Sitting of 18 July 1994

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

    London Underground
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what current proposals his Department has to extend the London underground system into south London and beyond.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Primary responsibility for developing the underground network rests with London Underground Ltd. A substantial part of the Jubilee line extension currently under construction runs south of the river and London Underground has plans for a southern extension of the east London line.
    Mr. Dowd: I thank the Minister for that response. I realise that London Underground Ltd. will be the primary body involved in any work. I welcome the extension of the Jubilee line and the docklands light railway, but does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that they do no more than touch the periphery of south-east London? We need a major extension through south-east London and on to Bromley and/or Croydon. The commercial, social and, in these days, environmental case for that is overwhelming.
    2
    Will the hon. Gentleman's Department do all that it can to encourage London Underground to undertake detailed feasibility and preparatory work to determine what the options might be? We need an end to the present unsatisfactory situation in which almost 2 million people in south-east London are denied access to the most important strategic transport network in the capital.
    Mr. Norris: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a study is currently under way, involving the five south London boroughs and London Underground, of precisely the problem to which he has referred. I accept what he says about the absence of a tube line in that area of south London, not least because I live there and am acutely aware of it. We rely on buses and on Network SouthEast, but there is no doubt that the tube would be a great addition.
    As I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, a tube line would be an extraordinarily expensive proposition, so it would not be reasonable of me to suggest that there might be an immediate prospect of a transport improvement of that sort being delivered. As I said, however, work is being done on examining the feasibility and the benefits to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I will keep a careful watch over that.
    Mr. Evennett: Although I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on proposals to improve public transport in south-east London, may I urge him not to forget the needs of the motorist and the travelling public who want to travel by car? The east London river crossing must be part of any overall improvement in south-east London. Although people living in Erith, Crayford, Bexley and other such areas want an improvement in public transport, they also need more crossing points on the river so that they can use their cars.
    Mr. Norris: One of the improvements south of the river is £800 million-worth of new Networker trains on the Kent link line, which benefit my hon. Friend's constituents and others in that area. His comment about the need for more river crossings is well understood; however, he knows that many of the proposals for crossings have encountered difficulties, not least with local authorities such as his local authority in Bexley. For example, the proposal for a road

    3
    from the A13 through to the A2016 was not only specifically precluded from the original Oxleas wood public inquiry, but would—as my hon. Friend's local authority has pointed out—cause concern about localised traffic, not least in the Bexley area.
    Mr. Keith Hill: On the subject of improvements to underground services south of the river, is the Minister aware that members of the all-party Northern line group recently visited the ABB and GEC Alsthom factories at Derby and Preston, both of which are champing at the bit to supply new rolling stock for the Northern line—as, I am sure, are their overseas competitors?
    Will the hon. Gentleman reassure the House that the summer recess will be used as an opportunity not for delay but for the speediest possible consideration and favourable conclusion to that urgently needed improvement to the Northern line, both north and south of the river?
    Mr. Norris: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the private finance initiative and his enthusiasm for its delivery to a safe conclusion. Although it is not for me or my right hon. Friend to show any preference at this stage for those who are competing to supply the Northern line trains, we follow the matter with interest and will certainly ensure that time is not lost unnecessarily.

    Motorways
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the environmental benefits resulting from the tolling of motorways.
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the environmental benefits of the tolling of motorways.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): Motorway tolling will provide another source of finance for improving the motorway network, helping to avoid the congestion and associated environmental problems that would otherwise come with economic growth and increasing traffic. It will also enable more efficient use to be made of the network, for example, by pricing to spread peak-period congestion.
    Mrs. Knight: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but motorway noise will still be high. Is he aware that the houses of my constituents in Long Eaton and Sawley are a bare 20 ft from the edge of the M1, with only a garden fence between them and the traffic? In such circumstances, does he agree that effective sound barriers are needed, whether or not the motorway is widened, so that my constituents can again hear themselves speak in their gardens?
    Mr. MacGregor: The effective way of dealing with that problem is to take measures when the motorway is widened. My hon. Friend will know that a preview of the public consultation for widening between junctions 25 and 18 is taking place today and in the coming weeks. I believe that my hon. Friend has been able to discuss all those matters on site with representatives of the Highways Agency. I can tell her that the agency expects mitigation measures, which will come with the widening, to reduce
    4
    the noise significantly, and they will include contouring the adjoining land, putting up fencing and the other measures to which she refers.
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extra revenue raised from tolls can be used to improve motorways, thus diverting money to help keep traffic off minor roads? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, in rural Suffolk constituencies such as mine, where there is great concern about excessive traffic in our historic villages, the environmental advantages of that are fully recognised?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is certainly right that that will be one benefit of motorway tolling; it will enable additional finance to be found for the widening of motorways. That will enable us to avoid some of the environmental disadvantages that will accompany increasing traffic if traffic increasingly goes off the motorways and on to historic towns and villages or other villages and towns nearby. So there is definitely an environmental benefit to be had from motorway tolling—in addition, of course, to the benefits of reducing congestion and its costs.
    Mr. Bennett: But what estimate does the Minister have of the number of people who will not be willing to pay the tolls and will divert on to existing roads instead? Is not he already aware that some people seem reluctant to pay tolls on some of the river crossings and are already putting extra burdens on existing roads? Is not this a crazy policy?
    Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the consultation document on motorway tolling, which was published last year, he will see that that was addressed fully in a chapter of its own. The point is, first, that it is important to keep the motorway tolls at a reasonable level to avoid the danger of local diversion but, secondly, that if we do not widen the motorways, diversion to local roads is likely to be much greater because of congestion on those motorways.
    Ms Eagle: But does not the Secretary of State realise that, if he imposes a tax on using motorways, people will seek to avoid it by diverting on to other roads? All that he is doing is creating even more problems for drivers and public transport policy. Surely, what he should do is to instigate proper public transport policy and persuade people to move away from using the car.
    Mr. MacGregor: We are currently spending very substantial sums on public transport. Investment is at a record level. The hon. Lady must recognise that it would not be possible to duplicate with a public transport system all the many thousands of journeys with different sources and different destination points that are undertaken each day on the motorway. That would be physically impossible. It is therefore important to improve the motorways to avoid the very dangers that she foresees of diversion on to local roads which will arise if the motorways are not effective.

    Passengers Charter
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on Network SouthEast rail services in relation to passengers charter standards.
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Network SouthEast rail services in relation to passengers charter standards.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am pleased to say that, on average over the year ending 24 June 1994, 14 of the 15 south-east commuter routes met or exceeded their passengers charter standards for punctuality and 12 met or exceeded their standards for reliability.
    Mr. Waterson: But does my right hon. Friend agree that it makes complete nonsense of attempts by management and staff to improve rail services and to benefit from increased investment in the railway system when the whole system can be brought to a halt by a small group of workers harking back to the bad old days of excessive trade union power?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that the strike does not help with improvements for passengers—or, indeed, for all customers, including freight customers —on the railways, for the very reason that my hon. Friend gives. If there are damaging and unnecessary strikes, they frighten traffic off the railway which may not come back. Such strikes can only be at the expense of investment in the railways and thus damage the interests of all those who work on the railways. So I agree with my hon. Friend. The strike is damaging and unnecessary.
    I hope that strike action will cease, because it is perfectly possible to reach a modern employment salary deal for the signalmen, as it has been possible to do for so many others. I hope that the signalmen will get on with negotiating that.
    Dr. Spink: Notwithstanding the welcome recent improvements, as reflected by the passengers charter, and also the improvements that will flow from the £100 million resignalling project and the 25 317 sliding-door trains that will be introduced at the end of next year, does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot improve services while the hard men of the left are on strike?
    Mr. MacGregor: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to his own line, the London, Tilbury and Southend line. He is right to draw attention to the improvements on that line. Those improvements have come through management and employees working together in advance of the substantial capital investment to which he referred. I repeat that I believe that the strike is damaging to the railway industry and all who work in it. It is unnecessary, because it is perfectly possible to have a good, modern employment package for the signalmen. I hope that the strike will now end.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance from the Dispatch Box that, if there were an accident on the railways in the Network SouthEast area arising out of the use of untrained signalmen, Railtrack would be fully insured against any claims for damages?
    Mr. MacGregor: Railtrack is taking all the steps necessary to ensure safety, as everyone would. Railtrack has informed the Health and Safety Executive of all the competence checks that it is applying to ensure that its legal duty on safety is met. It is for the inspectorate to ensure that that happens.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if Railtrack is allowed to make an offer similar to the 5.7 per cent. offer that was withdrawn following his intervention, that would be likely to make a majority of signalmen reflect on whether they should go back to work? If his hon. Friends are going to trot out those hoary old stories about the hard left, is not it about time that he joined the hard left and we wheeled out Mr. Solomon Binding and allowed him to negotiate freely between the two sides without the interference of the Secretary of State or some of his silly hon. Friends on the Back Benches?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear that the Government's approach to public sector pay should be followed in this case. The approach is that any productivity improvements for the future—of which there are many because there are still an awful lot of very old-fashioned practices on the railways—should be self-financing and the total cost should be met out of Railtrack's wage bill. That is the position that I have made clear. I believe that the offer that has been made is reasonable.
    The real question, which has been often asked and never answered, is whether the Labour leadership will condemn this unnecessary and damaging strike. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has said that he supports the strikers. Will the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), on behalf of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), say whether the Labour leadership condemns the unnecessary strike, which is damaging to the railways and all who work in them. Yes or no?
    Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all Conservative Members want to see improving standards of service on Network SouthEast? Is not it clear that the image of the region will suffer so long as the RMT strike continues and continues to be dominated by a handful of Marxist-Leninists, many of whom have friends on the Opposition Benches?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend on two points. First, escalating the strike to two days a week looks like a throwback to the sort of actions that we saw in the 1970s, which so damaged the industries affected. Secondly, the strike will be damaging for railwaymen because many passengers are finding alternatives means of transport and some of them will stick to them. Even worse, all that is happening at a time when we are trying to get more freight off road and on to rail, particularly with the opening of the freight terminals to the channel tunnel, a major opportunity for the railways. Having unreliable trains that do not run because of a strike is not the best way of attracting new freight on to the railways. That is why I say that the strike is damaging, unnecessary and not in the interests of railwaymen.
    Mr. Harvey: Passengers in the south-east and elsewhere have experienced disturbances for some weeks because of the dispute over productivity and pay. Does the Secretary of State agree that, given that the efforts of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to bring about a reconciliation do not appear to have succeeded, it is time for the matter to go to independent arbitration? Will he urge that on Railtrack?
    Mr. MacGregor: This is a matter for ACAS. I hope that the two sides will get together again with ACAS because I do not believe that all the issues have been

    7
    thoroughly discussed and negotiated. A modern employment package is on offer which, not least in terms of improved, much-enhanced basic pay and much-enhanced pensions, is in the interests of signalmen as well as of the railway industry.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Secretary of State give a clear and unequivocal answer to the question: is there any person working in a signal box anywhere in Britain on days of industrial action who would not be there at other times in terms of achieving the certificate of competence? Have the conditions changed in any way to accommodate the industrial action? Does he agree that if the Government were to get out of the dispute, it could be solved very quickly? Will he answer another specific question: will he allow Railtrack to restore the 5.7 per cent. offer which took account of retrospective productivity gains which it knew were fair, which the unions knew were fair, and which only the Government prevented from being delivered?
    Mr. MacGregor: I understand that Railtrack ensures that all staff operating signals are competent to do so under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Railway (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994. It is reasonable for the Government to have an approach towards public sector pay, given the substantial proportion of overall Government expenditure that is involved—more than 25 per cent. I note that the Labour party is talking about controlling public expenditure, but shies away from any steps that are taken to do so. It is reasonable for the Government to have an overall attitude to the matter, but it is for Railtrack and the RMT to negotiate. All hon. Members will have observed that, once again, those on the Opposition Front Benches are refusing to make clear their position on an unnecessary and damaging strike.

    Historic Buildings
    Mr. Alison: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the beneficial effect on historic buildings of the removal of heavy traffic from towns and villages by diverting it on to new bypasses.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): Right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House remind me ceaselessly of the benefits of bypasses, for both the buildings and the people of communities living with high levels of through traffic.
    Mr. Alison: Representing, as he does, a cathedral city, will my hon. Friend harness his natural ecclesiastical sympathies to his considerable political weight to expedite the day when Selby abbey is embellished and protected by the Selby bypass?
    Mr. Key: Yes, of course I will. Since the memorable delegation that my right hon. Friend brought to see me last year, progress has been made. The forces of nature, however, cannot be ignored and, in engineering terms, the scheme is particularly difficult. There have been problems with ground work, but I hope that compulsory purchase orders can be published in the autumn.
    Mr. Flynn: Does not the Minister realise that growth in traffic has meant that bypasses are being deserted and that traffic is going back into the historic heart of cities, poisoning the people there with an unprecedented mixture
    8
    of carcinogens, benzenes, and PM10s? All are produced and pumped out into the atmosphere. They are then held in place by a lid of barometric pressure and a windless day, and are cooked by the sunshine. We are creating a lethal cocktail for our people to breathe in and we do not yet know the results of the inquiry into what happened in December 1991. As this enormously dangerous, uncontrolled experiment is occurring in our cities every fine day, how on earth can we contemplate doubling the growth of traffic?
    Mr. Key: The answer to the second question is, easily; the answer to the first is, can the hon. Gentleman name one?
    Mr. Wolfson: Does my hon. Friend agree that when new bypasses are built or motorways widened, one of the continuing problems is that of noise? Does he support my contention that, where possible, quieter road surfaces should be used? Porous asphalt, in particular, is a positive move forward and we want much more of it.
    Mr. Key: Of course my hon. Friend is right. Noise can be an abomination and can ruin the quality of life of many people. But my hon. Friend should not rely only on porous asphalt. Technology is on our side and even better surfaces are now being developed. For example, whisper concrete is not only quieter but lasts many times as long as porous asphalt, which means that roads do not have to be dug up as often.

    Trunk Roads Review
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received concerning the publication "Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review".
    Mr. Key: We receive many representations about road improvement schemes from individuals and organisations, the majority of which express concern that it has not been possible to proceed with particular schemes as fast as people would like.
    Sir David Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern in my constituency about the removal of the Leek-Rushton bypass from the national trunk road programme? What measures does he intend to take to deal with the problem of congestion in Leek, and does he think that the project should be reinstated in the programme?
    Mr. Key: I remember very well the representations that my hon. Friend made on behalf of his constituents earlier this year—and I, too, was sorry that the Leek bypass was withdrawn on environmental and economic grounds. But the district council and the Highways Agency are meeting on 22 July to consider a package of local improvement measures for the town and I should not wish to pre-empt those discussions.

    Traffic (London)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many (a) private cars, (b) buses and (c) other vehicles are currently using London's roads; what this figure was (i) 10 and (ii) 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Norris: I am afraid that the figures that my hon. Friend wants are not readily available in the form that he requested, but, for instance, between 1972 and 1990, the number of motor vehicles crossing the cordon line around inner London in a 24-hour count rose by 16 per cent.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that more and more of my constituents are being forced on to the roads—
    Mr. Flynn: Riding horses?
    Mr. Greenway: Well, certainly Shanks's pony, and no doubt some of them would like to use horses to overcome the problems of getting to work that are posed by the strike. Is not it outrageous that they are being exploited— and constituents throughout the country are being exploited — by a group of people whose best interests would be served by their getting back to work and staying there?
    Mr. Norris: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right. His constituents will investigate other means of getting to work and some, no doubt, will continue to use them when this sorry dispute is over. It seems to me to be an absolutely classic case of how to commit industrial suicide.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Minister aware that my local authority, Camden, today issued a report showing that European Union guidelines on nitrogen dioxide and ground-level ozone have been breached consistently in the past month? What additional funds are the Government attempting to find, first, to create more bicycle lanes in my local authority and, secondly, to provide a properly integrated public transport system for London and Londoners?
    Mr. Norris: I am never greatly surprised by anything that Camden council does, but the Government acknowledge that the problems of air pollution are extremely serious. The hon. Lady should know of the extensive pattern of works and programmes that is in place to improve air quality, of which improved facilities for cyclists is an important element. She will be aware of the 1,000 mile cycleway that the Department of Transport has sponsored, which I am pleased to see boroughs taking forward. I hope that she will note that a number of Labour boroughs have seemed to be extraordinarily unwilling to introduce their 1,000 mile cycleway plans, but perhaps she will urge them to do so more quickly.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that during the years of economic growth in the 1980s the number of people commuting by car in central London fell and the number of people using public transport rose, and is not it a tragedy that in the past month and a half every single person who relies on the railway, as many of my constituents do, has been shown that the railways are unreliable and that most of the investment will be delayed by this ridiculous strike? Is not it about time that RMT-sponsored Members of Parliament started siding with the traveller and not with antiquated union agreements?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend must be entirely right. It cannot be anything other than sheer industrial lunacy to kill the basis of the industry that one hopes will provide one's future employment. That is exactly what the RMT signalmen are doing in the dispute. The sooner they understand that, the better they, and Londoners, will be.
    Mr. Raynsford: Why was the Minister so coy about revealing the figures? Does he accept that, over the past 20 years, there has been a dramatic increase in the volume of traffic involving private cars and lorries coming into London and, simultaneously, a drastic and very serious decline in the use of London's buses? Does he recognise that that is the path to disaster in London? Until the Government understand the lesson and change their policy, all that Londoners will have on offer is a nightmare of increasing congestion, pollution and traffic chaos.
    Mr. Norris: I am delighted to say that, as London has had a Conservative Government for most of the past 20 years, economic activity has increased substantially and the amount of traffic has increased with it. However, the hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. The number of passenger journeys on London's buses increased by 8 per cent. between 1982 and 1992.
    Mr. Jessel: Given the enormous importance of both bus and car traffic in London, will my hon. Friend send for papers from Kingston council about its intention to close Kingston bridge for repairs for an entire year? That will cause enormous disruption as there will then be a six-mile stretch of the Thames within Greater London without any road bridge.
    Mr. Norris: I understand my hon. Friend's quite proper concern about Kingston bridge, which is in his constituency. I hope that he will appreciate that it is not a bridge for which I have direct responsibility. However, if my hon. Friend would care to discuss the matter with me, I will certainly do what I can to assist.

    Pollution
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action is he taking to reduce the level of pollution caused by motor traffic.
    Mr. MacGregor: As a result of improvements to vehicle standards, the MOT emission check and the planned real increase in fuel duty, pollution from motor traffic is falling and will continue to do so until well into the next decade. We continue to be concerned about this problem, are undertaking further research and would be ready to take further action when appropriate.
    Mr. Denham: When 1 million asthma sufferers are at risk from air pollution, will not the Minister's words strike everyone as a sign of complete complacency? Are not even his smallest priorities wrong? Is not he embarrassed by the contrast between the ludicrous amount of energy that has been spent on the ridiculous cones hotline and the difficulty that people have in reporting polluting vehicles to the authorities? Is he aware that my constituents are told that they must ring Bristol at their own expense, that no one has ever been prosecuted as a result of a telephone call to the unit in Bristol and that none of the police forces have the portable devices necessary to test and then prosecute grossly polluting vehicles?
    Mr. MacGregor: On the last point, we are specifically carrying out research to discover what can be done to achieve a fully effective system, as there is not yet one. However, the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong about complacency. A substantial number of actions have been taken in the past three years, some of which I have listed,

    11
    and the introduction of catalytic converters will reduced harmful emissions by more than 75 per cent. It is important that such actions are taken at European Union level, not least because continental sources account for roughly half ground-level ozone concentrations in the southern part of Britain. That is why we are pursuing the matter at that level, why further measures are being taken in the Council of Ministers and why I am always ready, because I very much share the concern about the problem, to consider other action which could be taken.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that while all those measures are good, if traffic is stationary in one place for a long time, there is a build-up of pollution? May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the village of Tolpuddle yesterday held the annual commemoration of the Tolpuddle martyrs? The traffic jams consequent upon that were horrendous. However, for 364 other days of the year, my constituents suffer from the same problem. Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Minister for Roads and Traffic to ensure that the Tolpuddle bypass is moved up the list as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, we have drawn up a list of priorities for bypasses, and he is right to draw attention to their importance. Traffic that is either not moving or is moving very slowly pollutes the atmosphere much more than normal moving traffic. That is why it is so extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats have committed themselves to removing 41 major motorway improvements, which is bound to have considerable environmental disadvantages, not least in respect of the atmosphere. The many traffic calming measures and other measures that we are introducing, in particular the red routes in London, are designed to make a contribution to improving the situation. We have to take a series of steps, and those are just some of them.
    Ms Walley: Rather than going it alone, why will the Secretary of State not say that it is important that he should work with the Departments of Health and of the Environment? It is impossible to do anything about the problem of pollution if he is not prepared, with his colleagues, to set standards for, and to monitor, air quality. Is not it the right hon. Gentleman's roads programme which is at fault? Is not the real problem that it is generating more traffic?
    Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Lady that we co-operate in working on those issues and in working on planning policy guidance note 13 to find solutions. I beg the hon. Lady to understand that the roads programme has an important contribution to make to our economic competitiveness, which is the other important part of it, as well as to enabling the many millions of our citizens who want to use their cars more to do so. The programme is important because unsatisfactory roads which cause great congestion and act almost as car parks with cars ticking over pollute the atmosphere much more than roads on which traffic moves freely.

