe that the noble Lord was here, as I was, and will recall that some noble Lords—and certainly my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel—pointed out that, given the sweeteners, BAe obtained an extraordinarily good bargain.
Do the Government now regret that they sold off Rover at quite such a low price? And, more to the point, that they sold it off without any contingent element such as "If you sell it on for a considerable profit, the taxpayer will be able to recoup some of that money"? Have the Government any regrets regarding that?
One last, slightly technical question. One of Me better points or reasons for the Rover success, I hope the noble Lord will agree, is that it put much effort, both before this privatisation and subsequently, into improving the education and training of the workforce. I think the noble Lord will agree that that is the key to success anyway. What was called "the Rover learning board" put in a tremendous effort from top to bottom, it took the matter of training and retraining very seriously. Has there been any talk with BMW that such excellent work will continue in the new Rover/BMW?
I do not wish anything I say to undermine the fact that we all wish success to the new enterprise. It is not my intention, in asking questions today, in any way to suggest that a disaster would please me. I go further to say that although at the moment I believe that. British Aerospace is a loss-making business and that it will be glad to obtain the money, we would like to see. British Aerospace starting to make money again. That is not the problem. In a way, the real problem is that the mistake took place some years ago and today we have to let bygones be bygones. I repeat my point that one of the bygones is that these are not public enterprises anyway.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to say that I am very pleased we have been given the opportunity to comment on this important industrial development. Whether or not it demonstrates, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out, that the Government are pursuing their industrial policies, we should welcome this opportunity. On the face of it, this arrangement seems to have many attractions and we join in congratulating Rover on its great achievements in recent years—indeed to the point at which I, for one, have decided that when the time comes for me to buy another car it will

1133
probably be a Rover, though perhaps I should see what happens to the company in its marriage to BMW before finally deciding.
The important aspects in this arrangement are the assurances and the statements that we are told BMW has made. It is of vital importance to this country that Rover remains here and develops here. As I understand it, that is one assurance which has been received and I think we need to have that fully confirmed by the Minister. On top of that, we need to make sure that the company's research and development capability will be encouraged and expanded here.
We need to be sure that within these various assurances suitable safeguards will be provided to those employed in the company. I take it that their contracts of employment and the assurances given to them will be continued, but we would like to know that that is so.
I believe that this linkage between this very successful enterprise in Britain's motor industry and the very successful German enterprise, BMW, can be of very considerable European significance. I am pleased that if a new relationship had to be made between Rover and another motor company it should be a European one, because it is, of course, mainly the European market that we have to develop. I welcome the arrangement on those grounds.
I conclude by saying that I hope this arrangement, which is of course an acquisition, will nevertheless work much more on the basis of a partnership between two very successful companies in the motor industry.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe it is customary for me to reply directly to the noble Lords who have just spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, started by wondering why a Statement should be made. He made an extremely good point. This is a deal between two private companies and therefore Parliament should not be involved. But of course that is to forget the history of Rover, British Leyland and the enormous commitment that the taxpayer has made to these companies in the past and also the very real interest that people have in these affairs. That is why we decided to issue a Statement to inform Parliament of what is happening between the two companies. Therefore, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that there is no hidden message in this Statement. There is no great Government secret. Indeed, he may well have found out all he could by Teletex or the newspapers, but he would not have had the opportunity of questioning the Government unless there had been a Statement.
For that reason, my right honourable friend the Minister for Industry met the chief executives, not because he believed he could change their minds or even would want to do so, but to understand the thinking that had gone on in their minds so that he could find out at first hand exactly what decisions had been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked whether we had heard about this agreement for the first time on 26th January. I can confirm to him that we first heard of the firm bid by BMW on the 26th January. But, of course, the DTI is firmly in contact with all sectors of British industry and I can tell the House that there have been a
1134
number of informal contacts with British Aerospace since February 1993 about the future of Rover, as a result of which we have been informed of key developments.
The Statement today outlines certain assurances that have been made by BMW, and again I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that these are statements of intent. Of course they are not guarantees. BMW are not in the business of providing that kind of guarantee nor would British Aerospace expect that. However, they are firm statements of intent, and I have to wonder why BMW would invest such an enormous amount of money in this country if it did not have every intention of staying here. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that BMW has given a guarantee to the workforce that there will be no changes. It is my belief that they will work hard to continue to make sure that Rover is a great company based here in Britain.
Some mention has been made outside Parliament, and again today by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the connection with Honda. Honda owns 20 per cent. of the Rover Group, and now BMW owns 80 per cent. It is perhaps not surprising that Honda is not entirely delighted with the events of today but the collaboration over the past 15 years between Honda and Rover has been mutually beneficial to both companies, and I can only assume that that collaboration and that good relationship will continue.
Turning now to the question of financing, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked whether BAe had not made quite a good return out of this deal. It will be up to the shareholders to decide whether or not it is a good return, but from the figures I have seen British Aerospace bought the company for some £150 million. Although it is being sold for £800 million BAe has, of course, been investing at the rate of £200 million a year to improve the quality of the product that Rover offers. There is no regret on the part of Her Majesty's Government for having made the sale in 1988. It was the right decision then for the sake of our industrial future, and I believe that the announcement which has been made today will also be good for the future of our industrial infrastructure.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, commented about the European nature of this bid. I agree with him that it is clearly good news for the whole of Europe that a major vehicle manufacturing company from Germany, providing a quality product—probably one of the best motor companies in the world—should get together with this British company which has a record, or at least a heritage, of providing quality goods, well designed at reasonable prices. That is the kind of merger we can all support and I believe that it will be in the best interests of both companies and, in particular, of their workforces.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I wonder if I might press my noble friend a little more on the position of Honda. I was one of the Ministers who, over a period, helped to secure the negotiations which led to the Honda/Rover deal; and I was delighted when my noble friend said that it has indeed been very fruitful. I believe

1135
that to be the case and that the Honda expertise, both in management and in technology, has been of inestimable value.
However, is my noble friend aware that it is therefore a Little disappointing to hear that the first reaction of Honda was one of some dismay that it had happened? Is one justified in putting this in the context of the very substantial volume of Japanese investment which has come into this country and which I, the Government, and I believe all parties, have been delighted to see since it contributes considerably to our economic growth and industrial progress? Was Honda given any advance warning? What steps have been taken to protect the intellectual property which Honda and Rover have shared? Is Honda likely to be happy to find itself sharing this with BMW?
On the whole, the deal is a very satisfactory one and I share my noble friend's enthusiasm. It is very good to see a big German company investing a large sum in this country, but in the case of our relations with a big Japanese company like Honda, I should like to feel satisfied that it is not going to feel "done down" in some way. If that were to be so, I do not think it would be very good for the future of Japanese investment in Britain.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is right to remind us of the enormous amount of investment made by the Japanese during the past few years. We welcome that kind of inward investment into the United Kingdom and hope that we shall see Japanese investment for many years to come. Indeed, one of the most active and successful aspects of that investment has been in the motor industry from Nissan, Honda and Toyota, which brought a substantial uplift in the number of vehicles that we now manufacture in this country.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I said that Honda was not entirely delighted by what happened, and there are a number of reasons for that. I can confirm to my noble friend that Honda was consulted. As I understand it, there have been ongoing discussions between British Aerospace and Honda for some time in regard to the future of its shareholding. Honda was therefore well aware that there was a substantial discussion regarding the future of Rover and could not have been surprised at today's announcement.
I cannot answer questions in relation to intellectual property. It will depend on the arrangements in place between Rover and Honda and how that relationship is affected since the ownership changed from British Aerospace to BMW. But overall I can confirm to my noble friend that we hope that the hard-working relationship built up between Honda and Rover will continue for many years to come.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while I wish the new arrangement every success, I feel that this is a sad day for Britain. A country which produced motor-cars over a long period with great success, after this new arrangement will no longer have control over a single motor-car company. Is not that the case? Does not the noble Lord feel ashamed that he represents a government which has been in office for 15 years and which leaves this country the poorer for it? Can he say whether any motor-car-producing firm comes under
1136
British control today? If the answer is in the negative, it is a state of affairs about which he and his Government should feel extremely ashamed.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am saddened by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I recognise that he voices a great deal of natural patriotic feeling towards British-owned companies. However, his sentimentality in this case is misplaced. In the modern world of cross-ownership and multi-nationals, it is sometimes difficult to see whether a company is British, French or German. Any company may have shareholders based in different countries. It is the shareholder who ultimately owns the company.
My view on the matter is simple. A British company is one based in Britain which employs British people who pay British taxes. That is a definition of a British company. On that basis there will be no change to the composition of Rover as a British company after today's announcement.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it is unfair to criticise the purchase price paid by British Aerospace a few years ago while at the same time ignoring the massive investment that it later put into the Rover Group? Does he not also agree that, while we warmly congratulate the workforce at Rover, one of the reasons for the decimation of our motor industry is that the trade union legislation allowed people like Mr. Robinson—known as "Red Robbo"—to kill the motor industry? Does he not further agree that if the trade union legislation had not been changed, neither Honda, the Japanese, the Americans nor the Germans would have invested in the motor industry in this country?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Clark that British Aerospace has made a substantial investment over the past five-and-a-half years. That is one of the reasons BMW felt that it was worth its while investing in Rover. It is hard to believe that BMW would have bought British Leyland back in the 1970s, when it was bedevilled by the problems mentioned by my noble friend. He is right also about the legislation. After 15 years of Conservative government, that is one of the many problems that we have solved.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, has there been an indication as to whether there will be a reduction in the workforce?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, BMW confirmed that there will be no change in the workforce.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that today is a sad day for those of us who have worked in the British motor industry. But is it not true that BMW has been experiencing setbacks due to the economic situation in Germany and in turn has reduced its labour force by 20,000 over the past few months? What guarantee do we have that that will not happen here and that BMW do not see this as an opportunity of taking out a strong competitor?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if BMW is taking out a strong competitor, it is finding an expensive way of doing so. It is extremely unlikely that that is the kind of operation in which a successful company like BMW would wish to be involved. The answer is much more simple. BMW saw that in the West Midlands and other areas where Rover is based, there was a workforce which was well trained, well educated, keen to improve the quality of its product, selling better and offering the kind of value-for-money for which German companies have been well-known in the past. Unfortunately, due to a variety of reasons Germany finds itself with economic and financial problems. Today's announcement shows a great step forward in the industrial network of Great Britain and a great future for vehicles manufactured in the United Kingdom.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I find myself in agreement, as I often do, with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Nevertheless, can my noble friend try once and for all to quash the fallacious thoughts that remain on the Opposition Benches—which one is surprised to find in this House, especially among people as distinguished, and by me esteemed, as the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Cledwyn —on matters such as the price for which something is sold being lower than the price for which it is subsequently sold? A shareholder buys a share because he thinks it will go up in value; an investor buys a company because he believes that he can make more out of it than the present owners. Is it not true that it does not matter who owns economic and industrial enterprises, provided that they are in this country and providing employment, prosperity and wealth for the people of this country?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not always agree with what is said by my noble friend. But I can disagree with nothing that he said very clearly, eloquently and rather better than I said it earlier.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, perhaps I can press the Minister a little harder on the employment undertakings. When one looks at employment and the research and development assurances sought by the unions, the responses sum up to me what I would call a "definite maybe". When BAe acquired Rover there was a lot of discussion in relation to employment. There has been a remarkable turn around by this company with a remarkable effort by the workforce. Indeed, only last year when the question of their future was raised, the employees were given assurances by BAe that the Rover Group was part of the core business of BAe. One can therefore understand the shock that they felt.
There must also be concern about the markets in which these great companies compete. Many of the models produced by both companies are for similar market customers. Clearly there is concern about that. I press the Minister to give some stronger assurances or for an indication of what consultation will take place with the trade unions on the assurances in regard to future employment, because this is a complete takeover of a major British company.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, all I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, is that I am not in a position to give assurances. That is not my role as a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry or as a Minister of the Government. It is for the workforce of Rover to decide with their new owners exactly what the employment levels will be. That will depend upon the success of the company. I believe that it will be very successful. BMW has agreed to many of the matters currently carried out by Rover, including a new deal announced in April 1992 called Rover Tomorrow—the New Deal. The key principles of that deal were that no employee would be laid off, that employees who wanted to work with Rover would be able to stay, and so on. That is the basis of an agreement which has held Rover in good stead, and I very much hope that it will continue.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn is not alone in voicing misgivings about this latest corporate move in Europe. The noble Lord has been very careful to say that he cannot possibly give any firm assurance that binds the future actions of this German company. No doubt he has had a statement of intent. Your Lordships will be aware that on many occasions over the past 15 years statements of intent of all kinds have been made by all kinds of people but in the event have not always been honoured.
The noble Lord said emphatically that the most important factor was that Rover would remain a British company with its operations, staff and management in this country, and that it would be subject to all British laws. He indicated that ownership was quite irrelevant to the whole matter—an argument which he may at a later stage regret having used. It is not the case that the Stock Exchange market comprising a whole series of individuals has taken over the ownership of Rover; a corporate body, which is subject to its own shareholders, has carried out the takeover.
We do not know to what pressures BMW will be subject in future. It is not subject to British laws. We do not know what commercial pressures it has to resist or support. We do not know what its financial position is likely to be under any future financial regime either in Germany or Europe. In short, we are allowing this company to enter into the realm of deals in the field of corporate capital, not among individual shareholders. It is a very sad thing that in this modern age a powerful corporate entity, as distinct from a whole mass of individual shareholders, has been allowed to take over and effectively control operationally and in every other way, as corporate shareholders can, the company's future operations. I venture to predict that the day will come when the country as a whole will deeply regret that this step has been permitted.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I deal first with the premise of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that a corporate investor has taken over Rover. The same position has obtained for the past five-and-a-half years. It has been owned by another corporate investor: British Aerospace. Before that, it was owned by the most obvious corporate investor: Her Majesty's Government.