    Roads Budget
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what fraction of his Department's annual budget is spent on roads; and what fraction of journeys in Britain every year is made by road.
    Mr. MacGregor: Over the past three years, just under half of my Department's total budget was spent on roads. Given that nearly 90 per cent. of all journeys nationally are by road, that demonstrates how my Department's expenditure is skewed relatively towards public transport.
    Mr. Merchant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever some people might pretend, his figures powerfully demonstrate the extent to which his budget is deliberately accentuated to encourage public transport rather than private transport? Should not my right hon. Friend be strongly congratulated on achieving that success?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That success shows in the many large public transport projects that we are currently undertaking, and it shows also in the figures. Planned investment in public transport remains at historically high levels and it will involve expenditure of not far short of £6 billion over the next three years.
    Mr. Tony Banks: When will the Secretary of State accept that the more money he spends on roads, the more people will use private vehicles and the more congestion and pollution there will be? At the moment, Londoners are choking to death. Hospitals are inundated with people with respiratory diseases and the Government are doing nothing about it—they are stunningly complacent. When will the Secretary of State take action? For example, on days when pollution reaches danger levels, he should ban the use of private vehicles in central London and he should also start doing something about engines that pollute London. Is he aware that, while he is stunningly complacent, people are choking to death on the streets of London?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have already explained that we are taking a considerable number of measures. As the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the potential measures that we are looking at is congestion charging in London, on which we are doing probably the biggest piece of international research that has ever been done. I notice that the hon. Gentleman is committed to banning vehicles on the roads in central London. I do not believe that that is what the vast majority of people want.
    Mr. Sumberg: May I tell my right hon. Friend of the widespread concern in my constituency at the way in which his budget is being spent on the M62 relief road? He has now acquired a number of houses in my constituency. Many of them are empty and many are in disrepair. There is widespread concern among my constituents about who will take tenancy of those properties. Will my right hon. Friend urgently look at the management that is undertaken by the Highways Agency so that we can put a decent, sensible system into operation?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is currently doing just that.
    Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State has acknowledged that this year he is spending more than £2 billion of taxpayers' money on building new roads. Could he change his priorities and allow Railtrack to spend £5 million on settling the signalling staff's dispute? Is not that what it would have done with its offer of 5.7 per cent. if the Secretary of State had not intervened and stopped the payment?
    If the right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot take the money from the roads programme, would he consider

    13
    diverting it from his privatisation programme? He is pouring £5 million into the pockets of one firm of City lawyers which is to advise him on privatisation. Does not he think that most passengers would consider the money better spent on the signalling staff?
    Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the money that we are spending on our rail reforms will ensure a much better railway for the future. The intention is to attract more passengers and freight on to rail. That is why I am concerned about the current strike: at the very moment when we can attract more freight on to rail, it is discouraging people and companies. I note that the hon. Gentleman still refuses to condemn this thoroughly unnecessary strike.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Sykes: To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to improve the effectiveness of the Serious Fraud Office.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Since 1988, the Serious Fraud Office has made a real contribution to the investigation and prosecution of serious fraud. A number of detailed recommendations of the recent review have already been implemented; others are in hand, and others are being studied.
    Mr. Sykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the fraud police are doing an excellent job, and that eight times out of 10 they get their man? [Interruption.] Will Opposition Members please stop gibbering? One might as well go to London zoo. Would not joint vetting further improve those tremendous statistics?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Serious Fraud Office has a commendable record in achieving convictions in the cases that it brings to trial; in more than 80 per cent. of cases, the principal architect of the fraud has been brought to justice.
    My hon. Friend is also right to mention joint vetting between the Serious Fraud Office and the fraud investigation group of the Crown Prosecution Service. They are getting together to decide which case should go to which body, starting next week. I commend that move.
    Mr. John Morris: Is the effectiveness of prosecutions likely to be enhanced or diminished by the departure from office of the Attorney-General's Parliamentary Private Secretary? Will he give a categorical assurance that he was not approached by his ex-PPS as an intermediary in the case of Mr. Charrington and that the Paymaster General —who is responsible for Customs—was not approached either? Will the Attorney-General clear the air in regard to why his PPS has departed and, I understand, is not to be replaced?
    The Attorney-General: I am surprised that the shadow Attorney-General should concentrate on such a matter.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many are not as happy as some commentators about the work of the Serious Fraud Office?
    14
    Does he accept that many believe that serious fraud should be tried not by juries but by technical assessors, as recommended by the Roskill report?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has expressed a view which is supported by a number of people. At present, I do not share that view; over the past 13 years, during which I have considered the matter carefully., the principal difficulties have tended to arise from the need to arrange an effectively mounted prosecution and to ensure that judges with the difficult and onerous task of trying the cases are properly trained and have the right background.
    Mr. John Morris: Is the Attorney-General unable to give the categorical assurance for which I asked, or is he just plain insolent?
    The Attorney-General: I am perfectly able to do so, but it does not really arise from the question.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is not it a fact that the Customs and Excise prosecuting authority is fiercely independent and is not swayed by anything that any Member of Parliament may ask, or not ask, of its favour? It is sometimes influenced by the advice that it gets from the Attorney-General, but it is always fiercely independent in making its decisions.
    The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has already received answers to his questions. If he would only refer back to them, he would not bother to ask them again.

    War Crimes
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress of beginning prosecution proceedings in the United Kingdom against those held responsible for Nazi war crimes.
    The Attorney-General: The Metropolitan police war crimes unit is continuing to investigate about 28 cases and has submitted interim reports to the Crown Prosecution Service in 10 of those. Police inquiries are not yet complete and no decisions can be taken about prosecutions until they are.
    Mr. Winnick: Is not there all the difference between what may happen in the heat of battle, as in the Falklands war in hand-to-hand fighting—although I do not condone anything improper that might have occurred, even then —and the systematic, cold-blooded murder of men, women and children, as was the case with the Nazi war crimes? What sort of message would go out to those committing such crimes, be it in Rwanda or Bosnia, if those who had committed the most terrible crimes against humanity were not brought to justice simply because of the delay of time? They should not have come to Britain in the first place, but if they have come to Britain and there is evidence against them, should not they be tried, regardless of time?
    The Attorney-General: The House made its views on this matter clear when the War Crimes Bill came before it. That Bill has passed into law and the police are properly carrying out the investigations and will, in due course, make their report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The matter will then be considered in accordance with the law.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that if there are allegations against anyone resident in this country who may have participated in heinous crimes in concentration camps on the continent during the last war, the public believe that those people should be investigated and prosecuted, if necessary?
    The Attorney-General: The point that my hon. Friend is making tallies well with the investigations that are being carried out.

    May Inquiry
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of Sir John May's inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich case; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The total reported costs at 7 July 1994 were £2,150,000.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Solicitor-General satisfied that more than £2 million of taxpayers' money was used on Sir John May's inquiry, which had no power to subpoena witnesses or to call documents and yet absolved from blame all those involved with miscarriage of justice, except those people cleared by the Court of Appeal? Does not he know a cheaper source of whitewash?
    The Solicitor-General: Opposition Members were quick to adopt Sir John May's findings in the Maguire inquiry when it suited their book. Now that it does not, they sing a different tune.

    War Crimes
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to bring prosecutions under the War Crimes Act 1991.
    The Attorney-General: I refer my hon. Friend to my reply a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
    Mr. Townsend: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that more than £8 million has been set aside for war crime prosecutions this year, but none for next year? How is evidence to be obtained from foreign countries concerning alleged events that took place more than 50 years ago? Will he take a close look at what happened in Australia, Canada and Israel, where they went down a similar path and ran into serious trouble?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is right—£8 million had been provisionally set aside in the event that prosecutions took place this year. I well understand my hon. Friend's views on the matter. It is difficult to investigate events that took place 50 years ago. That is why it has to be done carefully and scrupulously, as I assure my hon. Friend is being done.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister accept that time can in no way discharge the heinousness of the crimes that were perpetrated by some of the Nazis against a large of number of people, including Jews? Under the circumstances, £8 million is money well worth spending.
    The Attorney-General: I entirely accept the first part of what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, the investigation has to be able clearly to establish what did or
    16
    did not happen 50 years ago so that the question whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction of any person can be properly evaluated.

    Matrix Churchill
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received in the last month on the prosecution decisions which were taken in relation to Matrix Churchill.
    The Attorney General: I have received no such representations.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Attorney-General aware that, as a result of his questionable involvement in the decisions relating to the prosecutions of Matrix Churchill, 600 people working for that company lost their jobs? Before he perhaps loses his job in the next few days, would not it be right for him to say that his involvement in that incident was regrettable and to apologise to those workers?
    The Attorney-General: No. If the hon. Gentleman, who is a lawyer himself, does the subject justice and takes the trouble to read and think carefully about my part and the part of others, he will realise that it was done carefully and with complete integrity, in accordance with the law as it was understood at the time.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Non-governmental Organisations
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs what plans he has to provide further assistance to British non-governmental organisations working to assist development.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The 14 per cent. increase for the joint funding scheme and 8 per cent. for the volunteer sending programme for 1994–95 are very significant increases at present.
    Mr. Rowe: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but can he give the House an assurance that the tragedy, and the urgent requirements, of the refugees flooding into Zaire from Rwanda are being carefully considered by his Department and that action will be taken to make it as easy as possible for NGOs to get every possible assistance as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know that non-governmental organisations will be assisting. At present, there are three aircraft. Two aircraft are on their way—one to Entebbe and the other to Nairobi. The first is the largest and will be unloaded in Entebbe; the second will arrive in Nairobi and wait for clearance to travel to Goma. A third aircraft is leaving tomorrow. Those aircraft are taking emergency humanitarian relief items which have been sent as a result of the assessment that was made, before the weekend's television pictures, by the ODA mission which, only last week, visited the area, including the particular spot where so many of the refugees are.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister will be aware that the non-governmental organisations are clear in their message: not only in Zaire but in Uganda and Tanzania,

    17
    there is a need for significant extra help to deal with what is not simply the immediate crisis of refugees fleeing from Rwanda but what is likely to be the long and medium-term duty to look after them—certainly in the indefinite future. Given that the Government have made special additional allocations in the past when there has been a particular crisis in another part of the world, can the Minister undertake to the House that that is under active consideration and that, if necessary, such money will be forthcoming from the British Government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We certainly remain ready to do more. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, since the crisis began, £11 million has been committed bilaterally for refugees and displaced people in the area. The assistance being delivered by the three aircraft to which I just referred, which is worth some £2 million, is additional to that.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that the extra resources given to non-governmental organisations is money well spent, especially bearing in mind that the non-governmental organisations have specialised knowledge, such as I saw in their family planning programmes in Malawi?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is right. Non-governmental organisations generally react swiftly, are flexible and can get into remote areas more quickly than anyone else. It is for that reason that over the past three years we have doubled our overall funding to non-governmental organisations from £65 million to £150 million a year.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister focus on the fact that there are now perhaps 1 million or more refugees from Rwanda in Goma in eastern Zaire? Is he aware that representatives of British aid agencies today described the situation there as "wall-to-wall bodies", and that the emergency facing the region is on a scale unlike anything ever seen, even in Africa? What has the Minister done to implement UN decisions on humanitarian relief for Rwanda and on other measures to assist aid agencies in the distribution of vital emergency relief? Does the Minister recognise that hundreds of thousands of people are in real danger in Goma and elsewhere, and that humanitarian intervention on a massive scale is now absolutely necessary?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, we have responded and continue to do so. As I said in my earlier answers, ODA officials were there only last week. They assessed what we could do immediately, and we are doing it. Goma airport is still closed, but we hope that it will be open tomorrow so that the second aircraft which I mentioned can land there, and the third aircraft can land on Wednesday.

    World Population Conference
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the status of planning for the world population conference to be held in Cairo in September.
    Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on preparations for the United Nations international conference on population and development.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Planning for the international conference on population and development is well advanced. My right hon. and noble Friend will lead the British delegation.
    Dr. Twinn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that additional resources will be made available by the Government to help implement what we hope will be the important outcome of this conference?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, we very much hope that in the next two years—we have a planning figure in mind—we will spend some £100 million on family planning. That will be a 60 per cent. increase over current spending, which is already high and has increased every year since 1991. It will be vital for more to be spent in that sector following the conference.
    Mr. Ottaway: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on the huge increase in funding which was announced last week by Baroness Chalker in what I believe to have been a significant speech. Will my hon. Friend reject any criticism of the increase, and can he tell us what are the prospects of some of our European partners matching the increase in funding before the Cairo summit?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Every second, almost three babies are born into the world and I very much agree with the impact of my hon. Friend's argument. We will certainly press all our European Union colleagues, and those responsible for the Commission's aid programme generally, to increase spending in that sector. We believe that the conference comes at a most critical junction, and it may well determine, through action and policy, whether the population of the world doubles or trebles in the next century. If we do the right things, it will only double.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister accept congratulations on the positive response that the Government have shown with regard to this important issue? In respect of the conference in September, will he attempt to get his officials briefed so that they are not misguided by the propaganda emanating from certain quarters to the effect that it is now the feminist position in the third world that women want to continue having more and more babies? That must be absolute nonsense and part of some religious propaganda organisation. It is in the interests of the whole population of the planet that population control is widespread.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is most certainly in the interests of us all, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is particularly in the interests of many women and their partners in the third world. Over half of the couples in the world practise family planning now, but we believe that at least 100 million families who would like to plan their families do not have access to family planning advice and services.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Given that the population of East Timor has already been eradicated by one third due to the action of the Indonesian Government, may I ask the Minister immediately to investigate the atrocities in East Timor last week, when a further four people were killed and 74 imprisoned—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question concerns world population and the conference, and is not about atrocities. As interesting as her question may be, I fear that the hon. Lady is way off the beam on both points.

    Uganda
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with the President of Uganda concerning assistance to that country.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Both my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Overseas Development had discussions with President Museveni during his recent visit.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the good record of economic growth in Uganda since President Museveni took power illustrates the advantages of good government in generating benefits for the entire population of such countries and the sense of tying our own overseas aid policy to that principle?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is quite right: Uganda has been a good story in recent years. British bilateral aid stands at about £34 million a year and has remained at that level in recent years. There is a great deal of approval of Uganda's economic policies, which have led to economic growth of about 5 per cent. a year since 1987. Tomorrow, at the World bank's consultative meeting in Paris, we shall announce a new pledge of some £20 million of balance of payments support for the current year.

    Self-help
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent aid programmes are focused on self-help.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The underlying objective of the whole aid programme is to build on and to promote self-help.
    Mr. Arnold: Is not one of the greatest problems facing our overseas development programme the fact that it runs the danger of developing a complete reliance on what I would call the begging bowl mentality? Is not it important for our own overseas aid programme to concentrate on projects that allow self-help and thereby allow people to earn money and self-respect?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Self-help is central to the whole aid programme. I must tell my hon. Friend that most poor people in developing countries are extremely self-reliant. Our aid programme tries to help village and neighbourhood committees to look after water supplies, to maintain drains, to run kindergartens and to do other similar things. My hon. Friend might like to consider that when we spend between 80 and 85 per cent. of our bilateral aid in low-income countries, that is, of course, helping the poor to help themselves.

Social Housing
3.31 pm
The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for reform of the homeless legislation in England and Wales.
On 20 January, we issued a consultation paper with proposals to reform the homeless legislation so that, in future, there would be a single route for everyone seeking a secure or assured tenancy in local authority or housing association accommodation. My right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Wales issued a similar consultation paper at the same time.
Our main objectives in bringing forward the proposals were to enable local authorities to operate fairer allocation policies, while maintaining an effective safety net for families and vulnerable people who become homeless through no fault of their own. Nothing in the responses to the consultation paper challenges the logic of those objectives.
The present notion that households accepted by local authorities as homeless must be given "permanent accommodation" was not envisaged when the present statutory duty was created in 1977. It has grown up through case law, requiring long-term, settled accommodation. There is no reason why a household in suitable accommodation should be given a secure or assured tenancy for life merely because at some stage it has been accepted as statutorily homeless. That approach is not fair to people on the housing waiting list.
Our consultation paper attracted some 10,000 responses. I am arranging for a list of respondents to be placed in the Library of the House and copies of the responses themselves will be available for public inspection in my Department's library. A summary of what we intend to do in the light of the consultation, and a copy of my statement, have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.
Many of the responses did not address the actual proposals, but responded to misleading claims by lobby organisations. Others wrote in about hypothetical effects of our policy. As I made clear to the House on 26 January, it is not and never has been our intention that families and other vulnerable people should be left to live on the streets or in unsatisfactory accommodation—as some of the more alarmist propaganda from our opponents has suggested.
The consultation paper set out 10 main proposals, many of which were welcomed by those who commented on them. A number of local authorities said that their present practice in relation to homelessness was not far from what the Government were proposing. Indeed, while there was much pleading for the status quo from vested interests, they offered no real answer to the main flaw in the current legislation—that those who apply for assistance as homeless gain priority in the queue for local authority tenancies at the expense of others who have comparable underlying housing needs.
We have taken careful account of those responses to the consultation paper that made substantive comments on our proposals. Part of our intention had been to give greater discretion to local authorities in the accommodation of homeless households, but many respondents asserted that that would place too great a responsibility on individual
22
authorities. Accordingly, we concluded that we should modify the proposals in the consultation paper to reinforce the safety net for vulnerable homeless people.
We therefore decided that a local housing authority's new duty towards a household in need of assistance should start, as it does now, when an authority has reason to believe that someone may be homeless and in priority need, prior to assessment of the household's circumstances.
The consultation paper invited views about how long the duty to secure accommodation should last. We have concluded that local authorities' new duty should be to secure accommodation for a minimum period of a year for applicants and their households in priority need who have no suitable accommodation available to occupy, provided that the situation has arisen unintentionally.
Some households may be able to remain in the accommodation indefinitely—for instance, if they obtain an assured shorthold tenancy that is renewed. Others may find themselves accommodation on their own initiative; and it is right that people should be encouraged to take responsibility for their own housing where they can.
Also, in most parts of the country a 12-month period on the housing waiting list will be long enough for someone with real housing needs to obtain a local authority or housing association tenancy. However, if the household continues to need assistance, the duty will recur, subject to a review of the applicant's circumstances. Such a review would be needed within two years.
The consultation paper proposed that a local authority would not have a duty to provide assistance to a person who has any form of accommodation available. The Government recognise the good work of women's refuges and other short-stay, direct-access, hostel-type accommodation. We do not want that type of accommodation to silt up through lack of move-on accommodation. Accordingly, we have concluded that local authorities' duty to secure accommodation should extend to people in refuges, direct-access hostels and other short-stay places such as bed-and-breakfast hotels.
The consultation paper proposed that someone who was asked to leave by family or friends should no longer be automatically entitled to assistance. We have considered a number of ways of implementing that proposal, and have concluded that the best approach may be to modify current provisions on intentionality so that they can take proper account of why accommodation is being withdrawn. That should minimise the scope for abuse. We shall also tighten the code of guidance to urge authorities to investigate such applications more thoroughly than many have done in the past.
A number of respondents expressed concern that the consultation paper made little reference to care in the community or Children Act responsibilities. That was because our proposals are fully consistent with authorities' responsibilities under community care legislation and the Children Act. We remain committed to ensuring that suitable housing continues to be available for vulnerable people who cannot be expected to make their own arrangements.
I confirm the proposition in the consultation paper that people who are granted entry to the United Kingdom on the understanding that they will have no recourse to public funds should not be entitled to assistance under the new legislation. We also intend to implement the proposal that local authorities should be required to have their own

23
appeals mechanisms for handling disputes. As the consultation paper says, we do not propose to disturb the current principles for deciding which local authority is responsible for someone seeking accommodation.
The Government intend to proceed with their principal proposal that, for new applicants, local authorities should only allocate secure tenancies in their own stock and the nominations that they make to housing association assured tenancies through a waiting list. Local authorities will have discretion over the allocation policies that they use to determine people's position on the list within the bounds set out in legislation. I emphasise that the proposed new system would allocate tenancies to those people in housing need more fairly than the present arrangements.
However, it has never been our intention that the Government should be involved in the details of allocation policy. Regulations would prescribe only minimum provisions—for example, to outlaw discriminatory practices, such as requiring a five-year minimum residence qualification.
We shall be inviting the Housing Corporation to take account of the new duties on local authorities in the statutory guidance that it issues to housing associations, so that it can continue to work in an effective partnership with local authorities.
The proposal to encourage local authorities and housing associations to establish joint waiting lists was largely welcomed, although housing associations especially were keen that that should be voluntary, and the Government are happy to give reassurance on that matter.
Many of the Government's proposals will require primary legislation, and we intend to introduce that when parliamentary time permits; as is currently the case, the legislation will extend to both England and Wales. In the meantime, we are considering what administrative action might be taken to further our objectives.
We intend to proceed with our plans to improve the fairness of local authorities' allocation policies, while at the same time maintaining a safety net for families and vulnerable people who become homeless. I commend our reforms to the House.
Mr. John Battle: Does the Minister not understand that that is an unworthy, mean-spirited statement, whose intention is still to change primary statutory homeless legislation, "as soon as parliamentary time admits"? The statement represents an attack on the basic rights to housing provision that not even Mrs. Thatcher, as Prime Minister, was prepared to contemplate. Does the Minister not understand that the policy will further scapegoat the homeless, that it will not provide a single new home for anyone, and that it will waste millions of pounds of public money?
Will the Minister now confirm—contrary to his claims about the lack of flexibility of the current provisions—that, as his Department made clear in 1989, the homeless with children have no automatic right to housing at present?
Does not the Minister understand that, under the current legislation, a council's task is to assess people's needs and then, if satisfied that they genuinely need accommodation, to help them secure it, and that under the present regulations, that can be in council, housing association or private rented stock?
24
Does the Minister also recall that a thorough review of homelessness legislation was held between 1988 and late 1989, under Mrs. Thatcher as Prime Minister, and Nicholas Ridley and Chris Patten as Secretaries of State? Was not Chris Patten correct to conclude that the present Act remains important and strikes
"a reasonable balance between the interests of the genuinely homeless and others in housing need"?
He said:
"We do not intend therefore to change the law".—[Official Report, 15 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 243]
Is the Minister aware that, throughout the months of the new review, he was unable to produce a shred of evidence to show what has changed since that Ridley and Patten review? Where is the detailed evidence to back up the logic of his objectives, which he claims remain unchallenged? Which council or voluntary organisation ever called for that review, apart from Westminster and Wandsworth—and we know about their strategic housing objectives? Which organisation fully supports the consultative document? How many of those 10,000 respondents were in favour of, and welcomed, all his consultative proposals?
Will the Minister confirm that even the Secretary of State for the Environment's local Tory council, Suffolk Coastal, says that his January proposals were totally unworkable? Will the Minister now say a little bit more to the House about the costs and consequences of the new policy? When can we expect to see the primary legislation which he claims many of his proposals need? When will it be brought before the House? When will he confirm to the House that housing the homeless in private rented accommodation is often twice as costly to public funds as council or housing association accommodation—sometimes four times as costly?
How can the right hon. Gentleman square the idea of a six-month private assured shorthold tenancy with the new minimum period of one year that he has announced this afternoon? Will landlords now be forced to give extensions after the six-month period? Was not the whole point of the Housing Act 1988 to introduce a six-month assured shorthold tenancy that people would not have the right to extend? What will happen to people at the end of the one-year period that he has announced?
Why is the right hon. Gentleman placing blind ideological dogma above practical common sense and value for money? Does he not understand that, if councils were simply able to lease empty homes, many more on the housing waiting lists throughout the country could be housed and at a lower cost to the Exchequer than at present?
How much more could be done if councils were allowed to spend their capital receipts—a policy that this Minister used to espouse from the Dispatch Box? Why does not he have the guts to admit that this whole tawdry exercise has nothing to do with housing need and everything to do with the "back to basics" fiasco of last October's Tory party conference?
After all these months, what are we left with but a ragbag of proposals with legislative details yet to come? Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that even his fellow Ministers have been appalled by his approach? Does he not remember the words of his hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who said that he had not yet met a single mother who had deliberately become pregnant to gain housing or financial advantage?