1139
It is a long time since individual shareholders have been able to control Rover. It may be that if many years ago these companies had not been nationalised we would have had a far more successful motor-car industry than we have today.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, misheard what I said. I hope I did not say that ownership was irrelevant. I believe I said that ownership was now international. One cannot tell whether a company is British or foreign-owned because of the way international capital works through international stock exchanges. I believe that that argument is still true, although I will be delighted to debate it with the noble Lord at some other time.
As for the commercial pressures that will be brought to bear on BMW, I believe that such pressures are the same all over the world. It has to make a profit. If Rover produces a profit because of the excellence of its product, there is no reason why motor-car manufacturing in this country should be threatened. What about all the other overseas companies that own manufacturing entities in this country? Ford, Peugeot, and General Motors make cars in this country, and do so with great success. Many British companies with headquarters and staff in this country own some very important companies overseas. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, basically believes in free trade. I am sorry that he just does not like this announcement.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I ask the Minister whether he recalls that on the previous occasion this issue was raised in the Chamber the Government were asked what they intended-to do to prevent the transfer of British Leyland and the manufacture of the 125 aircraft into foreign hands. If the Minister cannot remember, I will remind him that the reply of the Government was that in both cases it was a matter for the company to decide. In view of the possibility of British Aerospace beginning to negotiate for the sale of the plant manufacturing the 125 aircraft at Chester, can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will do their best to dissuade them from selling off parts of our aircraft industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I return to the same basic concept that these matters are best decided by individual companies. That is as true for this announcement as it is for the rest of British industry.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I see from the Clock that we have spent 20 minutes on this matter. I believe that we should continue with the Northern Ireland order.

Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1994
4.38 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, first I should like to welcome the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box on the Government side. This is the first occasion on which she represents and speaks on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. I apologise immediately for not
1140
hearing the first few minutes of her speech. I was riot here because I acted on the belief that Northern Ireland business was not usually conducted at half past three in the afternoon but usually very late in the evening.
I have been very closely involved in Northern Ireland for many years, and over recent days I have been very closely involved with people in Northern. Ireland on the ground in relation to this order. We shall debate another order this afternoon in relation to Northern Ireland airports. That order contains 71 articles and a number of schedules, yet the order which the noble Baroness now presents contains only six articles and two schedules but is by far the more important of the two orders to be debated this afternoon.
When the subject of Northern Ireland is debated, it is unusual to see so many noble Lords in the House. Normally, when Northern Ireland is discussed, it is left to four or five people to speak to it. I have listened to the speech of the noble Baroness. I am quite certain that many noble Lords who have heard it will be very confused about the situation as regards health and social services in Northern Ireland and the way in which they operate at the present time.
Since the abolition of the Stormont Parliament in 1972, health and social services have been operated since 1973 as an integral body. In other parts of the United Kingdom the services have been developed in one or two areas, but they have been delegated to local authorities in Northern Ireland. I fully support that concept. These services have been given to people in constituencies where there has been local or central government. They should be given to places where there is public accountability.
In Northern Ireland we have an aversion. I believe that that aversion can be supplemented by an aversion on this side of the House to the word "trust". That word is loaded with implications for Northern Ireland. It gives rise to the spectre of quangos, to jobs for the boys and that people are only interested in their own personal and political advancement in giving service on these quangos. Therefore, one must have reservations when one talks about the creation of trusts in Northern Ireland or of giving more power to them.
I have spoken to people in Northern Ireland within recent days and hours. I have been acquainted with the facts that trusts were created in Northern Ireland in 1991 by Order in Council from both Houses of Parliament. These trusts are now in existence. I did not want them to be there. I am opposed to them and to the way in which they operate here and in many other parts of the United Kingdom.
I believe that the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was very germane and compassionate. She is motivated with a great concern for events as they have transpired in Northern Ireland. But she compared Northern Ireland with Kent, which is not realistic. Northern Ireland is not like Kent. The people of Kent do not have the problems which exist in Northern Ireland. I remember at one time a former Prime Minister saying that Northern Ireland was as British as Finchley. Over many years that has proved just not so.
I have spoken to people in the trusts' section in Northern Ireland. From the observations which they

1141
made to me, I am convinced that they are not motivated by their own personal position. They have worked for the 1991 legislation and found it to be effective. From contacts which I have in Northern Ireland I believe that it has a health and social services organisation which is second to none in the United Kingdom. There are many things which Northern Ireland can do far better than they are done in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I believe that the order we are debating today is to extend to some extent the position of health service trusts in Northern Ireland. As I say, I am very reluctant to support any further powers or authority being given to the trusts. However, they have been in existence since 1991; and I have been told that, in the absence of this legislation, it may bring about a total disintegration of health and social services in Northern Ireland. One element would go one way and the other the other way, if this legislation is not put into effect.
I do not have a strong position on this. I would find it very difficult to go into one Lobby or the other today. Before bringing this order to the House, did the Government have consultations with all sectors involved in this legislation? Did the Government speak to the social workers on the ground, to the people in charge of the various homes in Northern Ireland and to the people who will be administering all the activities of the trusts? From what I have been told, I do not believe that is so on one side; yet on the other, I have been told that adequate consultation has taken place.
Northern Ireland is totally different from other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that I live long enough in this country, or wherever it may be, to see political structures being created in Northern Ireland. Whether it is an assembly, or whatever political structure it may be, I hope that the functions of these trusts of other sorts of quangos (that awful word!) will be given into the hands of people who are elected in Northern Ireland. That is where real confidence in the operation of this order would lie.
I do not blame the Government for having to promulgate this legislation. I do not blame the Members of this House or of the other place. I would have liked this order to have come before the other place. There we could have seen and heard the remarks of people who live in Northern Ireland in the constituencies which will be affected by this legislation. I hope that the Northern Ireland representatives in this House and in the other place will endeavour to do everything they can to ensure that there will be created in Northern Ireland political structures whereby this kind of quango or trust operation can be put into the hands of elected representatives.
As I have said, I do not feel strongly one way or the other; but given the fact that the 1991 legislation created trusts in Northern Ireland, they appear to be operating. If there is any delay in the coming into being of this order which would be disadvantageous to the operation of the 1991 order, then I would find it very difficult to oppose the Government on this issue.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it comes as some surprise to be able to follow many of the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, to which he has just given expression. This is the first opportunity I have had publicly to congratulate my noble friend Lady Denton on assuming her new role, to say nothing of her ambition, as Under-Secretary in the Northern Ireland Office. As she said, she succeeds my noble friend Lord Arran whom I also congratulate somewhat ironically, given my particular situation, as he is the first Minister for something like eight years to have returned from Belfast and remained on the Front Bench of your Lordships' House. All credit to him too—I believe that this answers one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—for having tramped the highways and byways of Northern Ireland, spoken with professionals within the shadow trusts and found no objection there at any rate to the proposals in the order.
It is inevitable in any department of state, especially in the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland, that, on arrival, an incoming Minister will find his or her predecessor's unfinished business on the desk. It happened to me, when I arrived at Dundonald House, in the shape of competitive tendering in the health service. It happened again when I left my successor, the honourable Member for Richmond and Barnes, the legislative hurdle of the Health and Personal Social Services Order 1991 to which reference has been made today. I left all the preparatory work, I thought, completed, following what had seemed an endless series of meetings that I held over 12 or 13 months. That exactly parallels the situation in which we find ourselves today.
I fear that, like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I must delve briefly into history. There were two major effects of the introduction of direct rule in 1972: one good; one bad. I suspect that I take issue with my noble friend Lady Faithfull on both, although probably not with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. Let me take the bad one first. Quite simply, local government, as we know it in Great Britain, was slaughtered. It was left essentially with the three Ls —litter, leisure and lights—and with a sadly growing need, cemeteries, as its only truly and wholly functional responsibilities. Housing went, as did education, effective planning, and health and personal services. Small wonder then that fewer and fewer able people over the past 20 years have been attracted to local government. Unless the situation is corrected, we shall find Members of Parliament being drawn more and more from other sectors of Northern Ireland society. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But it means that their political background will be the poorer. It also means—perhaps this is another answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—that quangos are the only answer to providing services in Northern Ireland, and the more locally, the better. That will at least attract more people of the calibre of those who formerly served in local government.
The good result of direct rule was that the health service and personal social services came together under the DHSS and ultimately the boards. I am on record as

1143
saying something with which my noble friend Lady Faithfull profoundly disagrees: namely, that this is a step that we could—and, indeed, should—emulate this side of the water to our certain advantage. Think, my Lords, of the medical, and sometimes even surgical, hospital beds that are blocked because the social services have no impetus to provide places in the community. The likelihood of that happening in Northern Ireland is very much reduced when both services are under the same control. I challenge my noble friend Lady Denton to say that she has no intention of advising the Secretary of State to split them —otherwise I would vote against her without a qualm. In those circumstances and in her position, I should have resigned, so deeply do I feel about the issue.
In Northern Ireland, people pride themselves on doing things a little better and a little later than we in Great Britain. The pace of life is a little slower but is none the worse for that. It does not prevent immediate and often forceful debate on how a particular matter should be pursued. As my noble friend said, the need for the order has come about because, in the words of the DHSS proposal, while the current legislation enables hoards to contract with health and social services trusts, it does not commit them to delegate the discharge of certain functions which by law are conferred on boards or delegated to them by the department. That does not matter where hospitals are concerned, but it does matter when we are considering personal social services trusts. That is an admitted weakness of the 1991 order. In effect, the existing legislation does not allow the latter at all, so the order provides in Article 3 for a board (with, and only with, the approval of the department for a trust) to provide for such relevant functions of the board as are specified in a scheme to be exercisable by a trust. My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but if it is not in the scheme, it simply will not be done. It cannot be done. Some trusts are already up and running in a shadow form, as we have heard. That is allowed, as I understand it, as they are still units under the direct control of the boards. But they were formed and, indeed, acquired members on the understanding that they would become fully fledged on 1st April this year.
Given the peculiar circumstances of health and social services in Northern Ireland, to which both the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and I have referred, and given the need to involve local people at all levels in them, there has to be an extension of trust status to personal social services. I have not heard—and clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has not heard—any complaints of hospital trusts in Northern Ireland. Not one. It seems natural that a logical extension of the same modus operandi to social services is desirable and necessary. It was, after all, the primary reason for the health service reforms that boards should purchase care and that others should provide it —not only statutory services, but charities as well.
I have recently become chairman of the Stroke Association, a medium-sized medical charity confined to England and Wales, and it is my experience that the health service reforms have meant that more and more health authorities are buying the services that we provide. It therefore surprised me to receive a letter from
1144
the chief executive of Child Care (NI), commenting adversely on the order as long ago as 2nd June last year. Those comments led in due course to a meeting, organised by my noble friend Lady Faithful, within this building. Concerns were expressed and later addressed to my noble friend Lord Arran, to which he listened carefully as one would expect. The net result was his decision announced on 22nd July to extend the consultation period and thereby the introduction of the order which we could realistically have expected in late November or early December. Instead, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Denton, the order was not laid until December.
The legislation has already been delayed once. Why again? I was alerted by Child Care to the problems that it saw. If it remains worried, I am surprised that it has not contacted me again, seeking to persuade me to speak against the order. It has not. What I find most mysterious of all is why the Government are being asked to delay for only one more month. I know that my noble friend Lady Denton has tried to explain and I hope that she will do so in slightly more detail when she replies. Does she really expect that the problems that she foresees can be addressed in that time? How real are my noble friend's concerns? As we know, the boards will, with, and only with, the approval of the department, arrange a scheme for the discharge of functions by a particular trust. It seems to me that that covers everything that needs to be covered. It will set out the functions that are to be discharged, how the trust will discharge them and, most importantly, the accountability arrangements between the two. Nor is that all. The department will have to approve the scheme before it is put into effect. The same people will be doing the same jobs for the same client groups. There will even be a trained social services person among the trustees. That was not a requirement of board membership under the 1991 order.
There is, however, one question that my noble friend must answer. It concerns the worst forebodings of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I note that Article 3(5) refers to any amendment or revocation of an authorisation. My question is: who by? Perhaps I may be permitted a supplementary question. If the answer to the original question is, "The board and the trust acting together", does it again have to be approved by the department? If the answer to the second question is, "Yes", I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Government this evening.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I apologise for having been late for the beginning of our consideration of this order. I did take the trouble to consult the Government Whips' Office and I am sorry to have to say that in the end the forecast that I was given proved to be about three-quarters of an hour, if not a whole hour, out. It was incorrect.
I should like to join all noble Lords in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, to her new responsibilities. I am sure that she will find—if she has not found this already—that the people of Northern Ireland are probably the most warm-hearted in the whole world.