25
When Chris Patten explicitly rejected the Minister's approach, was he not right to tell the House that the real and long-term remedies for the levels of homelessness
"are to be found in an effective housing strategy, based on the contributions of the private and public sectors".—[Official Report, 15 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 244.]
Does not the Minister realise that it is his abject failure to secure such a strategy that lies behind the worst housing crisis this country has seen for decades, with the numbers of homeless having doubled since 1979, 850 families thrown on to the streets each week through repossessions, half a million building workers on the dole and a complete collapse in the council house building programme?
The policies announced today will only add to human misery and make that crisis worse. Instead of manipulating waiting lists, would it not be more positive to get back to building homes to rent for people who so desperately need them?
Sir George Young: On what the hon. Gentleman calls the "blind ideological dogma" behind my announcement, I remind him of what the chairman of the Labour party said on that very subject:
"We need to transform the housing service so we have more appropriate housing readily available and a housing waiting list structure that positively rewards those who have tried their best to take responsibility and have some order in their lives."
Referring to people in his constituency, he said:
"People there are not fools. If you cannot get a house by waiting on the list, you present the maximum number of reasons why you should receive priority. That is not encouraging people to accept responsibility in their own lives and society."
That was the chairman of the Labour party, and I endorse those proposals.
On the fundamental logic behind our proposals, I also remind the hon. Gentleman what was said in a leader in The Guardian:
"Who should have priority: a 'registered' homeless family in temporary but comfortable accommodation—or an `unregistered' homeless family stuck in two cramped rooms in the home of a relative? Under present procedures the first has priority even when the second has more urgent housing needs … the housing minister believes the criteria should be changed so that the individual needs of all families on the two separate routes to a rented home … are weighed against each other. In principle he is right."
As for those supporting the proposals, many London boroughs—the London Boroughs Association at the time—supported our proposals.
The costs were set out in the consultation document. We estimated that they would be broadly neutral, though of course it will depend on when legislation is introduced and how it is interpreted.
On primary legislation, the House will understand that I cannot anticipate what would be in the Queen's Speech.
More people are moving off waiting lists now than when the present Administration came in.
Homeless acceptances, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, have fallen year on year for each of the past eight quarters. There have been some 41 per cent. fewer people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation over the past year. So I entirely reject what the hon. Gentleman said about the Government's housing record and urge him to reconsider his rather hasty condemnation of the principles behind what the Government propose.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I want us now to proceed with brisk questions and answers. A number of hon. Members are seeking to be called. If hon. Members continue to make
26
statements instead of asking questions, and if they do not receive direct answers, many hon. Members will be disappointed.
Mr. Charles Hendry: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on listening to many of the more reasonable responses that came forward to the consultation document. Does he agree that nobody will benefit more from the statement than those single parents who are currently staying in rooms in cramped conditions—
Hon. Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question, if the House would listen.
Mr. Hendry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nobody will benefit more than those single parents who are currently living in cramped conditions in their parents' home, but find that they cannot make progress up the waiting list, because people are always jumping to the top of the queue? Will not his statement today give them a fairer crack at getting a house of their own?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Going through the representations that were made on the consultation paper, I was struck by the lack of priority that many people gave to those who are on the waiting list, living in difficult conditions—often in worse conditions than those who had been accepted as homeless and placed in temporary accommodation. It certainly is the case that the people to whom my hon. Friend referred stand to gain from the changes that we now propose.
Mr. David Rendel: Does the Minister agree that the basic lack of affordable rented accommodation, which his proposals do nothing to address, means that putting people into short-term rented accommodation is simply introducing a new form of homelessness that we have not seen before—recycled homelessness?
Sir George Young: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman what his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said when the subject was raised during a debate organised by Roof magazine:
"It is an unacceptable position that a first-time tenant, whether a conventional two-children married family, a single mum with three children, or single person with mental illness, goes necessarily and obviously into what may in many cases be brand new housing stock, when over the other side of the road are people who have been overcrowded for 30 years, paid their rent on time and cannot be moved."
I support what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said. Our proposals will put that injustice right.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept that one thing that his statement will do is ensure that my constituents in east Devon, who support his policy —it has nothing to do with London—will see that young couples who have been waiting to get on to a housing list, who will not get married or have children until they are housed, will now be able to have their housing need taken into account and not be permanently pushed down by people coming into my constituency, which is very popular because it is a seaside constituency, and all the local people are suffering?
Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend speaks for many people who wait patiently on the waiting lists and are

27
exasperated by the way in which the present position is abused in the way that he described. There will be much broad support for the principles behind the new legislation.
Mr. Peter Shore: Is the Minister not aware that his proposals, so far as they affect the housing stress areas in the inner cities, will be greeted almost with incredulity? In boroughs that already have thousands of families who are homeless, and thousands of families who are living in disgusting, overcrowded conditions, what those families want is not a shift in priorities between one category of need and another, but more rented housing at rents that they can afford. Will the Minister tell the House what he will do about those wretched families when their one year of temporary accommodation comes to an end?
Sir George Young: The right hon. Gentleman's local authority was one of those which supported the Government's proposals. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman's local authority supported the proposals, and it was elected by local people. [Interruption.] There is no point in the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) shouting at me like that. A democratically elected local authority, speaking on behalf of people in Tower Hamlets, supported the proposals.
As for the increase in new accommodation, we made a commitment at the most recent general election to provide 153,000 new homes through housing associations. We are exceeding that by 25,000, producing 178,000 new homes over that period.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I warmly welcome the proposals, particularly those about women's refuges, which will mean that the women there will not have to occupy them permanently, but will be assisted in finding somewhere else to live? Does he further accept that it is extremely unkind to young mothers to put them in a home of their own with no support, and not knowing how to look after a baby or a house? It is far better to put them in other sorts of accommodation and not in council housing.
Sir George Young: I am impressed by the good work done by women's refuges. That is why we modified the proposals that were originally sent out. My hon. Friend is right. Some young mothers aged 17 or 18, who already have to cope with bringing up a child, would not respond readily to the responsibilities that go with a local authority tenancy. It is often in their interests to put them in a hostel with other people in a similar position, with access to mature support from other adults before they take on a tenancy of their own. There is a role for hostels in exactly the circumstances that my hon. Friend has outlined.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is not the Minister's statement good news for the manufacturers of cardboard boxes? Is it not a fact that the Government are setting up a conflict between those on waiting lists and those who are involuntarily homeless? Is it not a fact that the Government are strengthening the opportunities for victimisation of the homeless by exploitative landlords, who are already becoming millionaires because of the Government's policies?
Is this not a policy of people who do not care about human beings, about need or about poverty? Is it not a fact
28
that the problem comes about because of the abolition of the local authority housing programme and the fact that the housing association programme is only a fraction of it? The policy is typical of the attitude of the Government, and the sooner they get out the better.
Sir George Young: That is absolute nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman should know that many local authorities, many of them Labour-controlled, have a much more enlightened approach to the role of the private rented sector in their area. They are developing constructive partnerships to make sure that good-quality private rented accommodation is available to those who are homeless. They are developing rent deposit schemes and rent guarantee schemes and they are fast-tracking housing benefit.
I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view that everything that is publicly owned is good and everything that is privately owned is bad. There is much good-quality privately owned accommodation of which we should make better use, and much publicly owned accommodation that is a disgrace.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has earned the congratulations and thanks of the British taxpayers, who are fed up with forking out for foreigners who come here and obtain free accommodation, particularly in our cities? Many people who see the neighbours chucking out their teenagers so that they can get their children's accommodation paid for on the rates will think highly of the Government's proposals to make those teenagers think again and stay at home.
Will he explain that the legislation will strengthen the hands of councils, which can often find alternative accommodation outside their immediate area for people who seek accommodation, but cannot insist that people take the houses which are available? In all those ways, he will bring down the artificially inflated numbers on the housing lists and please the great majority of the British public who have to fork out for these things.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The homeless persons legislation was never meant to provide permanent accommodation for those who visit this country temporarily. As for local authorities' scope to use accommodation outside their boroughs, I hope that the local authorities will try to rehouse people in the area in which they live rather than place them outside. I recognise that in some boroughs that may not always be possible, but wherever the surplus accommodation is, we must make better use of it. We must make better use of the half-million empty properties, many of which could be used for those in housing need.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is the Minister aware that last week my local authority had a debate on housing, and that Liberal Democrat councillors tabled a resolution on homeless people in Blyth Valley? In the past few years, homelessness there has trebled and the lack of housing has serious consequences for the borough.
The resolution asks me, as the Member of Parliament, to ask the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction when he will release capital receipts so that Blyth Valley and other authorities can build council houses for single people, and so that those people do not have to run around under the Rachmanism and profiteering of landlords?
Sir George Young: As I explained, there has been a downward trend in homeless acceptances in the past eight quarters, and, by and large, acceptances are decreasing. I am surprised to hear that they have increased so sharply in Blyth Valley. Capital receipts are a familiar subject of debate between the Government and Opposition. In a nutshell, capital receipts do not always arise in areas of greatest housing need. Our policy allows us to recycle the receipts away from areas that often have them to those areas that do not, simply because that achieves the better use and targeting of available resources.
Mr. Den Dover: Following the Minister's consultation paper, can we have common waiting lists, with local authority and housing association tenants joining the one list?
Sir George Young: There was widespread support for the proposal that there should be common waiting lists, which would mean that people in housing need would not have to register with a local authority and all the housing associations in the area. We propose to make progress with that proposition, which has been widely welcomed.
Mr. Clive Soley: Why does not the Minister admit that the only reason for today's miserable statement is the collapse in affordable rented accommodation in both the public and private sectors? Since 1979, the figure has dropped by 2 million properties, yet at that time the Government dismissed such talk as "alarmist"—a word that the right hon. Gentleman used again today. Will he tell us who the alarmists are this time by putting the names of organisations that support his proposals in the House of Commons Library? Will he be judged by that, as his predecessors were, because in the past the alarmists have always been right?
Sir George Young: On being alarmist, the hon. Gentleman has perhaps read some of the literature put out by Shelter which states that our proposals would result in
"families with small children huddled all night in shop doorways."
No proposition has ever led to anything that remotely resembles that. Shelter also alleges that the policy
"would tear children apart from their parents."
Nothing in the proposals will have such an impact.
One of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) claimed in a recent debate that, as a result of the Government's policies,
"old lorries, caravans and tents"—[Official Report, 29 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 889]
would be used. There has been much alarmist propaganda, which I hope people will now recognise as untrue.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite Opposition Members' comments, which were clearly prepared before he spoke, his statement will be widely welcomed, not only by our many constituents who have been waiting patiently on waiting lists for many years, but by local authorities, which are particularly keen to tighten up the rules on intentionality?
Sir George Young: I hope that local authorities will look at the details of my announcement. There has been a response to some of the concerns expressed by local authorities, and I hope that they will avoid the knee-jerk reaction that we have heard from many Opposition Members this afternoon.
Ms Estelle Morris: Does not the Minister accept that there is something obscene about a Minister for housing who takes time to produce legislation that argues about who should have the house —the needy or the even more needy? Will he not take on the proper responsibility of his role and ensure that next year he reverses the decline in resources that are made available to local authorities to build houses? Does he not accept that that is the real issue, and that that is what the people of this country expect him to do?
Sir George Young: The hon. Lady will have to await the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment later in the year about resources that are available to local authorities. I disagree with what she said at the beginning of her remarks. Whatever the level of supply for social housing, one needs to have a fair system of accessing. At the moment, we do not have such a system, which we are now proposing.
Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from Labour Members' comments is that they believe not only that capital receipts should be released but that there should be a substantial increase in local government expenditure on public housing? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] My right hon. Friend has only to listen to the assent for that proposition to realise that that is so. Does he agree, therefore, that it is absurd to suppose that the Labour party is seriously concerned about controlling public expenditure and not increasing taxation?
Sir George Young: At the end of this statement, a debate will be held on exactly those matters. I notice my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Treasury Bench. I am sure that he will press the Labour party on the issue raised by my hon. Friend— what are its proposals for public expenditure?
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will not these proposals inevitably mean that many homeless families will be forced from one short-term, sub-standard tenancy to another? What effects does the Minister believe that that will have on the education and health of the children involved?
Sir George Young: There is no reason why the scenario painted by the hon. Member should arise. We placed an obligation on local authorities to find people suitable accommodation for a year, and in many cases the owner of property— the landlord— is happy to renew it. Under the private sector leasing arrangement, many leases in London run for three years.
Many of my constituents in temporary accommodation ask whether they can continue. to live in that accommodation rather than be rehoused in permanent accommodation owned by the local authority. it is a big mistake to assume that all temporary accommodation is bad and all permanent accommodation is good.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but will he tell the House how it will help service personnel who wish to return to their home towns to obtain accommodation?
Sir George Young: If my hon. Friend looks at the code of guidance that we issued to local authorities, I think that he will find specific reference to service personnel. He will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary

31
of State for Defence has made a number of proposals to help those leaving the forces to buy their own accommodation in the private sector. A wide range of schemes are available to help service personnel put down roots in areas where they want to live, and I know that my right hon. and learned Friend takes this subject particularly seriously.
Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Minister explain to my constituents, who live in an area with limited assured tenancies and limited private sector accommodation, where the wait for a council house is more than five years, precisely what will happen to homeless families in the first year after they are accepted as homeless, and in the period thereafter? That is not clear from the statement. If they are not given a secure council tenancy, what will happen to them?
The Minister referred to "more thorough" investigation of applications from people who live with family or friends. As local authorities such as mine— the best authorities— already conduct thorough investigations, what additional investigations is he suggesting they should make?
Sir George Young: On the first point, I have been particularly impressed with what has happened in Derby, which is not far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It has a good relationship with the private rented sector and is finding and taking advantage of property not previously available to homeless families. On the 12-month responsibility, the duty can recur if, after 12 months, there is still a difficulty with the local authority. On the final point, we propose to consult local authorities, which have a number of positive suggestions to make on how we can tighten the intentionality rules.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, which he announced he is seeking to amend, was the origin, both in time and in cause, of an unparalleled explosion in illegitimacy and the breakdown of family life in this country? Will he accept from me that thousands of my constituents will be delighted to hear that we are bringing some justice back into the allocation of what will always be a scarce resource?
Sir George Young: The original legislation was never meant to be the main route into social housing; it was meant to be a safety net. Although the number of lettings has remained broadly constant in the past 15 years, the number of acceptances has increased dramatically because people have seen it as a faster route into social housing. It was never meant to be that.
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Will the Minister tell me and the 9,000 people in Bradford who want housing how many of them will be rehoused as a result of today's statement? Is not the truth that the forward-thinking local authorities that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned today have considered the whole picture of housing— housing need and the need for houses — whereas the statement concentrates on one aspect? To ensure justice, the whole picture is to build houses. When will we hear something from the Government about when they will allow councils to build houses for people such as the 9,000 homeless people in Bradford?
Sir George Young: However many houses are built in Bradford, there must be a fair system for allocating them. That is why I believe our principles are justified, at whatever level of supply. I was recently in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in Bradford, where I opened a new housing association development built under city challenge. The Government are making extra resources available to the hon. Gentleman's city to meet the housing need to which he has just referred.
Mr. John Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that people who are seeking social housing would benefit if housing authorities were more efficient? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are thousands of empty council houses in London? If local authorities were also to collect their rents, they could improve some of those houses.
Sir George Young: I warmly welcome the common sense in my hon. Friend's suggestions. Of course we need to maximise resources for housing and collecting the rents do that. Of course we need to maximise the use of homes which have already been built. Bringing empty properties back into use does that as well.
Mr. Stephen Timms: Does the Minister accept that securing a permanent home is a matter of paramount importance for the overwhelming majority of families in the United Kingdom? Does not his statement herald the creation of a whole tier of families who will simply be shuffled from one temporary let to another and never have the prospect of securing the permanent home they need?
Sir George Young: Securing a permanent home is indeed a valid objective which many people share. That is why it is important that securing the permanent home should be allocated on a fair basis.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement represents a substantial step towards a more rational allocation of housing in the United Kingdom? Does he also agree that only those most obsessed with political correctness are against the proposals? Would it not be better if they allocated more of their efforts to ensuring that the voids in public housing, particularly in Labour authorities, were available to the homeless, particularly in London?
Sir George Young: In order to persuade Opposition Members, I have quoted from The Guardian, I have quoted from the chairman of the Labour party and I have quoted the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). If I wanted to, I could quote Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk—[laughter]—but I will not. There is a very broad range of political support for the proposals that I have just put forward.
Mr. John Denham: The Minister must be aware of many cases, in respect of repossessions and marital breakdowns, when families have been taken into accommodation by relatives and friends. Does not the Minister's intention to tighten up the rules on intentionality say to those people, "Don't accept relatives into your homes for fear that they will never be rehoused unless you are forced to go to court against your own family or friends to evict them from your own home"?
Sir George Young: I understand that point entirely. There will be no need to obtain a court order in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has just described.
Mr. Toby Jessel: As for the housing of ex-service men, is guidance enough? Will my right hon. Friend consider what can be done to make local housing authorities act more justly towards ex-service men and their families, when those men have been serving this country abroad? Is it not quite wrong that local housing authorities, many of which care nothing for the defence of this country, should be able to put such people at the back of the housing waiting list because of the lack of residential qualifications?
Sir George Young: I believe that we issued a revised code of guidance to local authorities last year on precisely the subject that my hon. Friend has raised. Of course I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to see whether we need to take any further steps to provide accommodation for those who are leaving the services.
Mr. Barry Jones: A Welsh Office Minister should be on the Government Front Bench for a statement of this importance, bearing in mind the growing housing crisis in Wales. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that our surgeries are crammed with people begging and pleading for affordable housing? The right hon. Gentleman's statement today makes it harder—not easier—for right hon. and hon. Members to help the homeless. Is not this cruel and brutal statement in effect a job application to join the Cabinet?
Sir George Young: I think that I am right in saying that, on Thursday 7 July, there was a half-day Supply day debate on housing in Wales. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister who replied to the debate explained exactly what we are doing to help people in Wales who are in housing need.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the major benefit of his proposals is that they address the key issue that homeless people have had unequal priority over many other deserving cases looking for social houses? I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on that basis.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. At the moment, those who fall within the legislation are rewarded, in effect, with a tenancy for life in publicly funded housing, at the expense of others whose underlying need might be the same or even greater.
Dr. Lynne Jones: The Minister will be aware that, in Birmingham, we have successfully avoided the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for housing homeless families. Therefore, is the right hon. Gentleman concerned that, in his submission to the consultation, the outgoing director of housing, Derek Waddington, said that, if the proposals are implemented, he doubts whether Birmingham can continue to avoid using such accommodation.
How can the right hon. Gentleman's proposals be consistent with obligations under the Children Act 1989 when there is evidence that families living in temporary accommodation, because of the insecurity they suffer, are under considerable stress? Instead of taking us back to the era of "Cathy Come Home", would it not be better to
34
ensure that local authorities can supply good-quality housing by using their capital receipts or borrowing on the back of their assets, and taking on board the rental income that will result from such homes being built?
Sir George Young: I do not agree with first part of the hon. Lady's assertion. Many people expect that, because there is no longer a guarantee of permanent accommodation, the homelessness route will not be quite as attractive as it is at the moment. There is substantial investment in housing in Birmingham. As the hon. Lady will know, the Castle Vale housing action trust is receiving additional funds over and above what Birmingham city council receives in the usual way.
I have dealt with capital receipts. If the hon. Lady wants to make the case for greater public investment in housing on behalf of the Labour party, I hope that she catches your eye, Madam Speaker, in the debate.
Mr. Keith Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his proposals will be widely welcomed in the north-west, particularly in my borough of Wyre, because they draw a clear distinction between the statutory right of boroughs to house the homeless and the position of families on the waiting list, which is a completely different matter?
Does my right hon. Friend also agree that his proposals will mean that councils and other organisations in the public and private sectors will move closer together to find permanent accommodation for the homeless, rather than trying to put them as high as possible up the waiting list for council houses?
Sir George Young: It will certainly be the case that local authorities will have greater discretion to allocate housing on the basis of need than they have at the moment. I hope that they will work closely with the private rented sector to broaden the base of housing available for those in housing need.
Mr. Max Madden: Does the Minister accept that many people will regard his statement as a pathetic response to the gravest housing crisis in post-war Britain? While scapegoating the homeless, lone parents, beggars and other vulnerable people, why do the Government constantly reject the example of previous Conservative Governments, for instance that led by Harold Macmillan, who launched major house building programmes? Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to combine capital receipts with unemployed construction workers, and build thousands of decent homes at affordable rents and prices for the thousands of British people in desperate housing need?
Sir George Young: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how that great programme will be funded. We have had no clear answer to that point each time we have debated housing.
Mr. John Fraser: Perhaps the answer is that such a programme might be funded by the housing benefit that would have to be paid for rehousing homeless people in private accommodation.
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman will have seen the estimates we made when we published the document earlier this year, when we estimated that the impact would be broadly neutral.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We are now going to move on.