1145
I should also like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on moving what I believe is known technically as an "O'Hagan amendment" to a statutory instrument, after our mutual friend, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan.
The Northern Ireland voluntary groups which are concerned with child care are, I know, disturbed about two things. They are disturbed, first, about continuity; and, secondly, about future accountability for certain statutory services. NIACRO, an association of which I have the honour to be president, while less directly involved in those matters, is in general agreement with the child care practitioners. We all wish to see the closest possible links between health and social services for the sick, the handicapped and the infirm so that community care can become a living reality. It does not, however, necessarily follow that services for the protection, adoption and fostering of children should have to follow the same pattern of organisation. I think that most people would agree that there is a difference in kind between those whose health needs therapy and those who are well but require social protection.
Ministers or elected councillors should be responsible directly for decisions arising on the protection of children. They should not be allowed to shelter behind appointed quangos. I understand, too, that a new children's order is in preparation. Is it not therefore right to introduce that into a stable administrative structure rather than into an untried system of trusts? Her Majesty's Government have a major duty to explain why they think that 13 trusts are likely to work better than four area boards. Does the unlucky number of 13 relate in some way to the number and distribution of hospitals, or, on the other hand, is it conceivably based upon 26 local government districts at two per trust?
If the Government are seeking to discover for England and Wales whether the trust model is appropriate for social services, we would all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, when he pointed out that Northern Ireland has its own special problems of sectarianism and intimidation and is not a suitable experimental area for the whole of the United Kingdom. If, on the other hand, the Government wish to find out what will work best in practice in Northern Ireland, then they should mount one or two carefully monitored pilot projects within that jurisdiction. On those grounds, I support the amendment and strongly urge Her Majesty's Government to think again.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may thank the Minister for her statement. I must apologise for not having been in my place, but the flexi-management of business this afternoon caught me on the hop. Perhaps I may say also how much Members on all sides of the House welcome her to her new responsibilities. She has certainly been thrown in at the deep end this afternoon, but I imagine that it is some measure of her colleagues' confidence in her that she starts with the most difficult task of all, which is to do what we rarely see in this House, and to talk about an amendment putting back an order.
1146
Perhaps I may also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to this small club of Northern Ireland regulars. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, this is not the time of day at which we normally meet. We are not usually at peak time. We usually lurk in the twilight shadows of the dinner hour, late at night, or at some time approaching the weekend. We should not be spoilt by this, with such a well-attended House, but it gives us a chance to air some of the problems of legislating for Northern Ireland, as we in this House do.
There is a duty on Parliament, and therefore on this House, when we govern Northern Ireland, as we do (at arm's length) to ensure that legislation is appropriate and that it is based upon local consultation and consent. One could argue that that should be true of all legislation, but it is especially true of Northern Ireland legislation, nearly all of which is by Order in Council. That is why we, on all sides of the House, should thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for having brought forward the amendment this afternoon and for having made us think hard about whether the order accurately represents local opinion, which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, believes that it does.
There is a regrettable tendency, which we have seen in relation to Northern Ireland legislation over recent years, to apply GB legislation to Northern Ireland willy-nilly. Of course if we were to emerge from strand one of the talks, which we all hope will be resumed shortly, with proposals for devolved government in Northern Ireland, and with power sharing between the communities, many matters, including, I hope, the way in which health and social services are organised, should be matters for that devolved government. Therefore there is a responsibility on us when considering this order to think whether, were there such devolved government, this is what the people of Northern Ireland would wish to decide for themselves.
I must say that, although I hear what other noble Lords have said, I have heard some of the widespread misgiving and opposition in Northern Ireland that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned. That has come not just from the public service unions, and one might expect them to have a particular position to argue, but from some other health and community care professionals. We must bear in mind that the Northern Ireland integrated system, as it was in the past, has been admired widely. Many people in Europe have studied it, and want to imitate it. But there is an obligation upon us to remember the old maxim:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Perhaps I may ask the Minister four questions. I understand that there are shadow trusts in existence waiting to operate from 1st April. Is it part of the Government's argument that we should legislate to give power to such bodies? If it is, it seems to me to be a chicken and egg justification. Before we legislate for them, we must be persuaded that there is a good reason for their existence. My second question is: how much will the members of the trusts be paid, and how, given the report of the PAC last week, will they be appointed? It is of the greatest importance that the appointments

1147
reflect the community in Northern Ireland in a broad way, rather than be of those who are likely to agree with the thrust of the Government's policies.
Thirdly, there is the question to which other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, have referred. It is the question of accountability. There are provisions for accountability for health boards to the department's management executive and to the courts in the last resort. But am I right in thinking that the trusts are in fact a sub sub-agent of the Minister? To whom should the client or patient complain? In the last resort, how is accountability to the people of Northern Ireland taken into account? It seems to me that this legislation takes executive powers two steps further away from them.
The final point upon which the Government could, and should, reassure us is that Northern Ireland is not being used in any way as a testing ground for radical new organisational theories. There is a good case for testing. I wish the Government were as keen on test marketing as they are on market testing. There is a need in government for pilot tests. But the one place to which they should not be applied willy-nilly is to the whole of the Province of Northern Ireland. That is the last place where new organisational theories should be tested by the Government.
I shall listen with great care to the Minister's reply. I am bound to say from these Benches, where we have great misgivings, that, unless the Minister can be especially reassuring, we are inclined to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. It is relevant that the order has come here first rather than to the Commons where there are elected representatives from Northern Ireland. That should weigh with us all when we decide what attitude to take.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I too may welcome the Minister to her hot seat. It is not a seat of responsibility that anyone envies her at this time, but she knows, as well as I do, that she is always a special favourite in your Lordships' House because of the courtesy and candour with which she responds to questions.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may add a word about the work that her predecessor the noble Earl, Lord Arran, carried out. In our brief acquaintance in this area he treated me with every courtesy. I think that I can betray a personal confidence on this occasion. He enjoyed his time in Northern Ireland enormously and left with a great deal of personal regret, and many in Northern Ireland regretted his going to different pastures. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for his generosity in welcoming me to the Dispatch Box.
Having listened with care to the gentle way in which the amendment was introduced, I believe that it is a devastating critique of the order. Many of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, are
1148
extremely important and if the response to them is not fully to our satisfaction we intend to support her amendment.
The powers which are to be given to trusts are extensive and deal with mental health, child protection and community care assessment. The fact that the services are administered by boards which are not fully accountable in the way in which we would hope is a great loss.
I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale; that it is a significant blot on the Northern Ireland political landscape that the local authorities ties have so few significant powers that they are virtually derisory. I agree with his analysis of the consequences, which are both adverse. The first is that there is a feeling of remoteness and non-accountability in daily affairs, which is important as a component of social and political public life. The second is that, as the powers and duties which the local authorities have are virtually derisory, those who should be drawn to public service for altruistic purposes and people of high quality turn their minds away from serving on those authorities. Again, that is to the detriment of the public body and of the public bodies.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that not every service which is provided by government, quangos or statutory creatures is alike. If one is dealing with something as fundamental as the civil liberties of children, who during the past 25 years in England and Wales have not been well served, there should be a more direct line of accountability than a trust, a board and eventually a Secretary of State. It is deeply troubling that a part of the United Kingdom is intended to have its affairs regulated in such an "unlocally" accountable way.
Furthermore, is it appropriate to contemplate that as many as 13 trusts—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that there are 13 but there may be 12—shall serve a population a little in excess of 1.5 million? That appears to us to be a classic recipe for further bureaucracy, further possible inefficiencies and certainly a non-productive spending of public money. We on this side of the House question whether this is an experimental model for England and Wales as well as for Northern Ireland. It may be that the Minister will give us assurances which put our suspicions at rest.
I realise that my knowledge of Northern Ireland is limited and I hope that what I say will be taken on the basis that I recognise my ignorance. We have received a substantial number of representations from different organisations which are deeply anxious about the effect of the order. UNISON, for instance, has a large number of employees—approximately 24,000—whom it represents in Northern Ireland. It is entitled at least to our respectful attention if not necessarily to our automatic acquiescence. The organisation is deeply worried. The Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance is also worried and objects to the order. After all, the order deals with the civil liberties of children and we have not served them well. One has only to think for a moment or two of events in Cleveland, the Orkneys and Staffordshire. Children are desperately vulnerable and often their vulnerability is neither expressed nor recognised.

1149
As was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, we must bear in mind what, on a hopeful view, may be the future governance of Northern Ireland. It would be a shame if so many powers were given away to trusts when many Members of your Lordships' House believe that a degree of democratic accountability and its return to Northern Ireland is long overdue.
Serious doubts have been expressed by a number of Members of another place. They were expressed as recently as 20th January in the deliberations of the Northern Ireland Committee. They come from all parts of the political spectrum and I hope that nothing will be heard from us tonight that will apply any partisan approach to the problems. They are far too serious for that.
At page 14 of the committee's report the Reverend McCrea stated:
"There is a genuine and general anxiety that the Government have been and are carrying out a systematic dismantling of the health service".
At page 13 the Reverend Smyth stated:
"We believe that the scheme will add unnecessary costs and take money from the care of patients and clients".
At page 26 Sir James Kilfedder stated:
"What has happened to the accountability of the bureaucrats to the people? Accountability is what democracy is about".
At page 11 Mr. O'Brien stated:
"It is improper for powers under mental health, child protection and community care legislation to be handed over to" —
and for the accuracy of your Lordships' record I include my words—to be handed over to non-locally accountable trusts. At page 17 of the report the Reverend McCrea stated:
"Accountability will be totally lacking".
If there is no significant, explained, rational defence of the order Members on this side of the House are minded to vote for the amendment. Deep questions of accountability are involved. I well understand the historical imperative that has caused Northern Ireland to be governed in a certain way since 1973 and no one overlooks that. No one overlooks the difficulties referred to by my noble friend Lord Fitt. However, we must not attend too much to difficulties which may be overcome. We must not overlook our responsibilities to children, whose care and protection will be devolved to bodies which are not locally accountable. They will be accountable at the end of the long chain, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
Having troubled your Lordships for a while on these issues —and they are deep issues—perhaps I may give an example. I understand that the chairman of a trust will be nominated by the Secretary of State and will have a contract for one year only, which will be terminable in effect at one week's notice. That is no recipe for proper accountability and it is no recipe for the independent functioning of bodies as important at these.
Whatever one's political views, one notes that the Public Accounts Committee and all the headlines that we have recently read point to the question of whether, despite the deficiencies of locally-accountable bodies,
1150
they are much better stewards of public money and public trust than anonymous, unelected and unaccountable quangos.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who welcomed me to my new position. I regard the appointment as a privilege, even this afternoon. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his kind remarks and look forward to working with him in the coming months. I also thank the noble Lord for his remarks about my predecessor. My noble friend Lord Arran has left footsteps which are comforting but difficult to follow. He greatly enjoyed his time in the department. The warmth of my welcome by the people of Northern Ireland has been second to none.
This order is important and we have had a comprehensive and wide-ranging discussion on it. The quality of the contributions is a credit to your Lordships. It reflects the concern for those at risk in our society. I assure your Lordships that I share that concern. As the Minister responsible I am confident that the order and the changes that it will facilitate will be to the benefit of the people in Northern Ireland. I should not bring the order before your Lordships unless that were so.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I take a little time to answer the debate. Many questions have been asked and I know that noble Lords are looking for answers. I thank my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale for giving the House the benefit of his considerable experience in this area. I hope that in due course I may follow in the footsteps of my noble friend Lord Arran and return to another office on the Front Bench, but not for many years.
I know that I can count on my noble friend's support because I can assure him that I do not intend to undo the valuable work and achievements of the past 20 years by splitting health and social services in Northern Ireland. I assure my noble friend also that any amendments or revocations of authorisations must be approved by the department.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, took part in our discussions. I agree with the noble Lord that it is nice to see Northern Ireland business coming before the House at an early hour. I hope that I am setting a precedent today which can be followed in the future. I agree also with the noble Lord that the health and social services in Northern Ireland can be described rightly as second to none. We should be extremely proud of them. That is something that I have inherited.
The noble Lord expressed reservations about trusts. Many of the questions and concerns which arose during consultations were not about the integration of health and social services but about reservations in connection with trusts. Having met the people concerned working in the shadow trusts, I share the noble Lord's impression that those people are of a high calibre and are committed to providing services at a local level.
The consultation, which is so important in Northern Ireland because of the system of orders, has been wide, extensive and extended. We have reacted in many ways to what we have learnt. I agree with the noble Lord,

1151
Lord Fitt, that we should have preferred the order to go first before the other place. However, perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord's colleagues in the other place have prevented that. But I am delighted to confirm that the debate on health services in the Northern Ireland Committee on 20th January, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, gave the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament the opportunity to express their anxieties and views about this issue. Therefore, we have direct input from those Members of Parliament who are most concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is looking for continuity. Of course that is vital when dealing with vulnerable groups. I propose this order because it guarantees continuity. The weakness of the present legislation is that it prevents it. I fear that lack of continuity is all that the amendment offers us. That worries me greatly. I assure noble Lords that we do not seek to be innovative as regards the order. We are merely bringing forward an order which allows the practice of the past 20 years to continue. To those noble Lords who suggest that there should be a pilot scheme, I would say that the integration of health and social services has been piloted for 20 years. That cannot be put forward as a future problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, spoke of the importance of consultation, which we all recognise. He expressed the fear also that we might be following Great Britain, willy-nilly. I have not received that impression, even in my first few weeks. Integration has been well placed, well practised and much admired for many years.
The opposition has arisen partly because of the issue of trusts. We need to progress and build. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that members of the shadow trusts have been appointed from the community based on their skills and involvement with that community. We have discussed the limitations on local authorities and we believe that it is beneficial for the trusts to devolve, as nearly as possible, to the local communities. That is what the trusts do.
One of the benefits in Northern Ireland is that because of its size, communication is easier, both up and down. I hope that that gives us opportunities to explain what we are doing. I hope also that it means that we are able to listen to anxieties which are raised. It is important—and I believe that the order achieves it—that these matters are dealt with locally.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull made comparisons with Kent. She asked why we need 11 trusts concerned with personal social services in such a small area. I was pleased by the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, gave because the problems in Northern Ireland are special and different. We should react not to what is taking place in Great Britain but to the needs of the Province. That is the aim of the order.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked how we intend to ensure that there is no repetition of the tragedies that occurred to children in Cleveland, Staffordshire and the Orkneys. I should not wish to argue that now, but a possible suggestion is that the integration of the health and social services may prove to be a benefit in that regard. I am sure that it helps when people are closer to
1152
the community. We are well aware of the risks which may be involved in Northern Ireland but I believe that experience has shown that social workers and other employees in the health service carry out. their duties according to the needs of their clients—children, old. people and all who are less fortunate than ourselves.
The non-executives on the trusts receive £5,000 per annum. The chairmen receive between £15,000 and £20,000 depending upon the responsibility, size and nature of the budgets. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be delighted to hear that the appointments of chairmen are for four years.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my question related to the chief executive rather than the chairmen.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I apologise. I shall return to that. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether the order should be postponed until the proposed children's order is implemented. That order is concerned with children's welfare and protection and not with how health services for children should be organised. The schemes now being developed will clarify and formalise existing procedures and relationships between boards and trusts. I believe that that will help rather than hinder the implementation of the children's order because the canvas will be in place, honed and practised for the benefit of this order.
I turn now to the speech made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. Perhaps I may first acknowledge her great experience in the field. I also understand why people with concerns should turn to her for comment and assistance. But my noble friend asked what was the ethos and purpose of the change. It is to preserve the unique and integrated structure of the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland. My noble friend asked why, if there are no problems, we are changing the system. It is because we have had no cases of problems and because we want to continue with what is already in place that we are bringing forward the order. As I said in my opening remarks, the order is not about improving things which are wrong; it is about continuing and ensuring that services can continue more or less as they are. The boards will be able to concentrate on what they are responsible for—that is, assessing need and ensuring that there are services available to meet it.
My noble friend is worried about accountability. Accountability is to boards, to the department and then to me. That position does not change. There is another line in the structure. There is a line to the social work person on the board of the trust; a dotted professional line, which is of benefit in this case. If something should go wrong, the trust as the statutory body—and I stress the words "statutory body"—at the grass roots will be fully accountable and responsible. I accept that my noble friend has concerns in that area. In her speech she linked them to the so-called "non- statutory" nature of trusts. However, I must say, with respect, that she is wrong in that view. Trusts are wholly statutory bodies established under the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. That is a fact which should cause no confusion in your Lordships' House.

1153
My noble friend also frequently mentioned the costly nature of trusts. Such costs are common whether for hospital or community trusts. Moreover, chairmen and board members are remunerated at levels which I have already identified. We believe—and there is evidence to show this—that the benefits and the greater cost effectiveness flowing from trust status will far outweigh the question of compensation to those who take on the responsibilities. Perhaps I may also point out that if the compensation was worked out at an hourly rate it would certainly not justify anyone applying for the job on account of the money. It is visibly commitment which drives such people. The order is not about introducing a purchaser-provider split. That was introduced in 1991.
My noble friend perhaps overlooked the key role of the purchaser. Each board will be responsible for ensuring equity of provision and common standards in key areas. The Government's regional strategy sets objectives and targets for the HPSS as a whole. The boards are charged with securing them and trusts with providing them in a locally sensitive manner. They do not set the agenda, they respond to it.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that the terms of an executive contract are a matter for the trust involved. The tradition in Northern Ireland is not to adopt aggressive management approaches. Too much should not be read into individual contracts. Nevertheless, I shall register the fact that I have heard what the noble Lord said.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull has tabled an amendment to the Motion which seeks to defeat the purpose of the order as it was laid before the House. The amendment proposes that we spend another month considering whether we should enable trusts to discharge a range of statutory duties and responsibilities and to provide or secure personal social services associated with them. There is no value in deferring consideration of the matter for a further month. Since the number of units of management delivering community care and childcare services expressed an interest in moving to trust status over two years ago, the administrative and professional staff from my department have worked closely with staff from boards and trusts to devise arrangements which will safeguard and facilitate the development of personal social services in the future.
I have discussed those arrangements fully with the staff involved and have had an opportunity to speak to managerial and professional staff in the trusts about them. As a result of those discussions, I am satisfied that the arrangements that have been devised are sound and enjoy the support of the staff at trust, board and departmental level. Delay for another month would not lead to any change in the situation. It would be impossible for us to consult further and deeper than we have. On the contrary, perhaps I may suggest that delay would only serve to undermine the morale of those many staff who have worked so hard to reach this stage and would, perhaps, cast some doubt over the continued integration of our health and social services. That would
1154
be undesirable and, indeed, could jeopardise the implementation of the community care reforms and possibly the forthcoming children's order.
I know that there are social workers in statutory voluntary bodies who have expressed concerns about the proposals. However, I also know from my discussions since I arrived in this post that they do not wish to see the disintegration of the service and the separate administration of personal social services. The integrated service which we have in Northern Ireland has been in existence for over 20 years and has brought great benefit. We should not consider any measure which could damage it. I suggest that the amendment would do so. The order that I am asking the House to approve will facilitate the continuing development of the integrated services by freeing the boards fully from their direct management responsibilities and enabling them to concentrate on their role as commissioners of services for their populations.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for taking a considerable amount of time to cover the points that have been raised. The order is an important one. In the interests of the people of Northern Ireland—that is, the vulnerable, the professionals who help them and those of us with the responsibility for seeing that our services are of the very best—I hope that I have been able to convince my noble friend Lady Faithfull, and others, that pressing the amendment will not bring benefit but will increase and extend uncertainty. It will offer rejection to the many committed people in Northern Ireland working continuously to build and improve our services. I hope that my noble friend will allow us to go forward. I commend the order to the House.
5.38 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for giving the House a full explanation of the order. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I stray a little outside the matter and touch on a wider issue which was brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. He said that accountability is what democracy is all about. Perhaps I may just say at this stage that we hope the time will come when the political situation in Northern Ireland will be such that there will be more accountability on the part of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. I hope that I shall be forgiven for saying so.
My noble friend the Minister gave a very clear picture of what she believes is in the order. However, I found it very difficult to follow. It seems to me that she has two conflicting statements which do not accord with one another. On the one hand, she said that the work done under the present system is good. She congratulated the social workers and the people in Northern Ireland who are responsible for giving a good service. But, on the other hand, she said that this order will help them to continue to provide a good service. If they are already providing a good service, and my noble friend hopes that will continue, why not leave the situation as it is instead of altering the position?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for allowing me to return to this subject.

1155
The work that is being done is first-class because everyone is working together. Without this order, they cannot continue to work together.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for those comments. However, I should point out that the people who will have to work under the provisions of this order are the grass-roots social workers. I have been to Belfast and I greatly enjoyed myself there. I have met social workers from both the statutory and the voluntary sectors in Northern Ireland as well as in this country. They do not feel happy about this order. They do not feel they will give of their best under this order. My noble friend has asked why we should delay the order for a month. My noble friend has taken up her new office just when this order is being introduced. She has met the social workers, but with all her persuasive ability she has not been able to persuade them that the order is the right thing for them. Yet they are the people who do the work. I consider that by delaying the order for a month it would be possible to help the people who do the work on the ground to understand the position.
My noble friend the Minister has said that the trusts are keen to do this work, and they have been put in a position to do it. However, they will not actually do the work. They will oversee the work and they will be responsible for the work but they will not actually do the work. I consider there is a juxtaposition of feelings and thoughts here which do not accord with our going forward with this order.
I still cannot see how the purchaser/provider system will make for better social work. I do not understand that matter. Perhaps if the order had been delayed for a month I could have understood the position. I may be slow, and perhaps if I had had a little more time I would have understood the position. However, I do not understand it. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, approves of the trusts—we shall have to disagree on that matter—but, equally, he approves of public accountability.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, put the case very well. I believe he has understood the order and the feeling of discontent about it. Of course the trusts are content as their staff will have jobs and they will be paid. However, I must return to the matter of costs. In this country we are constantly being told that we must cut costs. These trusts will cost a lot more than the existing provision. Yet the social workers on the ground are seeing their services cut in terms of what they can do for the vulnerable people in their areas. They then see that trusts will be set up which will be costly. The social workers cannot understand how that system will give a better service. I could go through every comment made by every speaker in this debate but I shall not do so.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am sorry noble Lords do not want me to comment on what they have said. I was in close touch with social workers last night and I cannot see how the order will improve the present service which my noble friend the Minister acknowledges is a good one. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, the original Motion was, That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 laid before the House on 9th December be approved; since when an amendment to the Motion has been moved to leave out from ("That") to the end and insert ("this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft order laid before the House on 9th December 1993; and to re-lay it in a month, having considered whether it should extend to social services.") The Question is, That this amendment be agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 88; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Addington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mar, C.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brightman, L.

Mayhew, L.

Butterfield, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Moran, L.

Craigavon, V.

Morris of Castle Morris., L.

David, B.

Newall, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Palmer, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Faithfull, B. [Teller.]

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Foot, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Richard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Halsbury, E.

Shannon, E.

Hamwee, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Haskel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hooson, L.

Waverley, V.

Howell, L.

Wharton, B.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jeger, B.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Boardman, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Borthwick, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Arran, E.

Braine of Wheatley,

Astor, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L

Astor of Hever, L.

Butterworth, L.

Birdwood, L.

Cadman, L.

Blatch, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Blyth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

1157

Carnock, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Merrivale, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mersey, V.

Chesham, L.

Middleton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clark of Kempston, L

Milverton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Morris, L.

Courtown, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mountevans, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Moyne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Norfolk, D.

Denham, L.

Norrie, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dundonald, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Elibank, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rees, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renwick, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Goschen, V.

Rodney, L.

Gridley, L.

Romney, E.

Haddington, E.

St. Davids, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Haslam, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Hood, V.

Sudeley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Swansea, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Tebbit, L.

Kenyon, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Torrington, V.

Leigh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Liverpool, E.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Westbury, L.