Personal Statement
4.19 pm
Mr. Peter Hain: With your permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement.
On 13 July, during the debate on Members' interests, I stated that I had placed letters on the letter board giving notice of my intention to refer to certain hon. Members in the course of the debate. I said that I had done so earlier that evening, and well in time. In fact, although I had every intention of notifying the hon. Members concerned, I found to my surprise that the letter board was closed, when I sought to leave letters there, and I handed in the letters at the Post Office.
I owe you and and the House a full apology in two respects, Madam Speaker. I inadvertently misled you when I stated that the letters had been left on the board; furthermore, I now recognise that letters left at that stage of the evening provided a totally inadequate warning in this case.
I deeply regret my actions, Madam Speaker, and repeat my sincere apology to you and the House.

Points of Order
4.20 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should be grateful if you would give some thought to a problem that has arisen in relation to the boundary between the legislature and the Executive, and is causing concern to some of my colleagues and to me.
Until a few years ago, parliamentary private secretaries were appointed only by senior Ministers, and—as I understand it—the Minister concerned made the appointment personally. Parliamentary private secretaries were not members of the Government. Over the past few weeks, however, it has become apparent that some consider them to be so, and there have been reports of their being appointed, and sacked, by either the Chief Whip or the Prime Minister.
A list of members of the Government is regularly published in the Official Report. I think that it should be made absolutely clear—it may be worth your while to give some thought to this, Madam Speaker—that parliamentary private secretaries either are or are not members of the Government. If they are, certain rules, regulations and other considerations apply; if they are not, they have certain rights and responsibilities of a different kind. I think that the matter is important, Madam Speaker, and I should be grateful for your thoughts on it.
Madam Speaker: I do not need to give much thought to it. Parliamentary private secretaries certainly are not members of the Government.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether there has been any indication that a statement will be made on the appointment, or election, of Mr. Santer as President
36
of the European Commission. You will recollect that there was much public interest in the vetoing of Mr. Dehaene, and I assume that the Government will wish to explain their reasons for selecting Mr. Santer. If they do not, it is extraordinary that Opposition Members—in whose hands the matter really is—have not insisted to the Leader of the House that the bipartisan non-discussion of Europe should end—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I was aware that a statement would be made; I have not been informed by the Government that they intend to make a statement at this stage.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise an issue that I raised more than three weeks ago with the Home Secretary by means of a parliamentary question; I also tabled an early-day motion, which has now been signed by more than 70 hon. Members. It is a serious issue. It concerns the use of forensic pathology photographs of murder victims in a leisure context. There is immense concern—
Madam Speaker: Order. I really cannot allow the hon. Lady, or any other hon. Member, to abuse points of order in this way. If the hon. Lady will come to the matter that is for me to deal with, without giving an explanation of the photographs or the early-day motion, I will attempt to deal with it; but I fear that she is abusing a point of order.
Mrs. Jackson: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Although responses were received from the Secretary of State for Health, police officers, the Police Federation of Englsand and Wales and the British Medical Association, the Home Secretary has not even had the courtesy to write a letter.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Lady herself is quite capable of pursuing the matter with a Minister. It is by no means a point of order for me to deal with.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Madam Speaker: Is this a point of order?
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I believe so, Madam Speaker. I was just wondering whether there had been any consultation with the Government on the appointment of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) to a £103,000-a-year job as a Commissioner.
Madam Speaker: That is nothing to do with me. It is certainly a bogus point of order if I ever heard one.
Mr. David Jamieson rose—
Madam Speaker: Is this another one?
Mr. Jamieson: Not a bogus one, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Hon. Members may recall that I told the House last week that I hoped that its behaviour would start to improve on Monday this week. I am afraid that my words fell on fairly stony ground. I take this matter very seriously; I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a genuine point of order.
Mr. Jamieson: This is a genuine point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Chancellor's parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr.

37
Oppenheim), to hand out pre-prepared questions to Conservative Back Benchers? If it is not, perhaps you can give us some guidance.
Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for me: it is a question of party discipline. I have seen lots of papers and early-day motions floated around on both sides of the House. When I first came to the House, one would not dream of showing someone an early-day motion in this Chamber; one would have been sent off with a flea in one's ear if one did. Members are in this Chamber to pay attention to what is taking place, not to sign early-day motions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Good, that has not fallen on stony ground.

Orders of the Day

  The Economy
  [Relevant document: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on Tuesday 5th July (House of Commons Paper No. 561-ii).]
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). Also, I have had to impose a ten-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm; I hope that those speaking at other times will exercise voluntary restraint.
  4.25 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move,
  That this House welcomes the publication of the Government's latest economic forecast, which shows growth continuing at a steady and sustainable rate and inflation remaining within its target range; and congratulates the Government on its economic policies which have laid the foundations for the non-inflationary growth, rising industrial production and falling unemployment that is now being seen.
  I tend to agree with you, Madam Speaker, that many of the old ways are the best, but this summer economic debate is an innovation. It is the first so-called summer debate on the economy held in the House and it is intended to be an annual event, although I have no doubt that we have all attended the first annual dinner of organisations that have never held another. I think that this debate will last, however, as it is a sensible procedural consequence of moving to the unified Budget in November of each year.
  As we have not debated the economy for some time, it also usefully fills the gap left between the Budgets that we now hold in November each year. In former times, during Labour Governments those gaps were filled by frequent Budget statements throughout the year, each correcting the Budget judgment in the previous statement. Those were a feature of Labour's mismanagement of the economy in the 1970s.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon rose—
  Mr. Clarke: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman it is a little early in the debate to give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was a Minister]. A very long time ago, at the time about which I was complaining.
  This debate will give hon. Members the opportunity to discuss the outlook for the economy now. We shall certainly relish the opportunity, for the same reason that the Opposition will not do so. The Government have a coherent economic strategy—the Opposition do not—and our strategy has delivered what are, potentially, the most favourable set of economic circumstances that Britain has enjoyed for more than a generation.
  Mr. Sheldon: I will be very brief.
  Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is a very respected former Minister. May I contrast my situation to the one that he faced so many years ago. At this stage of recovery from recession, no Government since the war have produced an economic climate that combines steady growth with falling unemployment, rising productivity and low inflation of the type that we now have.
  Mr. Sheldon: I am sorry to interrupt, but many people do not realise that it is seven months since we last had an economic debate, in December last year. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, there was a time when we had frequent economic debates—perhaps too frequent —but we must move somewhere between the two extremes and that is worth mentioning at the beginning of his speech.
  Mr. Clarke: During Labour Governments, we had very frequent economic debates and statements. I remember one occasion when a Labour Government made a fresh Budget statement before they had even finished debating the Finance Bill that flowed from the previous statement. I was pointing out that we have moved rather a long way from that—
  Mr. Stuart Randall: My right hon. Friend made a serious point.
  Mr. Clarke: On the serious procedural point, I agree that it is surprising that the House has got itself into a position in which there is a long debate on the Budget in November and a one-day debate in the summer. It is not for me and the shadow Chancellor to decide, but for the usual channels. I have suggested to my opposite number on at least one occasion that we might drop one day from future Budget debates and transfer it to the summer economic debate. That is a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure, the usual channels and others.
  There have been many Supply day debates since the Budget. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is correct. It is extraordinary that the Labour party, which at times has had to scrape the barrel to find something to fill its allocation of Supply day debates, has kept away from economic policy and the state of the economy. I repeat my allegation: it is because the British economy is doing well, and because Labour has absolutely no alternative policy to put forward.
  I have described the extremely good combination of circumstances which we have at present.
  Mr. Gordon Brown rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment.
  The circumstances that I have described, which are confirmed by most outside observers of our economic situation, mean that we have grounds for cautious optimism at present. I regard that as a beginning. We must stick to the Government's successful economic strategy and deliver the increased prosperity and secure jobs which it should now be possible for us to deliver over the next few years, if international conditions allow. I believe that we are now poised for success. I do not believe that the Labour party has any alternative to our policy, but I am content to give way to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) if he wishes to put me right.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: To put the record straight, will the Chancellor tell the House which of the Labour debates on education, housing, health and the Child Support Agency he regards as scraping the barrel? Which debate is irrelevant to the public spending needs of this country?
  Mr. Clarke: The debate on the Child Support Agency covered a policy which had been supported by the Labour party and which had already been considered by a Select Committee. Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that at shadow Cabinet meetings he has been demanding time on the Floor
  40
  of the House to put Labour's alternative economic strategy but unfortunately he has been fought off by his colleagues who found desperate matters to bring before the House? Of course he has not.
  I have had a lot of jobs in government, as people always point out. I have never held a ministerial post where I have taken part in fewer debates on the Floor of the House. Even when I was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my opposite number used to challenge me on more occasions than the hon. Gentleman does. That is because he knows that what I have just said is right: things are going very well and the outlook is very promising. That is the result of the Government's policies. The hon. Gentleman has absolutely no alternative to them which he is prepared to put forward.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way once more and then I must be allowed to get on.
  Mr. Budgen: As so many members of the public look for a less adversarial approach, would it not be generous to remind the House that support for the exchange rate mechanism, which was the feature of most hon. Members in the House, came particularly from Labour Members, and it is their embarrassment at having abandoned the official role of Opposition and having supported the Government in that disastrous policy which now prevents them from either criticising the present policy or, indeed, mentioning the past?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall touch on my hon. Friend's favourite subject during my speech. He and I have never agreed, but he is right to point out that we always had the complete support of the Labour party on every aspect of our membership of the exchange rate mechanism. Indeed, I believe that Labour is still committed to signing up to the Maastricht treaty, including the timetable for the exchange rate mechanism, despite the fact that no other member state is following that course at present.
  Turning to mainstream economic policy and the economic situation—I did not intend to be too combative in my introductory remarks, which I thought were non-controversial—growth looks set to continue at its current healthy rate. Independent forecasters and the Government now expect growth to be higher than we were forecasting at the time of the Budget. They also expect growth to exceed the rate of inflation in 1994. That sounds as though growth in the economy exceeding inflation should be the norm. In fact, it has happened in the United Kingdom on only four occasions since 1960, and usually only because growth has been unsustainably high at times of boom, rather than inflation being low.
  We now have a healthier situation. Growth is becoming increasingly balanced and the recovery is spreading throughout the economy. Exports and investments are strengthening, and export volumes from this country are now growing at an annual rate of 9 per cent., despite some continuing weaknesses in our most important European markets.
  Investment looks set to grow faster than consumer spending in this year. As we say repeatedly and without any fear of sensible contradiction, Britain is now leading Europe out of recession. The European Commission, the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for

  41
  Economic Co-operation and Development expect our growth rate to be the fastest of any major economy in Europe this year.
  We have the fastest rate of industrial production and the fastest increase in retail sales of all major European countries. Ours is the only major European economy where unemployment has fallen in the past year, and it has now fallen by 330,000 since the last cyclical peak. Despite that pick-up in growth and the welcome fall in unemployment, the outlook for inflation also remains favourable.
  Our inflation rate is well below the European Union average and it is at historically remarkable low levels for the United Kingdom. Sound money has been complemented by sound public finance. I am pleased to say that the Budget deficit remains on track to return to balance in the medium term. The combination of steady growth, healthy public finances and low inflation is the result of the Government's economic policies. It has not happened by chance, and it most certainly would not have occurred if we had followed the advice of any of the Opposition parties.
  Sound money, sound finances and supply-side reform of the economy are the principles that guide our economic policy. We in government understand that, to achieve growth in living standards and to sustain rising industrial production, one needs low inflation and low public sector borrowing. One cannot have prosperity without sound policies.
  This time last year, I said that Labour's economic strategy had about as much content as the average telephone directory. A year on, things have changed. A telephone directory now seems like a good read in comparison. The last time I addressed an audience of any size, a Socialist Worker demonstration burst in upon me, and there were rather more people involved than there are Labour Members in the Chamber at the moment. More to the point, they were the first people from a left-of-centre movement who appeared to have at least a clear idea of what they wanted and what alternative policies they had whom I had met for a long time.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has yet another chance to put forward alternative policies, and he needs to do the House the courtesy of addressing them. He needs to address the fundamentals of policy which, as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has said, we should talk about on the rare occasions when we debate the issues.
  The least that we could expect from the shadow spokesman of the principal Opposition party is for him to say whether he would do anything that the Government are not currently doing with regard to public borrowing, public spending or monetary policy. In my opinion, if he suggested anything which deviated significantly from the course upon which the Government are set, it would only threaten our sustained economic recovery.
  Mr. Randall: Probably everybody in the House would accept that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's notion of steady growth is laudable. What some of us are genuinely worried about is the rate of that steady growth; whether it will ever be sufficient to reduce unemployment to a reasonable level and the social impact of that. What does he have to say on that?
  Mr. Clarke: That is an important subject, to which I shall, if I may, return later. We are forecasting at the moment growth of 2.75 per cent this year. Nobody knows
  42
  exactly what the trend growth is, but beyond that it comes to a point where it is not sustainable without risk and without a threat to inflation.
  Fortunately, we already see that present levels of unemployment are falling as a result of that growth, and 330,000 was the figure which I have cited. But I agree that there is also a structural problem and, as we achieve sustained growth, we must take measures to make sure that we do not have a strong recovery with unemployment stuck at 8, 9 or 10 per cent. I shall return to that in a few moments. The Government have, in my opinion, coherent policies on that matter, which are gaining favour in international discussions.
  Mr. Peter Hain rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was rising to answer on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East the questions I asked about spending, borrowing and monetary policy. I do not believe that the Opposition have got a policy on unemployment either. They would do well to follow our own.
  Mr. Hain: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I should like to make some more progress, but I will give way steadily.
  On inflation, upon which I face silence, as always, from the Opposition, only the Conservative party, Madam Speaker, is the party of low inflation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Chancellor, but Madam Spealcer left the Chamber 15 minutes ago, and I should be grateful if he adjusted his script.
  Mr. Clarke: Mention of transvestites in politics, Mr. Deputy Speaker, caused a disturbance at the LSE, and I do not intend to make any similar reference today. I apologise to you for addressing you as Madam Speaker.
  As for low inflation, the record is extremely clear. Only the Conservative party is the party of low inflation and the figures speak for themselves. Under the previous Labour Government, inflation averaged 15.5 per cent.; inflation is now 2.5 per cent. and underlying inflation is 2.4 per cent. Since we came to power in 1979, the average rate of inflation has been 6.6 per cent.
  Those low levels of inflation are not some abstract matter, because they have a real effect on people's lives. Let me give some obvious examples. The fierce competition between supermarkets has resulted in many food prices falling. Competition in the high street has meant that the prices of many goods, such as clothing and footwear, have hardly increased in the past year. Competition between manufacturers means that factory price inflation is at the lowest level we have seen for 25 years. All that low inflation brings real benefits to the shopping bags of real people at every level of income in our society.
  The Conservative party also recognises the wider benefits that low inflation can bring. It brings the stability that our business leaders need if they are to invest with confidence in the future of our country. It provides stability for savers, whose resources finance investment and wealth creation. We do not support low inflation for economic reasons alone, although there are good economic reasons for achieving it, but because inflation is worse than a tax on

  43
  those with fixed incomes, and is particularly hard on the weak and the poor. Inflation randomly redistributes wealth from that group to those with the economic muscle to withstand its debilitating effects, as we saw only too clearly in the late 1970s.
  Let us never forget that, under the Labour Government of the 1970s, inflation was higher than interest rates on many occasions, so the real value of the savings of retired people fell. That is not the case now and I trust that it never will be again. Let me reaffirm that the Government have set themselves a target to keep inflation within the 1 to 4 per cent. range and to reduce it to the lower part of that range by the end of the current Parliament. We are determined to stick to that target, but what of the Labour party? Does it have a target for inflation? How does it propose to control inflation? The Opposition certainly will not do that by caving in to demands from their friends in the trade union movement, but their reaction to an 11 per cent. pay claim, which has come out of the blue at the moment, has hardly given anyone any grounds for assurance.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will set out some policy. What does he think of our inflation target? Is it too high? Is it too low, or is it about right? Would he accept that target? I am sure that all hon. Members would like to hear that answer.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the issue of competition, is there any unease in the Government about the circumstances in which William Low, which is, after all, a large grocer retailer in Scotland, is about to be swallowed up by either Tesco or Sainsbury? Is there any unease about what might happen further to competition in the retail trade as a result of that? All I am asking is whether this matter is being looked at in government, because it surely should be.
  Mr. Clarke: We have an extremely clear competition policy. We seek to stimulate competition for the reasons that I have given, but that does not include all takeovers and all reorganisations of businesses. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry, which considers it in the normal way. It is for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to decide whether any particular merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I have no views on a particular takeover, including that named by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I should like to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his remarkably successful record of keeping inflation down, despite, incidentally, the 15 per cent. devaluation of sterling since coming out of the exchange rate mechanism, which bears out the monetarist analysis. What does he make of the state of the markets, particularly the high levels of long-term interest rates? When does he think that the markets will take on board the fact that we are serious, as I believe, about defeating inflation?
  Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that the markets have strengthened slightly from the worst situation encountered. As my hon. Friend is aware, there have been international fluctuations in the marketplace ever since the Federal Reserve bank first moved its short-term rates a few months ago. It is arguable that it over-reacted to a situation that had
  44
  built up in the previous year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) said, the best reassurance that we can give the markets is that we are committed to our inflation target. We have an extremely good record of moving towards it, despite all the pressures of the past few years. I am quite sure that we can sustain confidence in that policy. I am glad to see that long-term rates have eased in the past few days.
  Mr. Gordon Brown rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I will give way in a moment.
  One of the steps that I have taken to reinforce our inflation policy has been to start publishing the minutes of my monthly meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England. I have done that to make it quite clear that the monetary authorities in this country should take their decisions on sensible judgments of the economic priorities of the moment, not give way to short-term political pressures. The result is that we are more open and we are discussing such matters more than we have ever done before.
  We are certainly more open than the Labour party, so I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will at last contribute to the debate on monetary policy by getting up and telling me what he thinks of our target for inflation. Is it too high, too low or about right?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: But why are the Government's inflation forecasts completely different from those of the Bank of England? Why are the Government predicting that inflation will just be 2 per cent. at the end of next year, but the Bank of England is now predicting that it will be as high as 3.5 per cent., far beyond the Government's target range? Is that not because the Government are assuming now that interest rates will rise? Will the Chancellor now answer the question that was put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin): why have British long-term interest rates risen faster than in any other country except Canada?
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman knows that forecasts have a wide range of accuracy. [Interruption.] Of course they do. He will also know that every forecaster has been reducing inflation forecasts since the end of last year—they are all bringing down their forecasts of inflation for the future. At the moment we are plainly on course. Every recent forecast that I have seen stays well within the Government's inflation target, upon which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East declines to make any comment.
  I have already dealt with the recent behaviour in the markets. It is true that, at first, our bonds fell further and our long-term rates went up somewhat higher than did the rest in western Europe. That is because of our country's history of high inflation, which goes back in particular to those irresponsible years when the Labour party was in office. Then, as I have cited, we were a byword for high inflation and poor economic performance. Our current policies are restoring confidence. We have a monetary policy; the Labour party does not. We are staying in power and we will ensure that our inflation targets are hit.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor just answer the question? Why are long-term interest rates in Britain higher than they are in France and in Germany?
  Mr. Clarke: They always have been since the war, but we are very much more in line with the rest of Europe than we have ever been before, and the confidence that this country will achieve sustained growth and low inflation is very much higher than it has been for a generation. A return to a Government of the Labour party and a move to the Treasury by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, if that were ever seriously contemplated, would shatter the confidence that we have built up. I am quite sure that it would have an extremely adverse effect on bond markets, long-term interest rates and business confidence as well.
  Low inflation is not an optional extra. We have achieved our present low inflation—well below the forecast that people were making this time last year and even at the time of the Budget—as a result of the disciplines of, first, the exchange rate mechanism but, secondly, the tight monetary framework which my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), so promptly put in place after we had been forced out of the exchange rate mechanism. Low inflation is the necessary condition for the sustained economic growth that the Government now wish to see as we approach the next century and beyond.
  The Conservative party does not believe that there is a trade-off between growth and inflation, as so many Opposition Members still seem to believe. We shall not try to boost growth artificially by stoking up demand and thus jeopardising our inflation performance. We believe that sound public finances are necessary for sustained growth, which is why action had to be taken in the past two Budgets to improve public finances. Our borrowing was increasing by too much as a result of the prolonged recession, which was experienced, to varying degrees, by all western countries.
  Every major country in the west must now tackle Government indebtedness. All the G7 and European Union countries are taking painful action to restore their public finances to order. I could almost claim that no other European Union member state has taken such decisive and effective action to reduce its fiscal deficit as this country has, but that may be unfair to my German colleagues, who are also taking rigorous action. Many countries that have not taken that action will have to do so.
  Because we have acted so decisively, promptly and effectively, there is now high confidence in the British economy in both the business and financial worlds. When we debated the economy only 18 months ago, we all agreed that confidence was the missing factor needed for our recovery to take off. The following two necessarily tough Budgets were an important part of restoring the confidence that was so vital for recovery.
  Mr. George Foulkes: If the economic indicators are as good as the Chancellor says, why does not he end the anguish for the poor and elderly by saying that he will not increase VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent? Will he make that statement now?
  Mr. Clarke: I give the House a presentation on the fiscal prudence necessary to maintain confidence and keep the recovery going, and a Labour Member gets up and suggests that we should abandon one of the tax increases. A few moments ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) made a statement on housing policy, and rows of Labour Members agreed that there should be a massive increase in spending on public
  46
  housing. The Labour party's lack of policy and its instinct to abandon sound fiscal policies and controls on public spending pose a great threat to the recovery.
  Labour Members have the nerve to claim that taxes would somehow be lower under a Labour Government. That is preposterous, as history and their current behaviour demonstrate. Taxes would have to be increased to pay for the never-ending list of spending demands revealed by every exchange in this House; otherwise, public borrowing would rocket to unsustainable levels and high interest rates and inflation would return.
  I do not understand why the Labour party has got into such a knot about this. The Labour movement is going through an identity crisis. Clearly, Labour is the party of high Government expenditure—higher than its opponents in the Conservative party. Members of the Labour and trade union movement believe that more state spending is required to solve many of the country's problems. Labour Members nodded in assent when my right hon. Friend the Member for Acton accused them of wanting to spend more on public housing only a few moments ago. If they no longer believe in socialism, surely they must still believe that they are the party of higher public spending.
  Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment because he has the courage to agree with me.
  To what has the Labour and trade union movement been reduced if it now cringes in shame at the suggestion that it wishes to increase public expenditure, compared with a Government whose Ministers served under Lady Thatcher? Of course a Labour Government would increase spending dramatically, but Labour Members are no longer prepared to say that they believe that. It would happen as a result of their negligence if they ever came to power. I give way to a man of principle.
  Mr. Benn: Will the Chancellor deal with two questions about taxation: what is it for; and who pays it? Why should pensioners pay VAT to buy a Trident? Why should not better-off people pay more to provide for the education and health that the whole community needs?
  Mr. Clarke: Of course we all accept that certain expenditure is necessary, and we have hugely increased expenditure on key public services like the national health service, education and social security, including a greatly increased take-up of improved benefits for the disabled. We have delivered all those policies. In the real world, however, a balance must be struck between a sustainable level of growth in a successful enterprise economy, and the efficient delivery of public services. We are striking that balance. We can improve the quality of many aspects of people's lives while reducing the state's total take from gross domestic product to allow the private sector to flourish further.
  That is not and never has been the Opposition's policy. When they were last in power, they took the state's take up to higher levels than we have ever taken it. Last week, we saw their reaction to defence expenditure, which was to say that it would be approached on the basis of how many public sector jobs it provides in the administrative back-up