Mancroft, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.53 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Question is, That the original Motion be agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Airports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994
5.54 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefieldrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th December be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order represents the first piece of Northern Ireland airports legislation to be brought forward since the Aerodromes Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. There has been a shift in the Government's airports policy during that period and that is now reflected in the proposal before the House. I shall return to that point in more detail.
The order also provides for the modification of existing airports legislation in Northern Ireland so that
1158
the rights of airport operators are more in harmony with those of their Great Britain counterparts. The most significant feature of the order is Part V in which the provisions clear the way for the privatisation of Belfast International Airport. I propose to comment first on that important area.
To return to my opening remarks, noble Lords will be aware that, in line with the policy of exposing public utilities to the challenge of market forces, all government-owned airports in Great Britain were privatised in 1987 when the former British Airports Authority became BAA plc. The remarkable commercial progress of that company since its transfer to the private sector stands as a testimony to the success of the Government's policy. Now Belfast International is the only remaining government-owned airport, and with its consistently good trading record over the past decade it is an obvious candidate to be allowed to follow the earlier example of airports such as Heathrow, Gatwick, Glasgow and Edinburgh.
In contrast to the privatisation of the British Airports Authority, however, Northern Ireland Airports Limited, the public company which operates Belfast International Airport, will be privatised on a trade sale basis. During the consultation period there was a degree of lobbying to float the company by means of a public share issue but that was discounted, primarily on the grounds of additional cost and lesser proceeds.
I mentioned earlier that the opportunity was being taken with this order to harmonise current Northern Ireland airports law with that which applies in Great Britain. That general principle is followed in Parts II and III of the order. The main changes to existing law involve primarily the compulsory acquisition of land, matters relating to airport safety, the appointment of airport constables and the provision by airport operators of consultation facilities for certain groups or bodies. In Great Britain that latter provision, when introduced, spawned the highly successful system of airport consultative committees which has enabled issues of common concern to be discussed by operators and users at those mainland airports designated for that purpose.
Part IV of the order will introduce to Northern Ireland a system of economic regulation similar to that which applies to Great Britain airports. While that will not apply to all airports, nevertheless any airport with a turnover of more than £1 million in at least two out of three consecutive years—in practice Belfast International and Belfast City Airports—will be required to apply to the Civil Aviation Authority for permission to levy airport charges. Such operators will also be required to make available to the CAA prescribed financial information with a view to identifying any subsidy element of charging policy. I should stress that the CAA will not determine airport charges, but it will be empowered to investigate complaints about charging policy or predatory pricing and enforce appropriate remedial measures.
I have already dealt with Part V. The order concludes with a supplementary part on amendments and repeals, and the making of subordinate regulations and orders under the primary legislation.

1159
In winding up I should like to inform noble Lords briefly of the consultation process on the order. It attracted just over 30 responses, of a minor nature only, and in certain cases the Government have been able to accommodate suggestions that were put forward. For example, it will be noted that after representations the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland has been included in Article 20 as a body for which designated airport operators must make consultation facilities available.
As more people take advantage of air travel, airports have an increasingly important role to play. The order is timely in that it introduces best practice for all airport operators, and, in the case of Belfast International Airport, frees it from the constraints of government control to take full advantage of the new opportunities on offer. I cannot over-emphasise the strategic importance to Northern Ireland life that Belfast International Airport, as the premier gateway to the Province, commands in economic and social terms. In moving forward with the privatisation of this major asset, the Government are confident that under private ownership it will enhance that reputation and ensure that the Province is able to compete even more robustly in the wider European and global markets which are so important to its economy. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th December be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
6.1 p. m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, as a native of Northern Ireland, I welcome the noble Baroness to her new duties and wish her success. I hope that she will enjoy her work.
This is a complex order. It repeals six former measures, and introduces a variety of articles on a number of subjects. However, there is no doubt that the underlying basis for the order is preparation for the privatisation of Belfast International Airport. There is widespread anxiety in Northern Ireland as to whether such privatisation is wise. Naturally, I shall explain why it is such a widespread view.
Some three years ago when the decision was made to privatise Belfast International Airport, a Minister who sought advancement and perhaps brownie points could achieve them by announcing the privatisation of anything in sight. The privatisation of Aldergrove—the international airport—was announced without consideration, it now seems clear, of all the complications and problems which exist. Security is one. It may be helpful if I explain my interest in the international airport. In 1969—perhaps it was 1970—Belfast Aldergrove Airport was transferred from the Board of Trade to the Northern Ireland Government. I was one of six or seven persons who were asked by the then Minister of Commerce, Brian Faulkner, to form the board of the new company and to develop the airport. His brief to us was simple: to develop the airport in the interests of the Province, in particular the business traveller but also the private traveller; and to do that in a commercial manner as though it were a private company. I cannot think of a much better brief than that.
1160
But there was a reason for requesting that the airport be developed in the interests of the Province. In Northern Ireland we cannot jump in our cars or go to a railway station in order to travel to Birmingham or London. travel is vital to us. As the Minister correctly stated, Belfast International Airport is the gateway to Northern Ireland. It is vital, particularly in the present situation, that first-time visitors receive a good impression when they arrive at the airport. That has been a consideration of Northern Ireland Airports Limited throughout the development. It can make an enormous difference to a would-be industrialist who is considering opening a factory in Northern Ireland if he arrives in a well set out place with competent and friendly staff. Belfast airport is known as having such staff and such a reception.
It may cost more than is normally necessary to provide the current level of assurance. That might be difficult for a private operator. So far as I am aware, the security problems at mainland airports are comparatively straightforward. At the Aldergrove airport the position is extremely complicated. The facilities are shared with the MoD; there are RAF and Ministry facilities within the perimeter fence which is seven miles long. There is a continuing and real threat on the security front which is currently looked after in a corporate manner by the various interests involved. There is excellent co-operation between the different interests, and security arrangements have worked well.
It was perhaps fortunate that the security threat developed in advance of building work and construction of the airport. It was possible to design the airport in a manner to deal with the security threat. Those security arrangements are highly regarded throughout the world. The airport has been visited by security interests from North America, South America, the Continent and from this country. Such visits have been helpful to others facing a security problem.
Security is not referred to in the order but it is vital to the airport complex that the matter should be properly dealt with. Will the new operator be responsible for security? I hope not. I trust that security will be the responsibility of the security services generally. I hope that the Minister will assure us that security arrangements will be outside the operator's control.
Who will pay for the security arrangements if the responsibility is outside the operator's control? I assume the answer is that the operator will pay for them. That presents problems because the security scene often changes. Structural arrangements need to be carried out in order to deal with the threat. Will the private operator have to deal with sudden calls for substantial expenditure for which he has not budgeted?
Any airport operator is bound by regulations and restrictions. I refer to the CAA; landing fees, which may be too much or too little; the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and, in the case of Belfast International Airport, substantial security costs. One wonders how attractive the sale will be to a private operator. We understand that it is to be a trade sale. That means that the department will negotiate with contenders and will presumably endeavour to achieve the best price. However, if the operator does not find it an interesting enterprise, what prevents him from selling it on to

1161
someone else—perhaps to an Iraqi operator? How can that be prevented? Is there an intention to have a golden share attached to the sale? How effective in the longer term is a golden share under European law? It is essential that the management of Belfast International Airport should be kept in safe hands.
It is worrying that much new traffic seems to be moving to Belfast City Airport. The airport is overcrowded it does not have the capacity to deal with the traffic which has gone there because it has lower rates than those applying at Belfast International Airport. It is clear from what has been happening recently that Belfast airport is being fattened up for privatisation. One wonders how much that has to do with its lack of ability to attract the new operators.
It is particularly worrying that a direct Belfast-Heathrow service now operates from Belfast City which may mean the cutting back of either the services at present operated by British Airways or British Midland. Those together offer a vital and essential service to business travellers. If the service should become split between the two airports it will be confusing and troublesome. For one thing, one's car may not be at the right airport when one wishes to return. I wonder how the Government intend to deal with the matter which has become urgent. Belfast City Airport is overcrowded. I hear some horrible tales and experiences of travellers, arising from the pressure on facilities.
It seems obvious that the transfer to the private company will be hedged with all manner of restrictions and the companies will not be masters in their own house. What will the department do if it does not consider that offers by the prospective companies are adequate to fund the assets which have been invested by the taxpayer?
We have in place at Belfast International Airport a management system which works. It has made money. It provides good facilities, and the service is excellent. Why change something that works? If the Treasury is concerned about borrowing public money to fund development, I am sure that arrangements could be made or powers provided whereby the present airport company could borrow on the commercial market.
It seems that a great many complex arrangements will have to be made to deal with the problems. It would be much simpler to reverse the decision to privatise. One has the impression that a decision, once made by government, is not changed because of fear of losing face. I suggest that on this occasion the Government would earn respect by changing the decision. I hope and trust that the Minister, having considered the matter, will advise the House in a short time that other arrangements can be made.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that a measure of competition between the two airports works in favour of the consumer? We accept that the proximity of the city airport to the city centre and to east Belfast tells strongly in its favour.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, there are certain services for which that is so. Belfast City Airport
1162
has done a good job in opening up many minor routes and services which would not have happened in the main airport. However, it has now reached the point where main line services are threatening to move. It is said that British Airways proposes to move. That would not be helpful to either the business traveller or the private traveller.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the extremely clear and helpful way in which she introduced the order. It is a complex order but I should say that it is relatively uncontentious. If it is thought sensible to privatise Belfast International Airport, then the order follows naturally from that premise.
When the noble Baroness replies, she would do us all a great service by taking up the points of the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, with his great experience, about security and the question of a sale on to a third party by the trade sale recipient of the franchise. Both those are major questions and I shall return to security in a moment.
Other points about the order are these. I welcome the attention which is given in Articles 21 and 22 to noise pollution—a problem which may become greater in the future. The order empowers the department to take action when aircraft are too noisy. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether the department expects to be receptive to complaints about noise and how it will treat them when such complaints are made?
On a different point, in Article 23 there is provision for the sale of aircraft after 56 days of non-payment of outstanding airport charges. We on these Benches are rather in favour of penalties for the late payment of commercial bills, but I must say that after 56 days, to sell the aircraft seems draconian. Is it the Government's intention that there should often be recourse to that provision? I have a feeling that that may hamper the commercial prospects of Belfast International Airport. At the least, I should like some reassurance about flexibility on that, when the Minister replies.
Another point is that Article 49 is somewhat worrying as regards the restriction on the disclosure of information. The article lists several bodies which should have access to privileged information, but for some reason the list does not include Parliament. If the information were to be relevant, for example, to some future order before the House, then Parliament could only obtain it through a stratagem such as asking the Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland, who is allowed to have the information. Could the Government please add Parliament to the list of bodies with access to the privileged information?
Finally, I should like again to raise with the noble Baroness the question of security, which is extremely important. There is total integration of security at present at Belfast International Airport, as we all know. Article 19 of the order gives the contractor the power to create a constable to oversee the airport. I think that the creation of a new constabulary is rather an important move. Has it been cleared in consultation with the RUC? And what is the attitude of the RUC to contractual security at the airport with the status of a