  47
  to forces, whereas we prefer to spend the money on the front line's kit, training and weaponry, while running our defence forces efficiently.
  Our spending proposals are clear. Keeping public expenditure under control is the key to healthy public finances and lower taxes. Because we believe that lower taxes help incentives, we will lower taxes when the opportunity occurs—we will and we have—but only when it is prudent to do so. The Opposition's spending proposals would not do that—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members disagree, I wait to hear their spending proposals. Our public expenditure ceilings have just been agreed by the Cabinet. Are they too high or too low? I have no idea of the view of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. I hope that he will enlighten us.
  The third pillar of our economic strategy is on-going reform to the supply side of the economy. Since 1979, we have put in place a raft of measures designed to improve the performance of our businesses and to attract business from abroad. Successful macro-economic policy gives us an opportunity to take that forward. Privatisation and private finance are key factors in the British economy's steadily improving performance.
  When we started our privatisation programme, it was the most ambitious programme of its kind in the world, but privatisation is now the norm everywhere, except in the British Labour movement. Forty-seven companies have now been transferred from public to private ownership. We used to spend nearly £2 billion a year—£35 million a week —propping up those state-owned industries. They now contribute more than £2.5 billion a year—£50 million a week—in taxes to the Exchequer. The main difference is that they have changed beyond recognition. As corporate entities, they now provide better quality for their customers and many are now strong international companies.
  Britain also has better industrial relations now than it has had in its industrial history. Co-operative attitudes between management and work force are better than I can remember in the history of British industry. We have achieved all that by sweeping away many of the legalised institutional divisions between what people on the continent still call "the two sides of industry", which many would like to reintroduce in the name of the European social chapter. As a result of our reforms, industrial stoppages are now at their lowest level since records began almost 100 years ago.
  However, improved industrial relations are only one plank of our labour market reforms.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way later.
  We fought in Europe, and we shall continue to do so, against the imposition of unnecessary labour market regulations, which impose additional costs on employers, and ultimately destroy jobs. We understand that job creation is the key to improving the fortunes of the low paid. Placing burdens on employers only prices the low paid out of work and creates more misery, not less.
  Our approach to labour market flexibility—to deregulation of those markets—is being followed increasingly throughout the world. It was endorsed at the job summit in Detroit; it was endorsed at the recent Corfu
  48
  summit in Europe; it runs all the way through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report that we recently discussed in Paris.
  The Labour party is out of step. We have one of the most modern, flexible labour markets in the western world, and that is one of the principal reasons why we attract 40 per cent. of all the inward investment into the European Union, and why we continue to be such an attractive place for investment to create new jobs.
  Mr. Wolfson rose—
  Mr. Roger Berry rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Wolfson: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, and I am delighted that he has emphasised the improvement in industrial relations. Does he agree that one of the things that that has achieved is that it has enabled our managers to concentrate on production and marketing, rather than on dealing with the bush fires that absorbed so much of their useful time in the past?
  Mr. Clarke: I wholly agree. It was a feature of management of any major company—private or public —in this country in the 1960s and 1970s, that most of the time of the most senior management was taken up with industrial relations problems, whereas now it hardly features at that level in the crucial decision-making in most of our companies.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that unemployment will be, and should be, the major preoccupation of economic policy-makers in the 1990s in the western world. However, it is a combination of sound macro-economic policy, sustained growth, low inflation and supply side policies that create flexible labour markets, improved training and education —I could address the House at length about what we have done there—and active labour market measures that keep unemployed people close to the world of employment, giving them the incentives to get into employment, giving them the support to do so, that will enable us to get ahead, and which are attracting so much international support.
  Mr. Berry rose—
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I think I have taken quite a long time, with apologies to my hon. Friend, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The deregulation initiative will cut through a lot of the red tape and bureaucracy that burdens industries in this country; the private finance initiative is bringing private sector finance, management and expertise into the capital programmes of the public services; and the recently launched White Paper on competitiveness outlines several initiatives to improve the supply side of our economy.
  That builds on what we have achieved since the Conservatives came to power. Since 1979, our manufacturing productivity growth has been the highest of the major European economies. We are closing the productivity gap. One recent study showed our manufacturing productivity to be greater than that in Japan. That was a National Institute report in its May "Economic Review", making comparisons on a per hour basis. A recent study by the German chamber of commerce showed that two thirds of German-owned factories in the United Kingdom achieved productivity levels at least as high as those of their

  49
  counterparts back home. That is why, as I have said, we attract so much of the global investment when it is seeking a base in the European Union.
  The outlook for the British economy is continued growth and low inflation. It is the most favourable that the country has enjoyed since I first entered the House, almost 25 years ago. It is the result of the coherent economic policy that Conservative Governments have put into place over many years. Some of those policies were not popular at the time that they were introduced, but by sticking to our principles, the present Government have laid the foundations for lasting economic success. We will certainly fight to keep those foundations in place, and to ensure that they deliver the prosperity and the secure jobs that we require.
  The public are still hesitant. Only for three months have they had consistent reports of good economic news. I share the public view that that must be sustained, not just for months, but for years ahead, so that sustained growth with low inflation means higher living standards, lower unemployment and more secure jobs. I believe that it is now in our gift to deliver that, and I do not believe that the Labour party has the slightest clue how to contribute to that. Its members merely watch it happen before their eyes, with no alternative policies of their own to put forward.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg to move, to leave out from `House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'notes the publication of the Government's latest economic forecast and the continuing tax rises-including the two new taxes in the autumn-and cuts in public services forcing down the living standards of millions of people; calls on the Government to reconsider the plan of raising VAT to 17.5 per cent. on fuel; notes the Governor of the Bank of England's remark that interest rates may rise, so hitting homeowners, mortgage holders and investment yet again; and condemns the appallingly high level of unemployment under this Conservative Government and the absence of a long term economic strategy for Britain—itself essential to both the achievement of long-term high growth and the reduction of inflation—which tackles under-investment in people, industry and the social and economic fabric with a new industrial training and employment policy for the country.'.
  For all the Chancellor of the Exchequer's complacency and self-satisfaction—perhaps because he hopes that he will retain his job in the reshuffle while all around him others are losing theirs—the reality for millions of people throughout the country is that living standards are falling; that poverty is once again on the increase; that public services are being cut; and that tax bills are increasing.
  Increased poverty is accompanying tax increases, with VAT hitting people this spring; more tax increases in the winter with the two new taxes already announced; cuts in mortgage relief and personal allowances next spring; and tax increases throughout the next year and the year after that. The problem is that the tax increases that have dominated this year and will dominate next year are not, as people would want them to be, investments to build for the future; they are simply paying off the Government mistakes of the past.
  The tragedy for Britain is that, as the Chancellor had to admit when pressed on the issue of long-term interest rates and when he came to the section of his speech dealing with high levels of unemployment, all the problems that brought about the last recession are apparent now. They are lack of investment in manufacturing, which is still 13 per cent. less than in 1979; excessive dividend payments, which the
  50
  Government have yet to come up with any proposals to tackle; worsening manufacturing trade deficits, mys-teriously increased in the summer statement from £6.5 billion to £8.5 billion this year; and skill and capacity shortages throughout the economy.
  For skill shortages to exist when 2.6 million people are unemployed represents a complete failure of free market dogma, and it is the ultimate failure of leadership to cut the training and employment budget when there are millions of unemployed people in need of training and thousands of companies in need of trained people. All the problems—skills shortages, lack of investment, worsening trade deficits—that brought about the last recession are already apparent even at this stage of the economic cycle, and without the Government being prepared to take action.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman set out a catalogue of what he would call reasons for the recession. What about the United Kingdom's adherence to the exchange rate mechanism? The hon. Gentleman has been criticising the free market. The ERM had very little to do with the free market.
  Mr. Brown: It was the failure of the Government's economic policies that drove us out of the exchange rate mechanism. As everybody—[Interruption.] As all Conservative Members understand—indeed, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made a speech about it—the stop-go economics that were pursued by the Conservative Government throughout the 1980s are responsible for the fact that, every time the British economy grows, we run into problems of bringing in imports, pressures on inflation and pressures on interest rates, and we are incapable of achieving sufficient growth to keep unemployment down and improve our public services.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Brown: I give way to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin).
  Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. On the matter of long-term interest rates, what can he do to contribute to the stability in the financial markets? Will he publish an inflation target? Will he say how he will reduce Government borrowing? Will he say how he will control public expenditure? Or will he, as I suspect, say none of that, and carry on contributing to the instability with which we have to cope?
  Mr. Brown: I do not see why I have to continue to listen to the hon. Member for Colchester, North. After all, he was the Member of Parliament who said to his constituency at the general election:
  "Ten good reasons to vote Conservative: Low taxes".
  That is what the hon. Gentleman said. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Colchester, North is clearly not trying to catch your eye alone, Mr. Deputy Speaker; he is trying to catch the Prime Minister's eye in a succession of interventions. I may say that his chances of promotion after that intervention are rather less than they were before it.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens rose—
  Mr. Brown: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dickens: This is quite a straightforward question to which the nation is most anxious to know the answer: does the hon. Gentleman favour an increase in the top level of taxation? Yes or no would be quite acceptable.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is good at asking questions. In his election manifesto, he gave as the third reason for voting Conservative, "Taxes Down". Who will ever believe anything that he says again? Incidentally, in the same election manifesto, he said that whenever he stood up to speak, Members of Parliament rushed into the Chamber to hear him.
  I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that there will be a fair taxation system under a Labour Government. We will end the practice under this Government that allows millionaires to end up paying no income tax because they use the allowance system—something that even the hon. Gentleman could not defend.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is replying with abuse to the perfectly sensible questions asked by my hon. Friends. He has expressed an interest in taking this country back into the ERM. It is therefore perfectly sensible of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) to ask him what his inflation target is. Does he have one? Is the Government's too high or too low? What is his view of public spending? Is it too high or too low? What is his view of the monetary framework? Does he agree with it or does he have a framework of his own? The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with light-weight stuff and not answer fundamental questions.
  Mr. Brown: The first person to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman should address those questions is the Chief Secretary, with whom he is in fundamental disagreement over economic policy. Should anybody believe what the Chancellor says? In his election manifesto he said:
  "Only the Conservatives believe in keeping taxation down. Only the Conservatives will keep the country's finances on a sound footing."
  Who will believe him when this country has a £50 billion borrowing requirement?
  Mr. Nigel Forman: Before the hon. Gentleman becomes too cavalier and entertaining with the truth, will he take his mind back to a point that he made at the beginning of his speech—something that he said rather hurriedly? He claimed that real personal disposable income was falling. If he had read the background document to the debate, he would know from paragraph 1.26 that in fact it is rising by 1 per cent. this year and is forecast to rise by 2.5 per cent. next year. Would he kindly get his facts right?
  Mr. Brown: The fact is that the majority of taxpayers will be hit by an average £500 tax increase as a result of the Government's policies. Millions of people will find that their wages are held back and their living standards will fall because of the Chancellor's economic policy. The hon. Gentleman may think that he can deny that, but he should have listened to his constituents during the local and European elections because they said that they were not prepared to accept that.
  Mr. John Butterfill: When the hon. Gentleman looks at long-term interest rates, does it ever occur to him that the closer we get to a general election, the closer seems to be the correlation between long-term interest rates and levels of support for the Labour party in the opinion polls?
  Mr. Brown: I shall refresh the minds of hon. Members on what the hon. Gentleman said in his election manifesto — [Interruption.] The country deserves to be reminded of what he said at the general election, which was:
  "Reduced taxation gives choice and provides the vital boost our economy needs."
  What is the boost to the economy from the biggest tax rises in history? Perhaps that is why no one took the hon. Gentleman seriously when he said:
  "Everyone knows someone who has been helped by John Butterfill."
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: The hon. Gentleman is fond of quoting other people. Would he like to quote one of his own prognostications on the economy? On 17 March last year, just before the Budget, he said that he had only one Budget forecast—that unemployment would rise this month, next month and for months thereafter. Since that time, unemployment has fallen by no less than 250,000. Was his forecast just incompetence or are his economic policies divorced from reality?
  Mr. Brown: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I was quoting the Government's Budget forecast of what would happen to unemployment— [Interruption.] Yes, I was. I was quoting the Budget forecast in the Red Book, which I shall be happy to quote again any time the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise the matter with me. I ask him one question: if things are so good, why do the latest unemployment figures show 73,000 fewer people in employment in the first three months of this year? Why, during the past six months, have there been more than 100,000 fewer people in the working population? Does not that make the hon. Gentleman think that he should look rather more carefully at the figures that he is given by the Government?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way just once more and then I must get on with my speech.
  Mr. Rod Richards: The hon. Gentleman's policy is one of full employment. What minimum wage rate is consistent with his concept of full employment?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman cannot have studied the research done in both Europe and America. The research from America shows that a minimum wage can actually help employment prospects in the economy. A minimum wage makes firms more efficient. It means that there is less turnover of labour. Indeed, the American Labour Secretary—the Chancellor would be well advised to listen to him rather than simply suggesting that the policies pursued in America are hostile to those pursued in Britain—is considering raising the minimum wage, so confident is he about the employment prospects created by doing so.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am sure that hon. Members will agree that I have been generous in giving way. I have given

  53
  Conservative Members a chance to put across their wares in advance of the reshuffle. I have given them an opportunity to sell themselves to the Prime Minister. The fact that they have failed to do so is no fault of mine.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Brown: No—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way".] As HON. MEMBERS ARE SO INSISTENT, I SHALL GIVE WAY.
  Mr. Budgen: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer one question in an untrivial way? What would an incoming Labour Government do about the ERM? Do they intend to go back into it as quickly as possible?
  Mr. Brown: The difference between the Conservative party and the Labour party—
  Mr. Budgen: Answer the question.
  Mr. Brown: I am answering the question. Of course, it is one that the hon. Gentleman should ask the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary, who hold completely different views.
  The difference between the Conservative party and ourselves is that we believe in the principle of managed exchange rates. We do not see any virtue in a free-floating exchange rate with speculative forces being left to decide the fate of the economy. As for our eventual policy on the ERM, we have always proposed necessary changes to its operation. There needs to be a far better means of dealing with the problems of speculation; a regional industrial policy throughout Europe; joining at the right rate; and a growth policy pursued by the European Community. That is completely different from the policy pursued by the Conservative Government, to the detriment of the British economy.
  Mr. Ian Taylor rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am aware that many hon. Members want to speak. I have been generous in giving way, to Conservative Members.
  Mr. Taylor: Give way.
  Mr. Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman simply trying to interrupt my speech? I have given way, and if he was too slow in getting up to make his point, that is his own fault.
  At the heart of the debate is one central truth that the Chancellor has failed to acknowledge—that Britain's growth rate throughout the 1990s will average only 1.6 per cent., which is lower than in the first 15 years of Conservative government. It will be Europe's lowest, with the exception of Turkey and Greece. We have a long-term growth rate that is just half what we achieved in the 30 years after the war.
  If the test of the success of Conservative policies that the Chancellor tried to promote in his speech is to be met, there would have to be a far higher sustainable growth rate over the longer term than the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policies will produce.
  I shall argue that the Government's policies are not only inefficient but unfair—that the Government are not only incompetent but unjust. They have done nothing to rectify the huge investment, technology and skills gaps in our capacity, which caused the last recession and will undoubtedly cause the next. They are the Government of unfairness and injustice.
  54
  Not only is the gap between those at the top and those at the bottom growing substantially, and faster, than at any time this century; not only have the bottom 10 per cent. in our country seen, according to the Government's own statistics, a fall in their living standards; not only are 4 million children in our country, according to figures issued last week, condemned to poverty under this Government: the whole burden of sacrifice under the Government's policies is being borne by low-income and middle-income Britain—those least able to afford it.
  The Government have already shamefully misled the blind, the deaf and the handicapped over the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. The target for further savings—and I appeal to the Chancellor— should not be the poor and their housing benefit, the unemployed and their mortgage relief, or those injured or disabled at work who are to lose Government help with industrial injury benefit. It should be the tax loopholes, the anomalies, the evasions and the avoidances that the Government have tolerated over the past 15 years.
  If the Chancellor wants to take a measure of his competence in economic policy, let him re-read what he said in the Budget statement only a few months ago—that the test of the credibility of his framework on economic monetary policy would be what would happen to long-term interest rates, which were at their lowest for 25 years.
  Within a few weeks of his making that statement, long-term interest rates had risen by 22 per cent. They are 4 per cent. in Japan and 6 per cent. in America but 8 per cent. in Britain. If the Chancellor has decided that his credibility comes from low long-term interest rates, as he told us in the Budget, where is his credibility now that our long-term interest rates are just about the highest in Europe? The Chancellor is condemned by his own words, and he is never to be trusted begin.
  Of course, credibility and consistency was never the Chancellor's strongest suit. Let us remember what he said at the election:
  "Great cuts in public spending on the vital services or higher rates of personal taxation, that is not necessary."
  There was a cut of some 50,000 in the civil service last week; there have been tax rises, which he himself estimates are the equivalent of 7p in the pound; and despite all his promises, there have been the biggest cuts in public spending for years.
  The Government promised in their election manifesto that they would increase transport spending. They are now cutting it by 24 per cent. in real terms. They promised that they would
  "continue to increase police numbers"
  and wage a war on drugs, but are freezing police numbers, axing drug strategy teams, cutting Home Office spending by £70 million a year and betraying the law-abiding citizen.
  The Government said that their commitment to the environment was not to be doubted, yet they cut environmental spending by 18 per cent. They said that the railways could play a bigger part in responding to Britain's growing transport needs, yet they cut the external financing limit by 20 per cent.
  Perhaps the biggest humiliation of all is the channel tunnel, which will operate from September. But the channel tunnel rail link was first announced in 1987, reannounced in 1989 and repromised in 1991. While the French now have their rail link open, ours has not even begun. It is not even at the planning stage. It is not even a