1163
constable? I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could reassure us on that. Speaking from Benches that are on the whole in favour of the privatisation of airports, I have no other comments to make on the order.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I must congratulate the Minister on winning her first Division; I hope that it does not set a precedent for the future. I recognise, of course, that the Government at present in power are obsessed with selling public assets, quite often at too low a price, if we think back to the Statement this afternoon. Perhaps that is an argument that is outside the sensible terms of reference. However, perhaps I may support and endorse the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, asked in particular in the security context.
I wish to take up the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, about Article 19(4). As I understand it, as at April last year there were 59 airport police at the international airport in Belfast. But Article 19 authorises an airport operator himself to appoint any person to be a constable. Article 19(3) states that such person on appointment shall, on the airport,
"have the powers and privileges and be liable to the duties and responsibilities of a constable".
Curiously, with those powers and responsibilities, under Article 19(4):
"Constables appointed under this Article shall be under the exclusive control of the airport operator by whom they are appointed".
That seems extraordinary. That operator may suspend or terminate the appointment of any such constable.
The questions that really trouble us are these. Who is to control these police officers? Is it to be the private company? What powers are the officers to have? What safeguards will there be about appointment and training? Will pay and conditions be tied to comparable pay and conditions in, for instance, the RUC? Will there be adequate testing for these new recruits? Ought there not to be at least a police committee attached to deal with these important questions? Will the equivalent of the Police Complaints Authority have jurisdiction over the airport police? Are they to be allowed the use of fire-arms? If so, on whose authority and on what basis of training?
The Minister mentioned that the device of privatisation would bring Belfast International Airport in line generally with airports of a significant size in England and Wales. My understanding is that the policing of Heathrow is under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. If that is right, why does one need a separate police force for an airport in Belfast, bearing in mind that the security problems, as both noble Lords who spoke before me have rightly observed, are much more acute and difficult in Belfast? My understanding also is that other metropolitan airports in England and Wales are normally under the jurisdiction of the local police authority. Those are important questions. I realise that there are a number of them, but they all derive either from Article 19 or from the worries that we on these Benches have, which have been expressed by noble Lords who spoke before me, about security.
1164
I shall now turn to a different aspect:, having asked a fair barrage on the police. Is it correct that within the past three years or so Belfast International Airport has received grants of about £7.5 million from the European Regional Development Fund transportation programme? If it is intended that the sales should be at full market price, what is the estimated clawback which the transportation programme will look for? The Minister has said that she will give further clarification in closing. We should be grateful to know the safeguards, if any, for the employees presently at Belfast International Airport in respect of this trade sale? What are the costs of privatisation? What is the differential between a flotation on the open market and a trade sale in anticipated net receipts? None of these things has been described in any sort of detail at all. Given that, as I understand it, there was a 71 per cent. increase in profit in 1992-93 compared to the previous year, what is the discernible benefit to travellers, local employees, the business community and the economy in Northern Ireland generally?
Finally, I want to revert to the defence aspect. It does not seem to us, from the explanations given so far, that sufficient in-depth attention has been given to the defence and security aspects. We look at least for some reassurances about selling on. One does not want to be over-dramatic. However, as the noble Baroness's colleague indicated in the Statement earlier this afternoon, once a company has been privatised—-Rover in that case—any subsequent transaction is a purely commercial transaction between Rover, and the purchaser, BMW. Will there be any legally enforceable guarantees about a subsequent sale of an airport of this importance, not simply as regards commercial implications but also defence and security implications?
6.24 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have just been made on this Order. As the noble Lord has said, I outlined the background in my opening remarks and I shall deal with specifics in a moment. May I say that the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, came so thick and fast, especially towards the end of the debate, that I hope he will understand that I may have to read Hansard before I can register all of them. However, I will certainly write to him on any questions that I do not reply to now. In particular, I hope the noble Lord will accept that as regards questions with close security implications, I will make a point of writing about them if it is not appropriate to answer them here and now.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, wholeheartedly for his welcome to me in my new job. I am quite certain that I shall enjoy it—indeed, I am already doing so. I also join with him in endorsing the value of inward investment to the Province and say how important Belfast International Airport is in that respect.
I believe that we are following the correct course by permitting Belfast International Airport to enter the private sector. For example, a study of the Government's privatisation programme begun in 1979 shows that privatisations generally have demonstrated

1165
that increased efficiencies are introduced into a business for the obvious reason that commercial decisions are taken on a more profit-motivated basis and that profits allow investment. Privatisation has meant that goods and services are provided at the lowest economic cost by virtue of the competition which privatised companies then face. Decision taking is speeded up, unhindered by government interference and procedures. Here perhaps I may divert in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, did and say that, having worked at Rover when it was a government business, I have been pleased to see it progress since it went into the private sector. Decision taking, as I have said, is unhindered by government interference and procedures and is given exposure to the disciplines and opportunities of private sector markets. All these positive steps assist towards turning privatised entities into streamlined businesses. That can only be of benefit to the consumer.
Perhaps I may also draw attention to the fact that our privatisation policy is being copied in many countries now. Again, as the noble Lord said, the experience of British international airports in security matters has been something for which other countries have turned to us for lessons. I would expect Northern Ireland travellers to benefit. The BAA, to which I alluded in my opening remarks, continues to be a beacon of success as a privatised airport group. I am sure that Belfast International Airport will follow that pattern.
Not surprisingly, noble Lords felt anxiety about the security implications of this airport. There can be no question that matters of security in Northern Ireland on any aspect are treated with the utmost seriousness and resolution in order to maintain the high security standards that are needed. This matter of airport security, once it is in private hands, has been examined thoroughly with the appropriate bodies and I can assure your Lordships, without going into details, that security will not be affected by privatisation either now or later. The Ministry of Defence has been very closely involved in discussions in bringing this Order forward. Present security arrangements will apply. The present company meets appropriate charges as laid down in regular surveys by the RUC, and that position will continue. Any new owner will be aware through the sales prospectus of his responsibilities in that area. I would add that those responsibilities do not appear to have deterred interest in the airport. I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to hear that there will be put in place a system which effectively gives Government full control over the vetting of new owners, subsequent to the original buyer.
With regard to the question of whether the taxpayer will receive full recompense, the public investment at Belfast International Airport has been made at every stage over its 30-year history, as the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, will know better than I. The Government expect that that soundly-based investment will be recognised in the price offered by bidders and have complete confidence that after privatisation all the assets of the airport will be fully exploited. There will be no clawback of the grant on ERDF. That has been confirmed by Brussels.
1166
With regard to competition between Belfast City and Belfast International Airport, it is the Government's policy not to interfere in the marketplace. Having said that, the growth of Belfast City Airport will be measured against the policies adopted as a result of the Belfast Harbour local plan inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, raised the question of noise pollution, which is crucial and of growing interest. The department initiated a scheme to identify noise contours at Belfast City Airport. Although the location of Belfast International Airport means that environmental problems are not apparent, I can assure the House that they will be monitored closely and complaints carefully considered.
Perhaps I can cover a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, regarding the Government's plans for the policing of Belfast International Airport. They were drawn up in full consultation with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Where it is necessary for airport constables to carry firearms after privatisation, the RUC is content that adequate controls will be in place regarding their issue and use.
The question of security and the airport constabulary is a matter of major concern. Government security advisers carefully considered the issue of policing following the privatisation of Belfast International Airport. They are satisfied with the performance of the present airport constabulary, which is under the direct control of the airport management. They are content that the force can transfer into the private sector. But the Government will be putting in place certain safeguards and strict monitoring arrangements to ensure that the commercial interests of the new management do not undermine the operational independence and professionalism of the force or the security of the airport generally.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I am not sure that I heard her correctly. Do I understand that there is some question of this privately contracted police force carrying firearms? For that to be the case in any part of the United Kingdom would be an extremely serious step to take. I do not know whether the noble Baroness misstated herself or whether it is possible that a privately-contracted police force would carry firearms.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord heard correctly. I said that where it is necessary for airport constables to carry firearms after privatisation, the RUC is content that adequate controls will be in place regarding their issue and use.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Baroness. But does that mean that those firearms will only be issued with the explicit consent of and under the control of the RUC? Is there any situation where that would not be the case?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to say that the RUC would work on the issue and in close collaboration with the airport authorities. It is the responsibility of the RUC to advise and ensure that the last thing we do is put the security of the airport at risk.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. In England and Wales, as is well known, a firearm can only be issued to a police officer of a lower rank by a designated officer of a significantly superior rank. Both the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and I are concerned about the issue. I would not wish to press the Minister this evening because, in fairness, we asked a number of detailed questions. For my part I would be happy with a written, researched reply. That would perhaps be a fairer way of dealing with the matter. We are both concerned about the aspect, as I believe appears from our earlier questions.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for those remarks and understand that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, also will accept a detailed, researched reply. I shall ensure that that is forthcoming. I should like to conclude that issue now by saying that if for any reason the airport were to cease to maintain a satisfactory level of policing, powers are available under the Aviation Security Act 1982 to allow the policing role to be taken over quickly by the RUC.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Holme, also that the sale of aircraft has not been seen as a major source of revenue in the prospectus. The issue of the commercial payment of debts is one which I know we both hold close to our hearts.
The questions your Lordships asked were detailed and are deserving of a detailed response. I shall ensure that comes to your Lordships. With that assurance, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Millennium Fund
6.36 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the principles upon which the Millennium Fund, created by the National Lottery, will be distributed.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may say at the start that I am an unrepentant supporter of the National Lottery, both in and outside government. I am not opposed to the principle of the Millennium Fund but I have a growing apprehension in regard to issues which are now arising and I shall ask the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, a number of questions which it is essential should be clarified.
First, the Millennium Fund will be a goldmine and a honey pot. Therefore, its purpose, its use and its integrity are matters of the highest importance, which is why I sought leave to debate those matters tonight. If we assume that half the takings of the National Lottery will go in prizes; 12 per cent., which I regard as being too high, will go in tax, and 15 per cent. on administration, the Millennium Fund will receive one-fifth of the residue over the five or six years after it is established
1168
and will have at its disposal an estimated sum of £70 million a year—that is, between £420 million and £450 million by the turn of the century.
That considerable fund is to be distributed by two Secretaries of State (one who is to be the chairman) and one Opposition appointee, with six so-called independent commissioners, presumably appointed by the Government. That leads me to the first question about the people who are to be in control of such a large sum of money. What is the principle that will be applied in their selection? I suppose it is too soon to ask who they will be. The only clue that we have so far is the statement by Helen Wilkinson —a principal in the Department of National Heritage—who said,
"The 6 will give the Commission its flavour … We want some new names, some young names, a reasonable spread. They have to be absolutely top class".
I await the choice of those paragons of virtue who are to be put in charge of over £420 million of public money. As the Act gives them absolute discretion on how to use the money, how can we ensure some degree of public examination as to their sensibility?
I turn to projects that are already lining up to be considered. For example, on the arts side I refer to the Royal Opera House. Lord Salisbury and Vivien Duffield have stated that they will raise £45 million if another £45 million can be raised from public funds. The Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Brooke, has written to the chairman of the Royal Opera House in the following terms:
"Your scheme for refurbishment and development is certainly the kind of capital project to which the lottery is relevant".
Does the noble Baroness believe that the public £45 million to match the private £45 million should come from the Millennium Fund or from the Art Council's £420 million, which will be a one-fifth share? There is a total blank about these matters in public discussion, yet when the Secretary of State commits himself in those terms in writing I believe we are entitled to ask from where he believes that kind of money will come. What are the principles which will govern that decision? That raises the question—discussed many times in this House, but not satisfactorily—whether all of this lottery money is to be spent on capital projects, and certainly the Millennium Fund? I know that there are a lot of capital projects—probably more from the Millennium Fund than other aspects of this funding—which will need to be financed. I repeat what I and other noble Lords have already said and what everybody in the arts and sport is saying. There are very many capital projects around the country but not enough revenue to sustain them. It is no good building more white elephants if we cannot finance their operations. As I well know, it is easier to build projects than to get bodies to continue to finance the losses which most sports stadia and theatres create. The relationship between capital and revenue has to be thought out afresh, especially in respect of new projects financed by the Millennium Fund.
I turn to the question of sport. Not only are there projects lining up for expenditure from the Millennium Fund but from what I have read, and if we are to believe what we are told, millennium money has already been spent. I feel, therefore, that 11 should raise a number of questions. I can give many examples but will confine

1169
myself to the launch last week by Sir Robert Scott of an attempt to obtain money to build a stadium for his Commonwealth Games bid. That is based on Manchester, but my understanding is that there is no commitment or involvement in money terms from Manchester City Council. According to the Financial Times, last week, his bid for the new stadium is based on £70 million of Millennium Fund money. I have with me the document issued by Sir Robert Scott and his colleagues in AMEC, a private enterprise developer. They call their stadium the Manchester Millennium Stadium. They say that they have the money and have named the stadium, the cost of which will be £70 million or more. That is public money which they are committing at this moment. I quote from that document:
"Costs for the stadium and associated development will be approximately £187 million. A sum of £72 million has already been committed through acquisition of the site, relocation costs for existing businesses, site clearance, construction of the velodrome and the initial infrastructure".
I pause to say that all of that money has already come from the Government, not the private sector. The document continues:
"Of the remaining £115 million stadium construction costs, £75 million will be the subject of Manchester's bid to the Millennium Fund and the National Lottery, while the remaining £40 million will come from private sector equity and sponsorship".
It is also said that AMEC will design, build and operate the stadium, for which they require £72 million from the Millennium Fund. I say good luck to them, but they must not lay claim to having the money before it is allocated to them. This is a vitally important principle.
I ask the Minister, have any private, of public, assurances been given to AMEC or Sir Robert Scott, or is there any understanding that they will be given £72 million from the Millennium Fund? That is what they are saying. It is a matter of crucial public importance, as I shall illustrate. The Millennium Commission has not yet been established. We do not know who the members will be, nor have its policies for the distribution of money been determined. Therefore, I would expect the noble Baroness to reply that certainly no undertakings have been given for the simple reason that any such undertakings would have been illegal. It would be illegal either to spend or to promise money from the Millennium Fund before the commission had been established and the money was available. Yet people are making claims to the effect that they have such money. The reason why I raise these matters in the House tonight is that people in those quarters are saying, with a nod and a wink, that the money is in the bank.
There is another very important reason why I ask the Minister to clarify the issue. The English Commonwealth Games Federation has to decide this week on which of the three bids before it will be chosen to represent England in an endeavour to have the Commonwealth Games held in this country in the year of the Queen's Jubilee. I am sure that all of us hope that that will come about. The federation has to know whether the stadia in which to hold the games are already built and in place or, if not, whether the money to build them is assured. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that we must know whether the £72 million
1170
which has been stated to be available to one of the bids is assured. We need to know what has been said privately or publicly about the availability of millennium money.
I turn to other considerations. Here I declare an interest. I happen to be a director of Wembley Stadium. I refer to the question whether millennium money will be used to create stadia which will be in competition with stadia already built and operating either in the public or private sector. In the public sector cities like Birmingham, Sheffield, Gateshead and Edinburgh have all built stadia paid for by their ratepayers or with money raised by the city and guaranteed by the ratepayers. None of those cities has received a penny piece from the Government in the establishment of their facilities. They have to make a surplus, of course, or under existing legislation they are rate-capped, handicapped and penalised. Therefore, these cities are saying to me "We need to know: are we to find ourselves competing with stadia which have been paid for largely by the Government and where there are no loan charges outstanding? That could represent unfair competition against us when we seek to get these very important events to our cities". It is of considerable importance to those cities to have the answers to those questions.
I turn now to the private sector where, as I have said, I declare an interest. The position is even more remarkable because Wembley Stadium, and other stadia and places which hold such events such as Earl's Court and Olympia, are privately owned and have to raise their money on the open market. They have to make a profit and be answerable to their shareholders. Therefore, it is very important for them to know the terms on which they will be competing. Again, as I know from talking with my fellow directors and others concerned in this area, they believe that it would be grossly unfair if they are expected to make a profit and be answerable to their shareholders and find themselves competing with a project financed largely by the Millennium Fund, which has not had to be raised on the market and where there are no interest charges involved. That is a very important consideration and one of the reasons why I ask that the principles on which the Millennium Fund money will be distributed have to be spelt out to this House and to the public. What are the principles that will apply?
I have one final point to make to the people making claims to this money. They must not forget the due process of democracy. It may well be that by the time this money is available another party might be in government. Indeed, to be fair, the Secretary of State, the right honourable Peter Brooke, made that point himself in earlier statements in the other place. If that were to be so, it is possible that these thoughts or private nods and winks will not operate. I cannot say what another government will say if that happens. That is more for my noble friend Lord Donoughue on the Front Bench. Having some knowledge of the matter, and having followed these matters through, I can say that a Labour Government would certainly wish to hold the ring fairly as between one city and another. They do not believe that this ring has been held fairly so far, when

1171
cities like Sheffield which put all its money into building facilities to stage the world student games—an act of great courage which cost it a great deal of money —might now find itself at a further disadvantage if the claims of Sir Robert Scott and his colleagues are correct.
Therefore, I hope the House will appreciate why I felt it right to raise these questions today and to have this short discussion at an early stage, particularly so that questions on whether money is available can be cleared up by the noble Baroness whom I thank for being in her place tonight.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for bringing forward this Question tonight. I know that he speaks with a great deal of knowledge on the subject of sport, having been a Minister responsible for Sport. I believe (although I am not sure) that he is still acting as a football referee—
Lord Howell: My Lords, not at my age!
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, during the passage of the Bill the Millennium Fund was described as a far-reaching and visionary body which would be of interest to the entire nation. It is certainly of interest tonight. However, I fear that until a millennium commission is set up and the spoils of this golden honeypot are spent, very little interest will be expressed in it, although I am sure a great many people will make claims to what the Millennium Fund should be spent on.
During the passage of the Bill I was given the title of "spoilsport", as one who actually objected to the Millennium Fund being set up at all. However; since it will shortly come into existence, I wish to put forward some of the principles under which it should be run. However, I fear that when the millennium commission is set up one grave disadvantage will be that there will be only one Opposition appointee rather than two from the two Opposition parties.
I would like to make some constructive suggestions towards the Millennium Fund. There are many very valid projects on which the money could be spent. We are not talking about a vast sum of money. One point should be underlined and it is the major principle behind the Millennium Fund—namely, that regionalisation should be the key. The lottery tickets will be bought by people throughout the country from Penzance to John o' Groats. During the passage of the Bill and discussions afterwards the large projects talked about were often London-orientated. Great schemes are always put forward which are sometimes London-based. An opera house has been mentioned which I presume would be built in London.
The lottery should benefit everybody in the country and should not be based purely in London. The Olympic Games were mentioned. I know that many noble Lords share my extreme disappointment that Manchester was not chosen for those games. I am very grateful to the Government for funding large works in Manchester, a city deserving of such spending.
One of the underlying principles behind the Millennium Fund is that it will take place at the end of this millennium and at the beginning of the next. Can
1172
the Minister say when this millenium will end? Does it end on 31st December 1999 or 31st December 2000? That would be an indication of when the money stops being paid into the fund. I know that there is sonic debate about when that will take place.
Acknowledging that the Millennium Fund is at the end of this millenium and at the beginning of the next, one of the principle areas in which money should be spent is youth. One project which the fund could finance —we are not talking about vast sums of money taken out for large capital projects—is the provision of youth clubs across the country. It could fund travelling theatre and music groups. It could actually fund most of the outdoor activity groups. All those areas of youth activity have been drastically cut during government and local authority cuts in spending. That has been one of the first areas to suffer. Would it not be a fitting way to start the next millennium by considering the youth of tomorrow?
In this area I would also wish to add proper funding for the British Youth Council whose grant is threatened at present. It has been estimated that the amount of money involved is close on £0.5 billion. I know that there was talk in Committee about having an enormous party. I have to declare an interest. I own a pub arid I think that a party would be an excellent idea. However, we must remember that New Year is usually a great disappointment. Although I cannot remember a great deal about last New Year, usually it is spent standing around in a town square with everybody doing hundreds of different countdowns according to the different times on their watches.
If capital projects are to be undertaken, the question of the date by which they are to be completed is of considerable importance. Returning to my question about when the millennium starts, it would seem strange to have the Millennium Fund set up and yet for some of the capital projects not to be completed until towards the end of the first decade of the millennium. I think that it would be more fitting to spend money on smaller projects around the country at the beginning of the millennium.
7 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although my name is not on the list of those wishing to speak to this Unstarred Question, I understand that it will be in order for me to make a short contribution. Although I disagreed with much that he said, and felt that he was a little premature in asking the Government to explore certain issues, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has raised these matters this evening because it is right that we should start thinking about 'how the important National Lottery etc. Act will work, especially the Millennium Fund.
One matter of interpretation arises in connection with Section 22 on which I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Trumpington is clear in her mind or at least has been well advised. I should be grateful if she could confirm this point which is of great importance. Section 22 sets out the way in which the money is to be apportioned from within the distribution fund. Section 31 refers to deducting expenses, as is natural. Section 22(3) refers to five matters: the arts, sport, national heritage, charitable expenditure and,

1173
"expenditure on projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium".
We have a rule of interpretation of statutes which is very important and relevant to this matter. When different expressions are used in the same statute, each of them is assumed to have a different meaning and effect. Therefore, one must assume—it is on this point that I would welcome clarification—that none of the
"projects to mark the year 2000 or the beginning of the third millennium"
should be concerned with the arts, sport, national heritage or charitable expenditure. It is very important, as a foundation to all our thinking, that we understand that. What I am saying about Section 22 is most certainly endorsed by the way in which Section 23 refers to separate arrangements by the distributing bodies in connection with those five matters.
It would seem to follow that the £45 million for the Royal Opera House, to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred, could not come out of the money that is to be spent on the millennium projects because an opera house would come under the heading of "the arts". I should have thought that point requires no answer from the Government because it is manifestly plain.
That is the only matter to which I wish to refer. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend Lady Trumpington has to say about it.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, many people will be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that matter because it is a critical question. From the conversations that I have had, my experience is that the majority of people who are involved in the arts or with sport assume that money from the Millennium Fund is to be available for their areas. I do not know what the experience of my noble friend Lord Howell has been on this point. In other words, those involved in the arts or with sport are assuming an overlap or a "double bite", especially for the bigger projects because they believe that is the only way in which a national stadium for Wales, a big opera house in Cardiff or something similar for Scotland can be achieved. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is correct in his interpretation—and on my observation, he is too often correct for our present comfort—a major landmine lies ahead. Therefore, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I have nothing to say to rank with what he said in terms of worrying the Government.
I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Howell for tabling this Unstarred Question. Although in one sense he is premature, I do not think that now is too early to discuss the matter because the important questions about the principles of distribution and the membership of the commission have to be raised and one would like reassurances that the Government are clear in their thinking before they embark on the final stage.
We on these Benches welcome the lottery and the Millennium Fund in principle although I expressed some scepticism on Second Reading. Overall, we
1174
welcome the fund because of the shabby state of arts and sports facilities in Britain. We welcome it on the assumption that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not entirely correct in his interpretation. As we discussed last week, our theatres are crumbling. Wembley, our great national stadium, is now 70 years old and is virtually the oldest national football stadium in the world. The Millennium Fund will provide British architects with opportunities for some grands projets in the French style, which I think would be exciting.
We should like the projects to cover a geographical spread and, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned, not to be metropolitan-centered. However, I would not want an overbalance the other way. We must not neglect London, which is the artistic capital of Britain. In fact, despite good work by the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, London's cultural infrastructure is definitely crumbling. One obvious example is the South Bank where one is in danger of being "clobbered" by falling concrete or whatever other appalling materials were used. That is in urgent need of refurbishment. I mention the South Bank also because the political driving force behind it was Herbert Morrison, who was a great politician and a great Londoner—I was honoured to take part in writing his official biography—and we should like to remember him. The South Bank was established in 1951 to celebrate a great centenary. I think that its refurbishment would be appropriate at a time of further celebration.
My noble friend Lord Howell raised the important question of the balance between capital and maintenance revenue. The lottery was originally presented in terms of capital. That was what made it different from the distributions of the Arts Council or the Sports Council. Since then, there has been mention of using endowments to pay for maintenance. This is a critical question, especially in the light of the big cuts that we have suffered in arts expenditure. I should like to ask —again, for clarification—what is the position on the millennium projects? How will those great buildings be maintained satisfactorily in financial terms?
There is a real danger that by the end of the century we shall have a mix of riches and rags in this country: a few big, impressive and expensive projects which great politicians can open and for which they can claim credit, absorbing huge funds, while at grass roots there will be terrible poverty and no money to maintain and provide for the current costs of the network of British local arts and sports. We need some clarity and reassurance on that point.
On the subject of commission membership, which my noble friend mentioned, we should like to be reminded who appoints those people. I believe that we know the answer, but we should just like to hear it. We should like to hear also when we can expect those appointments. It was speculated last year during the Bill's passage that we would hear them in January or February. We are there now. We should like to know how the matter is going on. Except for the politicians on the commission, to whom are its members accountable? They have draconian powers. I should like to be clear to whom they are accountable in executing them.