  55
  route. There is not even the legislation to make it happen. The best chance that we have of completing it is not this century but the next, in 2003.
  As President Mitterrand said, the channel tunnel opens up two worlds of travel: high-speed rail from Paris to Calais at 200 mph, then a chance to have a leisurely look at the English countryside. Now we know what the Prime Minister means when he talks about a multi-speed and multi-track Europe—not the wrong kind of leaves on the track, but the wrong kind of Government in office. That is the problem.
  Sir Anthony Grant rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am not giving way any more.
  What does the Prime Minister say to all that? I happened to hear from journalists what he was telling the 1922 Committee at its usual rallying meeting for the summer. It was a speech that even had the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), the potential rival in a leadership contest, saying that it merited a stay of execution. There is no question—for the moment at least —of the Prime Minister having to close the stable door after the stalking horse has bolted, because the stalking horse is in the stable for now. But it might still get angry and break the door down.
  What did the Prime Minister say in a few trenchant phrases, each one characteristically hitting the nail firmly on the thumb? He said that much of the past two years have been memorable for the wrong reasons. He said:
  "We have missed a few tricks in recent months and years. Our message has been too diffuse. We need to concentrate better."
  "Missed a few tricks," he said: Iraqi guns, Pergau dam, Asil Nadir, BCCI, tax rises, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, Post Office privatisation, "back to basics",
  black Wednesday, the small matter of a few parliamentary questions. Or is he thinking of other disasters that have not yet come to light? I think that
  "Our message has been too diffuse"
  is a euphemism for virtual civil war in the Conservative party. I think that
  "We need to concentrate better"
  is probably a reference to fewer consultancies, no more inscribed gold watches, more time in research—less time with one's researchers—tabling more parliamentary questions, but only for constituents, and free at the point of delivery.
  As the Prime Minister said, the message needs to be repeated and repeated so that when people hear the word "Conservative" they know what his party stands for and why. I have a message for the Prime Minister. The message has got across. The country knows only too well what Conservatives stand for, they know why, and they know what they want to do with them.
  So what does the Prime Minister do now? Is there to be a shift in policy after the disasters of their European campaign, which started badly then fell away? Not a change in direction; heavens no! That would involve a choice of direction on the part of the Prime Minister. What we have is the ritual annual reshuffle, where the choice of talent is so limited that even the Secretary of State for the Environment looks secure and passes, in these sorry times, for a safe pair of hands.
  56
  It is a reshuffle in which not even the President of the Board of Trade, only Lord Archer, wants to be Conservative party chairman—in which nobody wants the only man who wants the job that nobody wants. I feel sorry for Lord Archer. He is the victim of a new and strange discrimination, for when has the talent for fiction and the knowledge of the wilder shores of finance ever been a disqualification for the post of Conservative party chairman? It is a reshuffle that brings the Chancellor a huge dilemma, which he must be turning over in his mind as he sits next to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall wait. I have a question for the Chancellor at the end.
  What is the consequence of the Chancellor driving the last monetarist out of the Treasury temple? Would he prefer to see him as a departmental head, in a stronger position, ready to take him on for the eventual succession? Or would he rather keep him where he is, to keep an eye on him and what he is doing? The Chief Secretary—the last standard bearer of the new right inside the Treasury; the ghost of monetarism past; the still, small voice of Thatcherism; the insistent, insidious, whispering voice of the new right's agenda, for ever one pace behind the Chancellor wherever he goes, hissing his own message behind his back. Would the Chancellor prefer him inside the Treasury hissing out, or outside the Treasury hissing in?
  The Government can change Ministers, the Cabinet, the Conservative party chairman, the presentation, the front men and the ad men, but those changes will add up to nothing, because the Prime Minister is incapable of giving this country the change of direction and strategy that it needs.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The debate began with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) suggesting that we should have two days of economic debate, because we had not discussed the economy since November. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) went through the motions of pretending that he had been champing at the bit to talk about the British economy since Christmas. He spent 10 minutes not talking about the subject at all. Our monetary policy is clear. Can we take it that he has confirmed this afternoon that he has no views on the British economy, no economic policy, and no interest in debating the subject at all?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Brown: I will give hon. Members an answer. What this country needs is a long-term strategy for the renewal and rebuilding of the economy. That strategy involves rebuilding the capacity of the British economy. That demands four things.
  Lady Olga Maitland: How?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady asks how. I am about to tell her. The first of the four is investment in people and employment opportunity. That is why Conservative Members should accept Labour's proposal for a university for industry as one of a number of measures for the training revolution. Secondly, the strategy involves solving the long-term problem of investment in industry. The Chancellor himself cannot be happy with a situation in

  57
  which, as he had to report in the spring statement, there are few signs of investment in business picking up in the way that it should.
  We must consider three measures to solve the problem of business investment. The first is action to reduce the cost of capital for small businesses. The second is to set up a regional development agency that will work with the banks and financial institutions in helping medium-sized businesses. The third is long-term investment agreements that will enable financial institutions and industrial companies to make decisions on a long-term basis instead of being forced to respond to the short-term speculative needs of the City.
  The third thing—
  Mr. John Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: Conservative Members ask me to set out the guidelines of the policy and then try to interrupt. They do not like what they are hearing because it is what they should have done long ago.
  The third thing that the strategy involves is solving the problems of low investment in our social and economic fabric, as instanced by the failure not only to build the channel tunnel rail link but to deal with the problems of the London underground and the train system up and down the country. That is why our task force for private-public partnership takes the issue far beyond what any Treasury Minister is prepared to contemplate.
  Lastly, we need action in Europe as a whole to keep interest rates down and co-ordinate measures for growth and investment. Our economic agenda for Britain, unlike the Government's, is an agenda for fairness and opportunity for millions of people. Our fairness agenda is about employment opportunity. It is about an emergency employment programme to get people back to work and end the self-satisfied complacency of a Chancellor who talks about action and then refuses to take the action that is necessary. It is about increasing people's earning power by giving them the skills to enable them to get the best job that they are capable of doing.
  Our fairness agenda is about rebuilding the welfare state so that people have the financial independence that is necessary, particularly to women, who can be given the opportunity to work if they are provided with child care. It is about tackling vested interests—entrenched private interests in our community such as banks, financial institutions and the privatised utilities, which often overcharge people for excess profits that cannot be justified. It is about a system of progressive taxation. It is about opportunity for millions that the Government have had 15 years to offer and have failed to give the people of Britain.
  When we come to this debate in the House, it is right that we should put the Government on trial. The question that people are asking throughout the country is why the Government have failed in their election promises—why they have failed to offer the prosperity that they promised would come the day after the election was over.
  I shall deal now with the specific matter of Conservative policy on the future of taxation. What is the Chancellor's policy for tax cutting, as he calls it? The average family is paying £500 more in taxes—the biggest tax rise in history.
  58
  After all the evidence of tax rises, does the Chancellor admit that he misled and betrayed people? Does he apologise? Does he confess the mistakes he made? Will he try to do better?
  No longer able to say that they are cutting tax; no longer even promising to cut tax and with no record in achieving cuts in tax—taxation is higher now than it was when Labour left office—with no specific Budget proposals to cut tax; and with the Chancellor unable even to repeat the promise that he used to make that the Conservative party was a low-tax party in the medium term, what do the Conservatives say now? All they can say is that they have an instinct for low taxes.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question. He quoted me saying things at the election that were remarkably similar to what I said in my speech today. Of course we will cut taxation, but the key is to get public spending and borrowing under control. The hon. Gentleman shows no sign that he recognises that. Which taxes would he cut? What would he spend while he was cutting taxes? He comes out with a lot of waffle that might have beaten the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in the leadership contest but would not beat anyone else in terms of content of economic policies.
  Mr. Brown: The Chancellor is now trying to rewrite history. He tries to give the impression that he went to the electorate saying that taxes would go up and then he might bring them down. He actually said:
  "Only the Conservatives believe in keeping taxation down. Only the Conservatives will keep the country's finances on a sound footing."
  What happened after that? We had the highest public sector borrowing requirement in Britain's history. The Chancellor knows very well that he should apologise to the electorate, admit the mistakes that he made and say that the Government will try to do better. The Chancellor cannot say those things, because he is personally committed to raising VAT.
  I have always wondered about the Chancellor's vote in favour of VAT on children's clothes. I have always wondered about the Walden interview in which he said that it would have been far better to put VAT at 17.5 per cent. on fuel in the first year rather than waiting and imposing it at 8 per cent. in the first year. I have always wondered about that strange by-election statement a few months ago in which he said that not to impose VAT on food and fuel was anomalous. Now I know why.
  Last summer one of the Chancellor's constituents wrote to him to ask his views on VAT on fuel. The constituent has kindly sent me the letter. In the long letter—the Chancellor tends to elaborate where it is sometimes unnecessary or inadvisable—he said:
  "I have always thought that we exempt too many goods and services from VAT in this country… VAT is still imposed on little over half of all sales, which is much more restrictive than the sales tax in most other countries."
  No wonder the Chancellor does not sound convincing when he talks about taxation. No wonder the Chancellor's instincts are regarded with suspicion. He does not want to lower taxation. He wants to extend VAT. The issue from now to the next election is whether he will honour or disown his stated commitment to the principle of extending VAT. I think that he will have an uncomfortable few months with the electorate in the run-up to the election.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In all the hours of research carried out by Labour headquarters, no one has ever found a quotation from me which is inconsistent with what I have been saying about VAT for years. I repeat that the Conservative party is the only party that believes in low taxation. We believe in achieving it by controlling public spending.
  As the hon. Gentleman is making his speech, will he say what are his policies on taxation? If he would reduce taxation, which taxes would he reduce? What are his views on public spending? What are his views on the public spending targets that we have set? It is utterly pathetic to come out with constituency letters in which I merely state my long-stated and well-known view that, if we were starting again, we might have a lower rate of VAT and fewer exemptions. As he knows, that is not policy now. Does the hon. Gentleman have any policy at all on anything of current concern?
  Mr. Brown: The Chancellor has made it clear that he is in favour of fewer exemptions on VAT. Will he now confirm for the benefit of the House that he is in favour in principle of extending VAT? Is it to food? Is it to transport? Is it to children's clothes? Is it to books and newspapers? This is a serious question. Is he in favour of extending VAT to those items?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman could find countless occasions on which I have said, as I have probably said ever since that vote 20 years ago which he always cites, that other countries have lower rates of VAT and fewer exemptions. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not to be taken as a statement of policy intention now. Will he please stop flannelling around in this Blair-like fashion and tell us his views on tax, public spending, borrowing, monetary policy or anything that has anything to do with the debate this afternoon?
  Mr. Brown: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has created the context for many debates that we shall have during the next election campaign. He cannot tell us that he is against the principle of extending VAT to food, to children's clothes, to books and newspapers or to public transport. The record will show that he told the House that he believed that there were far too few exemptions in this country. If that is the case, the Chancellor will live to regret what he wrote to his constituent and what he has said this afternoon.
  Ministers have recently discovered instincts not only for what they call low taxation, but, if the Chancellor's speech of last week is to be believed, for community, for social cohesion and for full employment. We are asked by the Secretary of State for Employment to believe that the Conservative party, which for 15 years has never had less than 1.5 million people unemployed, and under which 1 million young people are unemployed today, is somehow the party of full employment. Having told us for 15 years that Government could do nothing to affect the employment level in this country, the Conservative party now asks us to believe after 15 days that it is somehow the party of full employment. Having told us for 15 years that there is no such thing as society, it now asks to us believe that it is the party of social cohesion and community.
  Even though there is evidence, which we heard about earlier this afternoon, that 135,000 people are homeless under this Government; even though there is evidence to show that 13 million people are on low incomes as a result
  60
  of this Government's policies; even though all the evidence tells us that there is more poverty, worse poverty and worsening poverty, the Government refuse to do anything about it.
  This is the dilemma for Conservative Members as they go away for the summer recess. They do not know whether to attack the Labour party for its support of social cohesion, community, collective action and full employment, or to attempt to occupy the territory themselves. They do not know whether to attack the Labour party for its goal of full employment, or, in the face of evidence, to try to claim it as their own.
  I have some sympathy for Conservative Members. What are they to think? Do they cheer the new cry for full employment, or do they cheer the right wing when it says that full employment is not the responsibility of the Government? Do they wave their Order Papers at Ministers' appeals for community and collective action, or do they still wave their Order Papers when the right repeats that there is no such thing as society?
  On Europe, do Conservative Members say, "Hear, hear" when the Chancellor supports the principle of economic and monetary union, or do they say "Hear, hear" when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury says that he opposes it? Do they applaud when the Chancellor champions a single currency, or when the Chief Secretary questions the very principle? On the welfare state, do they wave their Order Papers when the Chancellor says that he opposes more health charges and opting out of the basic state pension, or do they wave their Order Papers when the Chief Secretary says, "These are just some of the things that have got to be looked at"?
  When they get to the Conservative party conference in the autumn—Conservative Members had better face up to this problem—do they rise for a standing ovation when the Chancellor says that he does not believe in the minimalist state, or do they give a standing ovation to the Chief Secretary and his No Turning Back group friends when they call for the minimalist state to be implemented? Do they get to their feet when the Chancellor says, as he has before, "I have always opposed vouchers," and when he admits that we still lag behind our competitors in education, or do they get to their feet for the Chief Secretary when his friends say that they favour vouchers and when he doubts whether so many graduates are needed?
  Do they stand and cheer for some and sit on their hands for others? In the interests of party unity, does everyone receive a brief, crouching ovation, or do Conservative Members wait for instructions from the new chairman of the Conservative party, whoever may accept that job or from whatever faction he may come? Will the Prime Minister have to appoint two chairmen of the Conservative party to ensure that all factions are represented?
  What about the Prime Minister in all this? His one constant desire is to appease whatever faction holds sway, presiding over a rabble of divided factions and appeasing the right. In Churchill's words, the Prime Minister is
  "resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful for impotence".
  Bonar Law said on his leadership of the Conservative party that he was their leader and had to decide which faction to follow. That applies to the Prime Minister.
  No amount of hypocrisy on social cohesion, full employment and community, no instincts for taxes, and no amount of papering over the cracks can save the

  61
  Conservative party from its ultimate destiny—Opposition. It is clear that the party which runs an economy with 2.5 million unemployed, which still cuts the number of people on training schemes and the training and employment budget year after year, and which then tries to pretend that it is the party of full employment, will never be seen by the electorate as anything other than the party of mass unemployment.
  The party which pushed up taxes faster and higher than any other Government in history, which has imposed 20 tax rises in two years and which then tries to tell us that it is the party of competence in the running of the economy, will never again be trusted with government. The Conservative party is not only unfit to govern because of its record: it is never to be trusted because of its hypocrisy.
  The party which has multiplied the number of people in poverty, which has widened the gap between rich and poor to the worst point this century, which has consigned 4 million children to poverty, which has done nothing and said nothing against the excesses that characterised the privatised board rooms in some of the affairs of the City, and which then tries to pose as the party of community and social cohesion, will be seen by the electorate for what it is: not the party of values but the party of sleaze. It can offer no direction, no strategy and no purpose to this country. It has failed, and it has compounded that failure by its hypocrisy over taxation and the community For 15 years, its failure has diminished this country and its failure to go simply prolongs the agony. To end the failure, we must soon end the Government.
  5.45 pm
  Sir Cranley Onslow: That was a very noisy speech from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), but it told us damn all about Labour party policy. It told us a lot about the hon. Gentleman. It showed how frustrated he is not to be a participant in the leadership campaign, and it proved that we shall receive no answers from him during either the leadership or election campaigns. The hon. Gentleman is an ambitious young man. He puts me in mind of another Brown, George Brown. The hon. Gentleman's long-term economic strategy is very much an echo of George Brown's national plan and it is about as much use to the British economy.
  I do not want to speak at length and I rise to draw attention to two matters that have not been covered in speeches or that are not directly covered in the motion or the amendment. The first involves the need, if the economy is to be successful, for the whole of Government to focus on all the issues that are in Britain's long-term interests. My first point is addressed as much to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence—who is not present—as to Treasury Ministers, who I hope will take note of what I say.
  There can be no doubt about the importance of the defence industry to the United Kingdom economy and to the aerospace industry in particular. Since the end of the cold war, markets have become even more competitive, but the importance of the aerospace industry has not diminished. That makes it all the more important that national defence needs and national industry needs should be weighed together. It means that we should think even more carefully before committing ourselves to defence procurement programmes that run counter to long-term economic considerations.
  62
  The RAF's problem on the Hercules replacement is a case in point. The short-term argument may favour buying American. The long-term advantage must lie with a European solution. The American company Lockheed's campaign to sell its C-130Js to the RAF is not an altruistic one. Some of its advertising claims are so far-fetched that they sound almost desperate. Let us take an example from a newspaper that I am sure you study, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Evening Standard. Last Thursday, an advertisement boasted that the
  "C-130J carries all military equipment required to be air transported for the British Armed Forces."
  Anyone who knows what the requirements of the British armed forces are likely to be knows that that statement is a gross exaggeration.
  Lockheed says that the C-130J means £7 billion in revenue for UK companies and
  "re-affirms UK leadership in key aerospace technologies".
  One might calculate that the Hercules C-130J would bring us £7 billion if one believed that every one of the 2,100 Hercules flying all over the world would be replaced by a C-130J, but all hon. Members know that that is hardly likely to happen. As for reaffirming key technologies— a phrase that means nothing to me in English; it may mean something in American, but we are not told what— the C-130J has nothing significant in the way of air-frame innovation about it.
  The House must remember that an alternative is on the horizon—the future large aircraft, or FLA, which is a European joint venture. It really would meet our defence needs in the next century and would bring great benefits to our industry and our whole economy. It is important that we should weigh that in our minds when that decision is made.
  Where do the true interests of our economy lie when such a decision is made? Can defence factors alone, especially when we remember that future British operations are most likely to be as part of a joint or allied United Nations force, outweigh the country's long-term economic interests? In this case, and no doubt in others, I am sure that economic considerations must come first and that the British economy cannot remain strong, whatever the broad sweep of policy, unless such considerations are borne in mind. We cannot fight Britain's corner, and we cannot have a healthy economy, if we reduce ourselves to the status of sub-contractors to the American defence industry, at the cost of destroying our own.
  My second point is about another area where urgent Government action is needed—the threat to various sectors of our industry from state aids given by other European Governments to their own inefficient and uncompetitive industries. I could cite the steel industry as a case in point, where our interests are threatened by state aids to state-owned European companies. I could cite the airline industry, where Air France is a notorious example of a bankrupt operation being propped up by the French taxpayer at the expense of competition from airlines such as ours, where private enterprise and private investment rule the day. Instead, I want to focus briefly on a different industry—the aluminium industry, which is an important feature of our economy.
  The British aluminium industry faces over-supply in a fiercely competitive market, for two reasons: imports of aluminium from the Commonwealth of Independent States following the collapse of internal demand and the activities of several loss-making state-owned companies, principally

  63
  in Austria, Spain, Italy and France. All those companies have severe trading losses, coupled with an outflow of funds. AMAG—Austria Metal—recorded the country's largest-ever corporate loss on 14 July of £755 million, following what the company described as
  "a catastrophic loss in 1993".
  The company has apparently cost the Austrian taxpayer £15 billion in the past decade. However much all of us may welcome the probable accession of Austria to the European Union, it cannot make sense that we should tolerate such state subsidy to an industry that is being run so catastrophically.
  Inespal of Spain lost £158 million in 1992, and suffered similar losses in 1991. The position has since worsened. Alumix of Italy lost £220 million before extraordinary items in 1992, and 1993 is not likely to show any improvement.
  The aluminium interests of Pechiney of France, which is 80 per cent. state-controlled, recorded a loss before extraordinary and finance items of £35 million in 1993. Part of the state's share is invested in the nationalised Electricité de France, which granted concessionary power rates for Pechiney's Dunkirk smelter. That is a typical example of the state aids that continue within the framework of the EU, with Brussels apparently unable do anything to prevent it. It is vital for the British economy that the Government act to ensure fair competition and an end to distorting state aids.
  Our aluminium industry is entirely in the private sector. It employs an estimated 40,000 people, and has a turnover of £3 billion. It is a strong exporter. In 1992, it exported goods to the value of £608 million; in 1993, the figure was £615 million. The industry has suffered badly in the recession, losing many thousands of jobs, and this, again, is a factor that must be borne in mind by a Government who want to see a strong economy with strong industries.
  I make those points not to criticise Government policy; indeed, I wholly support it. I thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite restrained in his failure to quote the Governor of the Bank of England on the state of our economy. The Governor is on record as saying that never in his professional life of 30 years has he known a time when the conditions for sustained non-inflationary growth were more favourable in the British economy. That is due to the skill and persistence with which the Chancellor and his colleagues have pursued their policies. They have my full support, and they deserve that of the House.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: If this debate is to be intelligible to people listening to it, or to those who might read it, it would be helpful if we tried to relate what is said here more directly to what is happening outside.
  I do not believe that this is an incompetent Government. I have been in the House for 44 years. I think that the situation that confronts our people is exactly what the Government wanted. I shall come to the details of that —the applause that greets every statement, such as the Chancellor's statement and the statement on homelessness, proves it.
  I do not think that they are an uncaring Government. That may surprise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but a Government who give such massive tax cuts to the rich
  64
  must care for somebody. Clearly, they do not care for the majority, who have been loaded down with the highest increase in tax on the poorest people. I met a ticket collector on the train last weekend—I have known him for some time—who came from Aden and who lives in a house with five children and his mother. That household paid £8,000 a year in poll tax. It was a big house with a number of adults, but that was the figure he gave.
  The point that I am putting to the House is that I do not believe that the Government have an economic strategy. I think that they have a political strategy, and everything that has happened is intelligible to me if I realise what that political strategy is. How could a Government who inherited the enormous revenues of the North sea have spent every penny on unemployment? I do not know whether hon. Members ask unemployed people what they did before—ships' captains, ships' engineers, tool makers, draughtsmen—but the other day I was driven in a minicab by a doctor.
  We are the only country in the world that could have used the North sea oil revenues to de-industrialise instead of to re-equip, or to have allowed our social fabric to be destroyed. I am talking about the infrastructure, the state of our public services. To close the pits, with 1,000 years of coal under our territory, was not an economic act in favour of nuclear power, which costs three and a half times as much as coal, but an act of vengeance against the trade union movement.
  The sale of the Rover Group to a widow in Bavaria who owns 66 per cent. of all BMW shares is regarded as a triumph. What logic is there in saying that it is wrong for Britain to own the Rover Group but all right for a widow in Bavaria to do so? It is a political strategy.
  I am trying to explain as best I can, because I have been here many years and have seen many Governments in power, that I think that the policy of the Government is to reverse the balance of wealth and power back to where it was in Victorian times. There certainly was a different breed of Conservative after the war: Winston Churchill, after all, was an old liberal. Harold Macmillan wrote a book in 1938, "The Middle Way", for which he might now be expelled from the Labour party because of its radicalism.
  What happened under the surface was the creation of a new breed of Conservatives—I do not want to attach them to the name of a particular Minister— who greatly resented the growth in the strength of labour, the growth in local government and the development of democracy because they believed that it created a welfare state that threatened their wealth and power.
  In fairness, when the Government were elected, they made many statements along the lines that the unions and local government were too powerful and that the welfare state was too big. The Government have been determined to break that political advance and to reverse it and they have done that by various well-known methods. First, they have legislated to make effective trade unionism virtually illegal. Legal safeguards for trade unions in Britain are now less than those provided by the International Labour Organisation.
  Trade unions cannot defend their members. They are forced to hold ballots before they take industrial action. However, there is no ballot in respect of capital. If the foreign owner of a British company wishes to close a factory for ever, he does not have to ballot anyone. If a trade union wishes to defend the wages and conditions in

  65
  a factory by way of industrial action for a single day, it must hold a ballot. The Government's action was deliberate.
  Local authorities have been virtually destroyed. In addition to the terrible sight across the river of county hall with a Japanese flag flying over it and a sign saying, "Removal", the destruction of local government has been a conscious policy because local government had been a means by which people could band together to buy collectively what they could not afford individually in terms of housing, health and so on.
  Unemployment is the Government's major policy. Unemployment is deliberate. That is why I did not say at the beginning of my remarks that the Government are incompetent. They know exactly what they are doing. Unemployment performs essential functions in a capitalist society.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: I will give way in a moment after I have finished my point. I hope that we will not have a lot of knockabout.
  Unemployment undermines the trade unions and it lowers wages. If one goes to an employer and says, "I can't live on that money," he will say, "Well, there are 2 million or 3 million people who will take your wage." There are people on disgracefully low wages in Britain today. People with no trade union protection are earning less than £2 an hour. Such wages are advertised.
  Because unemployment lowers wages, it boosts profits. It also performs the very valuable function, from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of limiting imports. We do not see an unemployed person in a Honda car, with a camcorder, on his way to a holiday in Spain. Unemployment is a weapon.
  Reference is made to days lost as a result of industrial disputes. I wonder whether the Chancellor has ever asked his economists to add up the number of days lost in industrial disputes and to compare it with days lost through unemployment. Every day we lose 3 million days through unemployment. Unemployment is a Government policy.
  Homelessness is also a Government policy. Whenever one sees someone in a cardboard box, that is a warning: "Don't quarrel with your employer because if you do, and he sacks you, you will be dispossessed and made homeless as well." I listened to the statement about homelessness that was made earlier today. The homeless, like the beggars, are now the victims of that policy. Homelessness is the warning: "Don't cause trouble." When the Government say that they want to encourage home owners, they really mean home buyers. There is an enormous difference between a home buyer with a mortgage and a home owner who does not have one.
  The dependency culture—which is a phrase that should be redefined—to which the Government are committed means that one is absolutely dependent on one's employer, and has to take the wages, conditions and short-term contracts that he offers because if one does not, one is likely to lose one's job and mortgage and be thrown out onto the street.
  Mr. Brazier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now?
  Mr. Benn: I will give way quickly, but I am making a serious point.
  Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He said that unemployment fulfils certain purposes in a capitalist society and he went on to give some examples. What role does 23 per cent. unemployment fulfil in socialist Spain?
  Mr. Benn: I am addressing the situation here. Felipe Gonzalez is not someone with whom I find myself in very close ideological contact. The hon. Gentleman should address himself to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury because Felipe Gonzalez follows the Chief Secretary's policies and was properly rejected by the Spanish electorate.
  I hope that the House will listen to me. My point is that legislation, unemployment, homelessness and the erosion of democracy are Government policies. All the quangos that have been set up are designed to replace elected people. We heard much talk about giving the unions back to their members, but by God, when it came to the real centres of power, power was handed over to the quangos. To coin a phrase, Maastricht is the last quango in Paris. It is the last quango in Brussels. Maastricht is a huge unaccountable body with enormous power over us.
  As I have said, I have been paid to watch the Conservative party for 44 years. I know what it is up to. What amazes me is why the rest of the people accept a policy that is so manifestly unfair and damaging to them and to the country. The answer is that the policy was put across with considerable skill, using language which misled people about what it was.
  For example, we were told that the Government would reduce state power. I have never known a state so powerful as ours is now: there were some 10,000 policemen at Wapping, police were used in the miners' dispute, the police are controlling everyone, and huge MI5 and MI6 buildings are being constructed and used. State power has simply been transferred from attempting to protect the public against exploitation to protecting the people who support the Government against any challenge to their power.
  I have referred to the word "customer" in the House on several occasions. To be a customer, one must have money. If one has no money, one cannot be a customer. The people in cardboard boxes are not customers. They desperately need houses, but they do not have the money to turn their need into a demand. Therefore, a word has been devised and injected into the citizens charter, which is all about depersonalising and dehumanising a huge and growing section of society—those who are so poor that they cannot get what they need.
  I am afraid that the result of all that—this is where the politics comes into it—has been to widen the group of people who have totally rejected the philosophy of the 1980s. One could make the miners out to be unpopular if one had the Daily Mail or the Daily Express on one's side. One could attack the print workers. However, the Government have now turned on the public servants.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a great mistake if he thinks that civil servants and local government workers believe that market testing has anything to do with efficiency. Not only has a huge layer of bureaucracy been set up to carry out that artificial market testing, but if better value for money is achieved, it is on

  67
  the basis of lower wages and poorer conditions for those performing the services, and rocketing incomes for the managers who favour privatisation because that is how they double, treble and quadruple their incomes.
  We should not underestimate what the Government have done to the prison service. I went across to Westminster Central hall the other day with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who received a standing ovation from the prison officers. He asked me afterwards what he had said wrong. I told him, "You said nothing wrong, Dennis. You spoke of the prisons as a public service."
  We should not think that the police are not concerned. When I was at the Durham miners' gala 10 days ago, a sergeant said to me, "Mr. Benn, 10 years ago I thought you were dangerous. Now I agree with everything you say." The police are also being attacked. I welcome them on the picket line now because I say, "Next year it'll be Group 4 Security and you will be on our side." The police know that that is the case.
  I believe that there is a widespread rejection of the Government's policy. Although we tend to speak in the House in economic debates in the jargon of economics, most people know what it is all about. It is about the return to Victorian conditions when the country was run by a handful of wealthy and powerful people and the rest of the people were on the floor.
  Mr. Wolfson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: No, I will not give way. I am making a point. I hope that hon. Members will listen because I want to keep within the 10-minute limit, although we have not yet reached 7 pm.
  The answer to all this is repression. The Government introduced the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill because they know that they are sitting on an explosive situation. Therefore, the police are to be used to prevent matters from getting out of control.
  As to the economy, the Chancellor controls nothing. In respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who I hope will soon succeed the Chancellor, the Chancellor made much of the point that the economy is controlled by international capital. That is the way it was intended that it should be controlled. Capital has been wholly liberated to move where it likes, and labour and Parliament have been restricted.
  I do not want to reopen the argument about the ERM, which I voted against when the Labour national executive met before the last election. Nor I do not want to raise the question of the central bank. However, if there is a central bank—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has often pointed this out—a future Chancellor will have no power. Indeed, at the moment, if sterling drops three decimal points, the Secretary of State for Health pops up and closes three hospitals and confidence is restored.
  It is a facade to pretend that the Chancellor is running the economy. The Chancellor is responding to forces that he has helped to liberate because he himself does not really believe that an elected Chancellor should have any control over the world economy. We can add to that GATT and the World Trade Organisation, a wholly undemocratic body accountable to nobody, which will have the power to force
  68
  nations which sign GATT to abandon certain environmental protections and other matters because they interfere with free trade. GATT and the central bank are part of that mechanism, and little scope for action is left.
  I hope and believe that, with the new Leader of the Labour party, whoever he or she might be, on Thursday, and with the new Government after the next election, we shall adopt totally different objectives. Governments should be judged by their objectives and not by their techniques, playing a game that they do not control. Everybody in Britain should have useful work available at a living wage throughout their lives. That should be an objective of policy.
  When I was 17, the then Government had a marvellous employment policy. When one was 17, one received a very nice letter from the Government, saying, "Will you turn up on your birthday? You will receive free clothes, free accommodation, free food and free training. All that you have to do is to kill Germans." They had a lovely youth training scheme in Germany, too. The Germans were asked, "Will you join the German army? You will receive free accommodation, free food, free clothes and free training if you will kill the British."
  If we can do that in wartime for destructive purposes, nobody will persuade me that we cannot have full employment in peacetime, to build the infrastructure, to clean the rivers, to print schoolbooks, to reduce the size of classes and so on—of course we can, but it is not profitable to do it, and that is why it is not done.
  People are entitled to a home. Why should there be a rat race between the really homeless and the temporarily homeless for a little bit of housing? We should build houses—there are 500,000 building workers. What I have discovered is that it is so long since the case for socialism was made that people have forgotten the argument against it. When I say, "There are 500,000 building workers, so why do we not use them?" people say, "What a marvellous idea. What is the reason? There must be some reason." Of course they have forgotten the reason because that case has not been put, but, if it is put, it will have enormous political support.
  People are entitled to lifelong education. I am for raising the school leaving age to 95—I always have been. When I first spoke in favour of raising the school leaving age to 90, I had a letter from a pensioner from Liverpool who said, "I have just received an Open university degree at 92. Tony, will you raise the school leaving age?" Education should be alongside one throughout one's life. One goes into education just as one goes into a library to learn what one wants, when one wants, and comes out when one has learned it. That is education, not stuffing people like turkeys to get into selective schools to obtain better jobs.
  People are entitled to health care that is free at the point of use. We have never had a free health service. Aneurin Bevan did not introduce a free health service. He introduced a health service that was free when one needed it and which one paid for when one was well. For those who are doubtful about socialism, it was the most socialist and most popular thing we ever did, and we had the resources to do it.
  People should have dignity when they retire. I say "dignity" rather than "a quiet life" because many old people have much to offer. We should spend less on the means of war and more on the means of life. Hon. Members do not comment that the Japanese and Germans are so strong because they make civil goods. We can sell

  69
  a few missiles to a sheikh, while the Germans and Japanese pour out civil production, but we have to plan if we are to do that, just as at the end of world war 2 Beaufighters stopped coming out of the Bristol Aircraft Corporation in Bristol, and about six weeks later prefabricated houses started to be built. That had to be planned; it did not happen as a result of market forces. I am in favour of an incoming Government committing themselves to such matters.
  Do not tell us that public expenditure is evil, because we dealt with unemployment by public expenditure before the war. We took people off the dole and put them into factories producing tanks, guns and ships. They did not receive dole money: they received wages, and they paid tax and paid for the war. There were no market forces. My granny never bought a Spitfire. I never saw a tank in the back garden. My auntie never had a sten gun. The Government bought those things. If we can do that for defence, we can do it for civil and manufacturing reconstruction.
  The one absolutely basic national interest in this country is that one should be able to earn a living—that applies to farmers but not to manufacturing industry—and pay fair taxation. I do not know why people are so worried about our tax argument; I mentioned it in an intervention on the Chancellor.
  There are only two questions about taxation: what is it for and who pays? If the Government tax a pensioner VAT on fuel, even on his standing charge, and use it for a Trident, that is mad. I go around Chesterfield, where a family of four pays £32 a week on weapons before they have paid the rent. I ask, "Aren't you spending a bit too much on weapons?" They say, "No, we're not." I say, "Oh yes, here is your share." Do they feel more threatened by vandalism due to unemployed lads on their housing estates or by a nuclear attack by Kim I1 Sung's son in North Korea?
  The balance is absolutely wrong. If we put forward the argument with credibility and conviction, there will be enormous support for it, and I hope that it is noticed where the voices are louder than mine. If we are to do that, we must have more democracy and we must seek the powers to do so.
  I do not know how the next Labour Government will cope with the Brussels Commission. However, I do know that my right hon. Friend for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), who I gather has moved to an office of profit in the Commission —whether it involves his immediate resignation is a matter for the Clerks, not for me—will tell us that we cannot take action to deal with those matters because that would involve interfering with market forces. That is what Maastricht is all about.
  Therefore, when we present the argument—I shall have to do so in Chesterfield, if I am reselected, which I hope I am—there must be an element of truth about it. We can talk about objectives, but, as old Clem Attlee used to say, and it was in our 1945 manifesto, the test is not one's aspirations but rather whether one has a workmanlike plan for dealing with the matter.
  A workmanlike plan for dealing with unemployment, which would be the greatest thing that we could do for this country, for men and women and for old and young, would involve intervening in the economy to prevent our future being handed over to the speculators and the gamblers who now control it. The people listening to the debate might be
  70
  more interested to hear that issue discussed, rather than to hear the exchange of quotations, of which many are to be found in Hansard.
  It will be terribly difficult to return to full employment in a technological age. We shall not do it by raising the school leaving age, and we shall certainly not do it by raising the retirement age for women by five years. We must have, perhaps, a shorter working week and we must make all sorts of changes, but people want to know how it will be done, because their vote and support will be determined by that rather than by the false idea that somehow in this House we can so manipulate the world economy as to create the conditions that we want.
  We live under the control of international capital and, until that is in some way discussed, challenged and altered, our discussions may be no more relevant than municipal discussions when a council is faced with a standard spending assessment imposed by the Department of the Environment.
  6.17 pm
  Sir Terence Higgins: It is always a pleasure to hear the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). If time allows, I should like to answer many of his points, but there is one matter about which I am deeply concerned, so I shall concentrate my remarks on that.
  I greatly enjoyed the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not least because the summer forecast contains much good news and provides a firm basis for further progress. However, I am bound to say that my enjoyment was tinged by the old adage, "Absence makes the heart grow fonder." I think that I am right in saying that my right hon. and learned Friend has not spoken in a debate in the House since 9 December. I cannot, in only 30 years—not 40 years, like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield—remember an occasion when a Chancellor has gone so long without addressing the House. He has made many speeches outside, but he has not made a single speech in the House since then.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor rightly pointed out, we have had an enormous number of Supply days, none of which was devoted to the economy. Perhaps that is understandable, given the satisfactory general management of the economy that forms the background to today's debate; nevertheless, it is extraordinary that there has been no Opposition day debate on the economy for such a long time. lb/>
  My right hon. and learned Friend suggested that the shadow Chancellor was not anxious to debate such matters. I had the impression that perhaps it was only every six months that he managed to cook up enough jokes to conceal the fact that he was not going to give any answers to questions about the Opposition's real policy on central issues of economic management—although, of course, we hear plenty of talk about peripheral matters.
  Mr. Alan Milburn: What about VAT?
  Sir Terence Higgins: As I was responsible for the original zero-rating of fuel, let me say a word about that. In practice, the taxing of fuel has proved to be an appalling socialist measure: we are now taxing the entire country's fuel, and redistributing almost half the money to the lowest paid and pensioners. I am surprised that Opposition Members have not cottoned on to that.

  71
  What worries me is this. We have not heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in more than six months because we now have a so-called unified Budget. The question was debated for many years—for instance, by the Armstrong committee back in 1978, and by the Procedure Committee which I chaired in 1983. All were certain of one thing: if a unified Budget was to be introduced, the procedural aspects would have to be examined very carefully.
  Before the last general election, a White Paper was finally produced. Its publication, however, was overlooked because of the election itself. The next thing we knew was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) telling us, in his 1993 Budget speech, that there would be a unified Budget in the autumn.
  I feel bound to say that, in procedural terms, the move was pretty disastrous. Because the procedural aspects had not been thought out properly, we had to guillotine two Bills on the same day. The Opposition—rightly, in my view—were very concerned. The usual channels broke down, the operation of Select Committees was inhibited and the general work of the House was disrupted. We must not let that happen again this year, but it is far from clear how we are to avoid it.
  In particular, as a result of that change, opportunities to debate the most important area of policy—economic policy—have been seriously eroded.
  Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Terence Higgins: No; I want to develop this point.
  In recent years, the normal pattern has been for the autumn statement to take place—understandably—in the autumn, followed by debates on the White Paper just after Christmas and debates on Budget measures until this time of year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has appeared at various points in the sequence, and on each occasion has also appeared before the Treasury Select Committee. The introduction of a unified Budget has greatly reduced the amount of time available for the House to debate such matters, which has important implications in terms of accountability.
  It is astonishing that the Opposition have not kicked up a row, but it is not just a question of what they think; it is a question of the House and its future. Sooner or later—in 20 years, perhaps—we shall change sides. We may suddenly find that there are very few occasions on which to debate the economy, with which the Conservative party has always been passionately concerned.
  It is doubtful whether we should return to the old arrangement, although in some respects it might be better than what we have now. We must examine the possibilities carefully. The Government have saved a good deal of parliamentary time; in a sense, today's debate is a mere sop. I believe that we should keep the detailed debates that take place on estimates days, but that we should also have more time in which to debate Select Committee reports on expenditure, because Select Committees are responsible for examining the policy, administration and expenditure of their Departments.
  Since we reformed the system 12 or 15 years ago, it has been very difficult for Select Committees to examine expenditure because of the form of the estimates. Following the reform of the estimates procedures, much of
  72
  the data are now in the annual reports of the Departments: for the first time the Committees can really look at them, and for the first time the House has an opportunity to examine the expenditure of individual Departments in detail. I believe that the time that has been saved should be devoted to a number of days on which the expenditure details of the reports can be debated, on the basis of the Select Committee reports.
  Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Terence Higgins: No. I am about to make a point that is related to what I have just said, and I do not want to interrupt the flow of my argument.
  Ithough we are told that we have a unified Budget, in fact it is no such thing. In the autumn statement and Budget debates, we have always discussed both sides of the equation—public expenditure and taxation—and there has never been a problem. Now the two have been brought together. Last year, the amount of public expenditure detail that was presented at the time of the autumn Budget was not very great, and I doubt whether it will be this year either.
  The unified Budget means that we now have far less time in which to debate public expenditure. We have lost the White Paper debates, which, although they were never very satisfactory, at least gave us some time in which to discuss that subject. We do not have a truly unified Budget, in the sense that a proposed increase or cut in public expenditure is balanced against a proposed increase or cut in taxation. The House, of course, is inhibited from proposing increases in either tax or expenditure—that is reserved for the Government—but, in a unified Budget, a trade-off between the two would be necessary.
  It is also true, however, that there is no real unified Budget within Government. I suspect that the Secretary of State for Health, for example, does not go along to the Chancellor and say, "I must spend another £2 billion on the health service; please put 2p on income tax." It does not work in that way. As we know, there is an expenditure round which is debated bilaterally; it may be dealt with by a Committee, and, if the matter is in dispute, it may go to the Cabinet. The Chancellor then decides what to do about taxation.
  I believe that it is very dangerous to take such action without considering the procedural aspects. I suggest that the estimates days should be retained for more expenditure debates, and that more of the time that has been saved should be devoted to debating Select Committee reports more generally.
  One of the Chancellor's remarks gave me considerable cause for concern. He said that the policy of countries across Europe, and his own policy in particular, was to cut the deficits incurred during the recession; he implied that the right approach was to increase taxation, against the present level of unemployment. I think that that is rather a dangerous concept. We still do not know the extent to which our deficit is cyclical and the extent to which it is structural; but, unless the Chancellor was implying that there has been a huge increase in the structural deficit which he needs to cover by increasing taxation, I am very doubtful about his proposals. He is in danger of slowing down the recovery and affecting the balance in such matters. Even in 1995, the deficit is forecast to be about £28 billion and there will be some problems funding that.