1175
I should like to raise the issue of the composition of the commission. I have never been clear why it needed two government and one opposition member on a commission which was specifically stated to be independent. Why do the Government need a majority? The Labour Party has accepted that proposal. With characteristic generosity it has blessed that body with itself having only minority representation. Some of us might not have been as easy going, but my right honourable friend the leader of the party is well known for being a soft touch on such things. But I still do not see why the Liberal Democrats are not represented. I speak up for them on this subject, if not on much else.
As to the independent members, we want to be reassured as to how independent they will be. We can assure the Minister that we shall scrutinise the list closely, looking, of course, for various Conservative association chairmen and financiers of the party who have cropped up so regularly on bodies right down to hospital committees. We need genuine independence. We want to avoid the nightmare of scores of projects cropping up in Conservative marginals.
On the background of those independent members, I noticed that when speaking to the lottery Bill on 25th January 1993, the Secretary of State said that he wanted the six members to have available a wide range of experience. He mentioned business, finance, heritage, architecture, education and the environment. He also said that they should have a balance of age, gender and ethnic origin—truly politically correct people—and represent all four countries in the UK. It will prove testing to find all those qualities among only six people. They will have to be the paragons of virtue that my noble friend mentioned. I feel that one might have to look to the Labour Party to find people to meet all of those qualifications. Perhaps there should have been nine independents.
I reinforce one or two other questions asked by my noble friend. I was struck, and quite shocked, as perhaps were others, by what he said about the Manchester application; that it is already, apparently, using the name the "Manchester Millennium Stadium". Assumptions are being made about it receiving large sums of money. I love Manchester as much as anyone, and I follow Manchester United fairly carefully, but people must not go too far in these things. Will the Minister reassure the House that no discussions have taken place. I am sure that she will feel able to say that no guarantees or assurances have been given to any Mancunians. But will she tell us that no discussions have taken place between the department and any representatives of that great city?
I wonder how people can use the millennium name, on the assumption of receiving millennium money, when the Millennium Commission has not yet been appointed. I am sure that the House is confident that nothing was promised when Sir Robert Scott was so privileged to be included in that small group of people attending the Prime Minister's private new year's party.
The location of sports stadia or arts houses in competition with existing facilities will be an important question for the commission to decide. It is important
1176
that we do not have duplication in some areas. especially if we subsidise competition—-that would be unfair—while other areas may be left with no facilities.
There has been mention of two kinds of millennium activities —the grands projets and smaller local projects. Do the Government have any feelings on the ratio or balance to be struck between the two? Some important questions have been asked. Large sums of money are at stake. The majority of people taking the decisions are appointed by the Government and appear not to be directly accountable. Therefore, the principles for determining the distribution are important. I look forward with great interest to hearing the Minister's reply.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I understand that this procedure comes under the same heading as a Report stage.
Baroness Trumpington:: My Lords, no.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is an Unstarred Question.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, it is an Unstarred Question, and I am afraid that my noble friend has missed the gap.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, therefore I shall adhere to the rules.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for giving the House the opportunity to express its ideas on the uses to which the proceeds of the National Lottery might be put in marking the millennium. I should like to say how much I have always admired the things that he has clone for sport both nationally and as an umpire. I should like him to know that I, too, in my time, have a modest claim to fame in so far as I once kicked off for Cambridge United.
Before I turn to the principles upon which the Millennium Fund will be distributed, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I describe briefly the purpose and background of the Millennium Fund. The National Lottery etc. Act 1993 provides for 20 per cent. of the net proceeds of the National Lottery to be allocated by the Millennium Commission for expenditure on projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium. It is that share of the proceeds of the lottery which is commonly referred to as the Millennium Fund. The Millennium Fund will receive income from the lottery until the end of the year 2000. Thereafter, the Millennium Fund's share will be redistributed to the other sectors the lottery has been established to benefit —sport, the arts, heritage and charities. We estimate that the lottery might raise at least £75 million a year for each of the good causes it supports, giving the Millennium Fund a total income of around £450 million: I am aware that other estimates have put the income for good causes much higher, but I prefer to keep my feet on the ground. Funds are likely to begin to flow into the commission in early 1995.

1177
In answer to my noble friend Lord Renton, the Government hope that the Millennium Commission will support imaginative and large-scale capital projects which celebrate the millennium and add to the inheritance we leave for future generations. I heard the plea for youth made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will take note of what he said. We hope that people across the United Kingdom will seize the opportunity to celebrate the achievements of our age, and that the Millennium Commission will support projects which lift the spirits of the nation in the same way as did the Great Exhibition of 1851 and the Festival of Britain a century later.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, touched on the membership of the commission. It will have nine members appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. Two of the members will be Government Ministers, one of whom will chair the commission. One member will be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and the remaining six will be independent and distinguished figures. I do not believe that their political affiliations will be relevant—so the Liberal Party may still be in with a chance! The commission will not be a part of government; its status will be akin to that of non-departmental public bodies such as the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the Arts Council and the Sports Council, which will also be distributing the lottery proceeds.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked about the accountability of the Millennium Commission. It will be directly accountable to Parliament. Its accounts will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, it must report annually to Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked about discussions with those in Manchester. I shall pop that in now and return to the subject later. A member of the Manchester team discussed the Millennium Commission with a member of the Department of National Heritage. No undertaking has been given. He was seen on the same basis as anyone who asked to discuss the broad purposes of the Millennium Fund. Your Lordships are free to do so.
The noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Donoughue, asked about the selection criteria. The Secretary of State has stated that the six independent members should be distinguished and disinterested. The commission will need to draw on a wide variety of skills and expertise in, for example, dealing with large capital projects. Representatives of individual organisations or interests will not be appointed, nor will anyone who has already advocated backing for a potential millennium project.
The Millennium Commission has not yet been appointed. We hope that appointments to the commission will be announced within the next few weeks. It will decide its own policy on the type of project that it wishes to support and make its own decisions on applications for funding. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked about the principles upon which the Millennium Fund will be distributed. We
1178
cannot say what the commission's intentions towards the fund will be, but I can describe the broad framework within which the commission must operate.
Section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act provides for the Government to issue directions to all distributors of lottery proceeds, including the Millennium Commission. The directions have not yet been issued and all the lottery distributors will be formally consulted before they are finalised. Section 26 directions will take two forms; first, broad policy directions concerning matters which the commission must take into account in determining applications for funding and, secondly, financial directions which might be complied with to secure the proper management and control of money paid to the commission.
The broad policy directions issued by the Secretary of State will be the starting point for the Millennium Commission in determining the principles upon which it intends to distribute grants to projects. They will encompass the basic principles upon which the national lottery is based and which were made clear during the passage of the legislation. For instance, I would expect them to cover the priority of capital rather than revenue projects. This would not prevent the commission from supporting an endowment fund to secure a project's long-term maintenance or from using a smaller proportion of its income for other projects such as a bursary scheme.
I am anxious to give your Lordships as much information as possible in order that we need not bring up the subject until something controversial occurs once the whole thing is up and running. It has always been the case that the national lottery will support capital projects rather than running costs. That means that the lottery will make a lasting improvement to this country's cultural facilities. It will also help to distinguish lottery proceeds from normal public expenditure. It is on that basis that the National Lottery etc. Act was passed by Parliament. The Millennium Commission can, where it considers the case to be exceptional, contribute to an endowment fund to support the maintenance of a project and will be required to ensure that the project's long-term viability is secured before it makes any funding commitment. There is no reason why partnership funding should not contribute to the running costs of a project.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked whether the Millennium Commission will be able to support a bid in respect of which there is no demand which jeopardises the future of other similar facilities elsewhere in the United Kingdom. First, I cannot comment on the merits of any potential application to the Millennium Commission. Secondly, any reports in the press relating to the funding of any stadium or any other project are pure speculation—
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but she has touched on a crucially important point and has not answered the question asked by my noble friend. She referred to the possibility of a cultural activity being funded by the Millennium Fund and referred to the possibility of sports being funded. She also referred to the 1851 exhibition which embraced

1179
the arts. Will my noble friend assure the House that the Millennium Fund is not excluded from supporting an arts, a sports or a national heritage activity, which was the question posed by my noble friend?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, until the commission is in being I cannot comment on that aspect in more detail. I do not wish to pre-empt its right to decide on the projects. I have gone as far as I can in this matter. As I said, the commission has not yet been appointed. I have no doubt that it will wish to avoid funding any project which may turn out to be a white elephant. That is hardly the kind of legacy to the nation which the Government had in mind when they introduced the legislation to establish the Millennium Commission.
The commission is likely to be directed to ensure that a project's future running costs and maintenance are provided for before it grants any application and it will want to be assured of the long-term viability of a project. The commission will wish to take the advice of appropriate expert bodies when making that judgment, and that is something we shall be encouraging. However, it will be for the commission to consider each application on its merits. There can be no question of the Government or anyone else saying at this stage that such and such a project will not be contemplated.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked about the Royal Opera House and he mentioned the figure of £45 million. The Secretary of State said that the money could come from the national lottery but it was not for Ministers to say from which distributor. There is no question of a guarantee of funds from the 'national lottery or elsewhere. It will be for the Royal Opera House to decide where to apply when distributors announce their guidelines—
Lord Howell: My Lords, the noble Baroness is giving an extremely helpful reply to the debate. From what the noble Baroness said, can I say categorically that nobody in the world of the arts or sport can make any assumption at this stage as regards receiving any money from the Millennium Fund? That will be a matter for the commissioners in due course when they have been appointed. Therefore, people should not make promises and prognostications which are totally unjustified.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that I have already answered the noble Lord. I referred to "pure speculation". It is quite wrong for those stories to be announced before the commission is even sitting.
As the noble Lord said, the commission is not yet established. Therefore, no undertakings have been given with regard to guaranteed funding for the Manchester stadium. I cannot give the noble Lord a stronger assurance. No one should be misled about the Millennium Fund having already been spent because at the moment, there "ain't none", and none of it has been spent.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked whether the millennium commissioners will support small-scale initiatives. There is nothing to stop the commission
1180
having smaller schemes alongside major capital projects. I am sure that the commission will be interested in the noble Lord's suggestions.
Another important principle behind the use of lottery proceeds is that applications should include a measure of partnership funding from the public or private sectors or from voluntary organisations. The degree of partnership funding sought from applicants is likely to be a matter for the commission to determine. Other directions are likely to include a requirement to treat each application on its merits—not to prime any particular application—and to use the proceeds of the national lottery primarily to promote the public good or charitable purposes rather than private gain.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked also when capital projects will be completed. I hope that some will be completed by the millennium but it is not possible to say that with regard to capital projects. It really depends on their scale. I am sure that the commission will have regard to the noble Lord's point on the timing of smaller projects. The financial directions which the Secretary of State will make under Section 26(3) of the National Lottery etc. Act will cover such matters as the accountability of the Millennium Commission to Parliament, the proper financial management of the commission and grants made by it, and the minimum information upon which applications should be judged and conditions of grant determined. The Government's intention in setting those financial directions is to put each of the lottery distributors on a similar, if not identical, footing in regard to the handling of applications and distribution of lottery money and to set out the standards of financial management and propriety expected of organisations handling the public's money in the shape of lottery income.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked whether the Millennium Commission will discriminate between applications from organisations which are publicly funded and those which are privately funded and whether profit-making organisations will be prevented from applying or be otherwise disadvantaged in competing for a share of lottery money. I assure the noble Lord that the Government do not intend to rule out applications from privately-funded organisations. The Millennium Commission will be obliged to give any privately-backed application the same consideration as an application from a local authority or voluntary body. However, in creating a national lottery the Government do not intend that the proceeds should be used for the benefit of shareholders. We should expect the Millennium Commission to satisfy itself that any profit raised by a project deriving in whole or in part from the use of national lottery proceeds is not distributed to shareholders. The steps which the commission might take to ensure that would depend on the nature of the individual project. I am sure that the commission will take account of the input of other contributors when considering the issue. It will not disregard any costs or risks incurred by private organisations or individuals in backing a project.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me when the old millennium ends. It is worth putting that on the record. The historically correct date on which the new

1181
millennium will begin is 1st January 2001. But the Government recognise that many people in this country will wish to celebrate the millennium as we begin the year 2000. That is why the National Lottery etc. Act refers specifically to celebrations which mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium.
Many people have suggested that the Government are trying to stop people celebrating in the year 2000. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not for the Government to tell people when they should or should not be celebrating the millennium. Indeed, we have an excuse here, if anyone is looking for one, to celebrate for a whole year. I hope that it will all be a huge success.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I join with my noble friend in thanking the noble Baroness for the very full and helpful way in which she has replied to the Question. Perhaps I may revert back to the critical intervention of the noble Lord,
1182
Lord Renton. What he suggested is possible; namely, that there is a gap between what the Government have said about the Act, what we believe about the Act, and the legal drafting of it. Will the noble Baroness assure us that Ministers and officials will look at the noble Lord's intervention and relate it to the drafting of the Bill? Perhaps the noble Baroness will then write to all noble Lords who have intervened in the debate to tell us what her reflections are. We do not expect a reply to that this evening.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton will understand my difficulties as regards interpreting something in an Act which relates to a body that has not yet been formed. I welcome the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I shall take legal advice and write to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eight o'clock.

  AFRICA: AID
  AFRICA: AID
  EAST AFRICAN ASIANS CASE: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION REPORT
  EAST AFRICAN ASIANS CASE: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION REPORT
  NATO PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS
  NATO PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS
  SOUTHAMPTON GENERAL HOSPITAL
  SOUTHAMPTON GENERAL HOSPITAL
  BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA INCIDENCE
  BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA INCIDENCE
  CANCER AND AIDS: RESEARCH
  CANCER AND AIDS: RESEARCH
  DEPRIVATION PAYMENTS SCHEME
  DEPRIVATION PAYMENTS SCHEME
  STATE RETIREMENT PENSION
  STATE RETIREMENT PENSION
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981: INSPECTOR'S DECISION
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981: INSPECTOR'S DECISION
  NATURE AND COUNTRYSIDE CONSERVATION: ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
  NATURE AND COUNTRYSIDE CONSERVATION: ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
  BUYING AGENCY: PERFORMANCE TARGETS
  BUYING AGENCY: PERFORMANCE TARGETS
  SEA BATHING: HEALTH EFFECTS
  SEA BATHING: HEALTH EFFECTS
  VICTIM SUPPORT NORTHERN IRELAND
  VICTIM SUPPORT NORTHERN IRELAND