  73
  The issues are complex and I do not have time to deal with them now. One passage in the Chancellor's speech contained a dangerous statement. It could have been an off-the-cuff remark, but if it was drafted in advance, it needs to be re-examined closely, perhaps by the Treasury Select Committee.
  The introduction of the unified Budget has eroded the ability of the House to hold the Government to account and that is a dangerous state of affairs.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I share the reforming zeal of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and his desire to make the unified Budget what it should have been and what he intended it to be when he played his part in introducing some of the reforms. It should have been a process through which we would have more effective Budget-making, with tax and revenue reviewed together, and more accountability. That is not yet the result of the change and I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that matter.
  I can understand the Chancellor wanting to dwell on the good indications contained in the present economic figures, but that is no excuse for the staggering complacency of much of his speech. It was the equivalent of the Italian fans getting out the champagne bottles when the whistle blew and the score was still 0–0. In the case of the British economy, there is more than a penalty shoot-out still to come. To make matters worse, we know more than the Italians about what could go wrong in the next stage.
  From experience and our knowledge of the British economy's weaknesses, we have a pretty fair understanding that the favourable signs that we have had so far will not, by themselves, see us through the next crucial stages of recovery from a very deep recession. We shall face severe pressures. It is a known fact that the United Kingdom economy has scarce capacity in transport, skills, housing and industrial investment and that those become pressure points when growth begins again.
  Growth is apparently buoyant, which I welcome, and it has been less affected by the scale of the tax increases than I feared. That fact is a significant feature in the political debate—indeed, it qualifies what the right hon. Member for Worthing said concerning his fears about what would happen if the Chancellor relied too heavily on tax increases to deal with the continuing deficit next year. So far, the evidence shows that the tax increases have had less effect on growth in the economy than some of us might have expected.
  Present growth is stimulated by consumption, however, and not investment, which is what many of us feared. The risk is that inflation will develop again. It is all very well to point to the statement in which the Governor of the Bank of England described the favourable features of the present economic situation. It would also be easy to point to his warnings that interest rates may have to rise if inflation starts to increase again.
  The Chancellor has ratcheted taxes to an all-time high and now has the political objective of cutting them again. If growth restores public finance sufficiently to allow tax cuts, those very cuts may over-stimulate the economy. If it is prudent to cut taxes because revenues have been sufficiently boosted by growth, the Chancellor will face the
  74
  danger that the sort of stimulation that Nigel Lawson was fond of giving the economy will have precisely the same effect again and the remedy will be interest rate rises.
  The more the Chancellor's Back-Bench supporters talk about the possibility of tax cuts, the more they are likely to push interest rates up in the coming months. The markets will fear that fiscal policy will not take sufficient account of inflationary dangers and that monetary policy will have to do so.
  Whichever way he turns, the Chancellor is caught. If the circumstances appear to be favourable for tax cuts—disregarding for the moment what we could and should be using taxes for—he may well find that he has to protect his back with interest rate rises. The price for political talk of tax cuts may well be further pressure for increased interest rates.
  The real indictment of the Conservative Government goes much further than that. They allowed the recession to be longer and deeper than it need have been. The Chancellor keeps saying that Britain is leading Europe out of recession, but that clearly implies that Britain led Europe into recession. If being the first out is a mark of some virtue, being in so early, so long and so deep is a curious virtue for the Government to proclaim. The artificial boom that preceded Britain's recession—the work of Ministers in this Government—was the reason for the depth and length of our recession and for much of the hardship that it caused.
  The Government will continue to pay the price for that in many parts of the country. My hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), who are sitting beside me, won their seats in Parliament partly because people were so angry about the way in which the Government had mismanaged the economy.
  Mr. Wolfson: The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that the recession was unnecessarily long. With hindsight, does he think that the fact that we were members of the exchange rate mechanism for so long directly contributed to the depth of the recession?
  Mr. Beith: No. I accept that our membership became unsustainable for a combination of reasons, some of which were related to the way in which British economic policy had been conducted and others to pressures outside the United Kingdom. I agree with the Chancellor that the fact that we were in the ERM for that length of time was fundamental in the battle against inflation. Had we not been in the ERM, inflation would have been far worse now. As the Chancellor pointed out, other mechanisms had to be put in place fairly quickly once we left the ERM. The exchange rate mechanism is not the best way to reach a single currency and when we eventually reach one it will be by a different mechanism, but that is a subject for another debate and another day.
  One reason why we were so long coming out of recession was that the Government failed to invest in a counter-cyclical way during the depths of the recession, so the weaknesses with which we are all familiar persisted. In the latest report by the World Economic Forum, Britain came last out of all 22 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in the number of qualified engineers, in engineering sciences and in the quality of the work force, and second from last in the standard of compulsory education.

  75
  In the United Kingdom, 25 per cent. of the work force have vocational qualifications, compared with 40 per cent. in France and 63 per cent. in Germany. In 1991, 62 per cent. of 16-year-olds in Germany and 66 per cent. of 16-year-olds in France had the equivalent of a GCSE in three core subjects—mathematics, science and the national language—while only 27 per cent. had gained those qualifications in England. We were 19th out of the 22 OECD countries in real growth in total expenditure on research and development, 20th on public funding for research and development and 22nd on private funding of non-defence research and development. We came last out of the 22 OECD countries for investment in infrastructure. Despite all that, the Government plan to chop another 10 per cent. off their capital expenditure programme for 1994–95.
  During the recession years, we could have been filling some of those gaps. We could have engaged in investment that would have put people back to work, reduced the burden on the welfare benefit system, brought through income in taxes paid and shortened the agony of recession, while equipping us for the future. It will become increasingly difficult to carry out some of that investment when Government activity on physical infrastructure, for example, starts to compete with intensified private activity in the economy. In economic terms, it would have been much easier to engage in that investment then.
  We are paying for the lost years of recession, which have left us between 6 and 8 per cent. below trend growth. One could say that that amounts to a £50 billion bill for the years wasted in the depths of recession. Meanwhile, in a consumption-led recovery, public borrowing is financing a trade deficit—73 per cent. of national income is spent on personal consumption, which is higher than during the Lawson years. That is a remarkable fact, which illustrates the way in which our economy has become geared to personal consumption and has moved away from business investment. The Government are not putting in place measures to boost investment or small businesses.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that one implication of his critique of the policy during the recent recession is that, if his party had been influential in any way, it would have increased both public expenditure and public borrowing during those years over and above the levels which took place? Is that the case?
  Mr. Beith: Yes, except for the last phrase. When the hon. Gentleman says "over and above the levels which took place", he ignores the effect of expenditure during a recession. One of the features of that which Keynes managed to convince people about, which no one has fundamentally denied since, is that expenditure taking place during a recession leads to economic activity and the payment of taxes; it reduces the payment of welfare benefits; and it could have increased the speed at which we got our public finances back to a sensible position.
  A further criticism of the Government, in listing this indictment, is that they have at the same time forfeited our lead role in Europe to the detriment of London as a financial centre. The possibility of London being the centre for a European financial institution is destroyed by the opt-out position in which we have placed ourselves. We
  76
  now have the Government in the absurd position of being willing to accept as President of the Commission someone about whom the best that can be said is that he is a federalist, but a less competent federalist than the last federalist whom they vetoed.
  If there are any challenges to the competence of the proposed President—and I make none because I do not know whether there are any—they are extraordinary grounds on which to prefer him to another candidate. That is another illustration of a Government who, for the purposes of satisfying those on their own Back Benches who are in fundamental disagreement with their views, are prepared to take steps in Europe that are damaging to Britain's economic position.
  One must add that the Government's tax policies have been deeply unfair as well as dishonest. They knew before the election that there would be a £28 billion public sector deficit, and they had the full opportunity to tell the nation if they thought that the only way to deal with that was by substantial tax increases—perhaps even not quite on the scale that they eventually turned out to be. We could have given them the credit for underestimating the scale of increases required. But there were not to be any tax increases—it was tax cuts that would be on the agenda at the moment the ballot boxes closed and the Conservative Government were returned. That was dishonest.
  There has also been the unfairness of the tax policies. According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the income of the richest 10 per cent. has increased by £30 a week as a result of tax changes in the past decade, while that of the poorest 10 per cent. has gone down £3 a week as a result of tax changes over the same decade.
  It is a long charge sheet and the plea in mitigation will not get much off the sentence. The acceptable part of labour market reforms, the publishing of the minutes of the Governor's meetings with the Chancellor on monetary policy and the apparent toughness on inflation—I welcome all that, but it does not add up to much in comparison with the huge damage that has been done.
  One is bound to ask, as did the Chancellor, especially this week: where would Labour take us? Are Labour Members really committed to economic stability and a fight against inflation? Will they act to encourage labour market flexibility? Will they ever get over their readiness to accept monopolies—a characteristic where I think they have too much in common with the Government—usually, in their case, in the public sector and, in the Government's case, in the private sector? The Government transfer monopolies from the public to the private sector with too great a willingness. Such questions will need to be answered in the coming weeks.
  It is clear to us that certain crucial things still need to be done. We must improve our education system. We must invest in our infrastructure. We must promote research and development and small business. We must take a much tougher line on the effect of monopolies on our economy. We must take a lead in Europe. We must take wider measures than the Government have attempted to deal with long-term unemployment. We must invest in the people. They need long-term competitiveness, not another short-term boom with the inevitably deep collapse that would follow it.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. John Townend: The three main economic objectives of any Conservative Government should be low inflation, sound public finance and reducing the overall burden of taxation. If any of those objectives conflict, clearly low inflation and sound public finance must take precedence over reducing taxation. The Government's record on inflation has been successful. Since 1990, inflation has reduced from 9.5 per cent. to 2.5 per cent. Looking at wage increases, factory gate prices and spare capacity, inflationary pressures are subdued.
  As for public sector finances, while I would be the first to admit that the Government can be justifiably criticised for letting the Budget deficit rise so quickly and so high, they have now grasped the nettle and are courageously sticking to a policy which will broadly balance the Budget by the end of the decade. It is encouraging that recent forecasts show that the deficit is coming down more quickly. I strongly support the Government's policy of financial rectitude.
  As a result of that success, the economy is growing, and unemployment is coming down. Despite the fact that long-term interest rates have risen slightly recently, the immediate prospects and, indeed, the medium prospects look favourable. But it is when we come to reducing the level of overall taxation that we see that the Government have not achieved their objectives; indeed, the opposite is the case.
  Unless we are prepared to take some tough decisions, that will not be achieved in this Parliament. If we stick to the policies laid down in the Red Book, as the Chancellor said, the overall increase in the burden of taxation will be more than £16 billion in this Parliament, which is equivalent to 8p on the standard rate. To fight the next election with that scenario is not acceptable to me or to many of my colleagues on these Benches.
  It is highly hypocritical of Labour Members to attack the Government for increasing taxation when, in every economic debate, they always want us to spend more. Whenever we suggest cuts in spending, they are opposed to them. They even criticised the defence review announced last week for being Treasury-led. That is hypocrisy.
  We must ask ourselves how we got into that situation. In the autumn of 1992, after we were swept out of the exchange rate mechanism, it became clear that the deficit would rise by £1 billion a week, to some £50 billion in the ensuing financial year. At that time, the Government decided not to reduce spending, despite pressure from many of us on the Back-Bench finance committee suggesting that they should cut spending. At the same time, Labour was opposing any cuts in spending.
  In the 1993 Budget, the Government decided that they had to deal with the deficit, but they were not yet prepared to cut spending. Once again, Labour opposed any cuts in spending, and demanded more spending. In the last Budget, I was delighted that the Government at last decided to cut spending, and we had the first reduction in my lifetime of the control totals. That was done by the strategy of not allowing Departments to spend the contingency reserve.
  I welcome that start, and I congratulate the Chancellor on being the first to have the courage to grasp the nettle. However, he must be even tougher and concentrate on
  78
  fulfilling our manifesto commitments, because we have seen from Labour today what we can expect if we do not do so.
  That means that we will not be able to cut taxes before the next election unless we are prepared to make substantial cuts in public expenditure. At least an additional £5 billion should be cut from the existing control totals this year, and another £10 billion next year, so that we are in position and have the window of opportunity to bring taxes down at least to the overall level that they were at the 1992 election.
  Naturally, Labour Members ask where we should make the savings. If they sit back for the next few minutes, I shall tell them. First, we should reduce the Government's overheads. Wherever one looks in the public sector, whether it is at Government or local level, one still sees overmanning, waste and inefficiency. Whereas the recession forced every private company, however large or small, to cut its overheads to survive, the public sector has been almost immune. The civil service White Paper introduced this week is a start, but it is too little, too late. I have a feeling that it has been watered down by the mandarins.
  The scope for manpower savings is illustrated by what has happened in the nationalised industries which have been privatised. British Telecom has reduced its work force by 29 per cent., British Gas by 18 per cent. and Powergen by 35 per cent. The public sector, like the private sector, has invested a lot of money in computerisation and information technology, but it has never squeezed out the manpower savings that the private sector has done in that area.
  Wherever we look, there are examples of waste. The Inland Revenue has just built a new training centre. Perhaps it needed a training centre, but did it need an indoor heated swimming pool? The NHS offices in Leeds, with their pools and fountains, are the most expensive and extravagant offices in the city, and were opened when there was a surplus of office space at knock-down prices. The British Library has already cost £450 million. Even in this building, secretaries' desks and filing cabinets will be sold at auction next week and new ones brought in.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Townend: No, because many hon. Members want to speak.
  The Government spends £20 billion on overheads. If they cut that by 5 per cent. for each of the next three years —that is very reasonable when compared with what has happened in the private sector—they will save £3 billion a year.
  It is the same in local government. One has only to compare the cost of services per head in Islington with those in Wandsworth, or look at what my local Labour county council does, to see that there is an enormous amount of waste and overmanning. Salary costs of local government—excluding teachers and police—are £20 billion. If we cut those by 5 per cent. for three years, we will save £6 billion.
  In Scotland, we are still spending far more per head of population than in England. The figure for local government grants in Scotland works out at £1,020 per person, while in England it is £691. In the NHS, £800 is spent per person in Scotland and £635 in England—26 per

  79
  cent. less. The figures for education are the same. It is not fair and not necessary, and those costs should be reduced to the English level by the next election.
  Overseas aid has a budget of £2.3 billion. We all agree about giving money away when we have it, but we are in debt as a Government and as a country because of the balance of payments deficit. We could quite fairly save £0.5 billion a year for three years in that area.
  There has been an explosion in legal aid. We have taken some action, but my constituents were appalled when they read that Iraqi business men have been getting more than £1 million in legal aid. We should abolish legal aid for anybody who is not a citizen of this country.
  The fastest growing cause of expenditure is without doubt social security, yet there is enormous abuse and fraud. Last year, we discovered £558 million in social security abuse. Anybody who knows anything about what is happening in this country and who talks to ordinary people knows that that is just the tip of the iceberg. Greater effort must be made to reduce fraud.
  In my view, too much of the social security budget is going to dishonest people who are working in the black economy, to the workshy who have elected to live off benefits instead of getting jobs, and to those who irresponsibly have children knowing that they can expect the State to house and keep them. Not enough of the budget is going to those who are really in need—the old, and particularly old-age pensioners who are just above the income support level. They cannot get housing benefit, which includes rent and repairs, because they are living in houses which their spouses have left them, and the cost of repairs is bearing down heavily on them.
  I welcome the initiatives by the Secretary of State for Social Security to stop abuse as he has done in the past couple of weeks, and to close loopholes whereby foreigners coming here on holiday can claim benefit. I cannot for the life of me understand why we excluded visitors from the Republic of Ireland from that. Ireland is just as much a member of the Community as France or Germany, and I detect the malignant hand of the Foreign Office.
  Many millions of pounds could be saved by contracting out and more market testing. For example, we could save about £80 million a year if we abolished the NHS stores department, except for a small unit which could do all the negotiating and buying, and left the warehousing and the handling of stock to the private sector. It is interesting that the Welsh Office is progressively doing this, and there is no reason why the rest of the country should not do the same. Just because we are talking about the health service, it does not mean that savings cannot be made, and that there is not inefficiency and overmanning.
  As public sector wages are the biggest element in our costs, it is vital that we keep a firm hand on them. I urge the Government to stand firm in the dispute with the signalmen, because numerous public sector unions are looking out for what will happen.
  The statement on defence last week was very heartening
  Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Townend: I am sorry, but many hon. Members want to speak. I must get on, because I might be asked to sit down if I am not finished by 7 o'clock.
  80
  It was heartening that the Secretary of State for Defence could find so many areas of waste and overmanning that he was able to provide the Treasury with initial figure savings without cutting the front line. When I heard my right hon. and learned Friend say that it was costing £300,000 to train a musician, and that there were many other examples of savings which could be made without any detriment to the armed forces, I asked myself why the savings could not have been made before.
  People such as myself have been making speeches in Budget debate after Budget debate about the bloated overmanning and waste in the public sector. I found it a little disappointing that, at a time when communism has collapsed, the Ministry of Defence made more savings than it was asked for, and then went on a little spending spree. I should have thought that, in view of the size of the Budget deficit, the whole lot should have gone back to the Treasury.
  I accept that there are considerable cultural problems to overcome if the Government are to be successful in their endeavour to cut spending. By and large, senior civil servants and heads of Departments are not likely to help Ministers to cut the size of their Departments because their status in the mandarin hierarchy depends on the size of their budget and of their work force. Indeed, many Ministers have no wish to see their Departments slimmed down.
  Many Ministers do not have the will to fight their civil servants, and some of them do not have the ability—not having had business experience—to force through savings and cuts in the work force against the wishes of senior civil servants who are trying to protect their bureaucratic empire.
  Last year, I was lobbying Ministers to reduce spending, and I was told several times, "You have to appreciate that it is politically more difficult to cut spending than to increases taxes." Having seen the results of the local elections, the by-elections and the European elections, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends realise that that is not true. The Tory party is nothing if it is not the party of low taxation.
  Market testing and contracting out have not been applied with the same enthusiasm throughout the public service, and that must be done. To achieve that cultural aim, we must look to the Prime Minister. In the Cabinet, only three people have no vested interest in keeping their budgets up—the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary and the Prime Minister.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend realises the political danger we face on taxation, and I hope that he will launch a crusade to cut waste, inefficiency, fraud and overmanning throughout the public sector, including local government. He should receive the maximum support from Ministers. It should be made clear that those who succeed in the endeavour will be promoted, and those who do not succeed will be asked to make way for others.
  It must be made clear to permanent secretaries that those who do not co-operate will not get the traditional knighthood. The Prime Minister should consider appointing a Minister in every Department whose sole job would be to improve efficiency and cut waste and spending. If the civil servants are not prepared to co-operate, those Ministers should be able to bring in accountants and company doctors from the private sector,

  81
  who have had experience of cutting overheads in this terrible recession, which industry has survived so well and so efficiently.
  It is not too late for us to achieve our manifesto commitment on taxation if we act this year, but it will be too late if we wait for another 18 months.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, could I point out that between the hours of 7 and 9 there will be a limit of 10 minutes on speeches.
  6.59 pm
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate, especially as it is such an important one and falls in the final week of the Session.
  This has been a tragic Session, marred by the death of my predecessor, John Smith. I am extremely conscious of the eloquent tributes that have been paid to him from both sides of the House at the time of his death and at his subsequent funeral and memorial services. I, of course, remember him as a constituency Member, and the people of Monklands, East made it very plain that they saw John Smith very much as their own Member.
  They were extremely conscious of the fact that they had in their midst the man who they believed was going to be the next Prime Minister. They too are conscious, as I am, of the unfinished business of John Smith, not least of which was the establishment of a Scottish Parliament within the framework of the United Kingdom, and that even more important unfinished business—the election of a Labour Government at the next general election. When that day comes, it will be our lasting tribute to John Smith.
  When John Smith made his maiden speech before the House, he asked hon. Members to take into account
  "the diffidence which I feel in attempting to follow in the footsteps of so fine a predecessor."—[Official Report, 10 November 1970; Vol. 806, c. 243.]
  I am sure that hon. Members recognise that my diffidence is even greater, as I must follow in the footsteps of someone who went on to lead my party.
  Throughout the communities of Monklands, East, John Smith was respected and admired. The side of John Smith that came out so strongly after his death was the warmth, commitment and enthusiasm that he felt towards ordinary people. It is in that spirit of dedication that I wish to continue to work for the people of Monklands, East.
  The parliamentary by-election that I have just come through was a bruising affair, which concentrated on one issue—the local council. That concentration offers a lesson to all of us politicians, be we in government at local or national level or elsewhere, because it demonstrated the importance of taking into account the fears and the sense of grievance of local electors. Now that the by-election is behind us, it is important to take into account the need for a time of healing within the communities of Monklands, East.
  Many in the constituency felt besmirched by some of the negative publicity that attached to them. I say to the House that they are decent, honourable and hard-working people. The constituency spans a number of small communities, 12 villages, the town of Airdrie and a substantial part of Coatbridge. Those communities were the cauldron of Scotland's industrial heritage.
  82
  The men and women of those communities went to work in the textile industry, in coal mining, the iron and steel industries, shipbuilding and in motor manufacture. In the past 15 years, those industries have disappeared. Those communities, which measured themselves by the contribution they could make to the wider economy, now suffer from a lack of morale and of no longer feeling wanted.
  It is incumbent upon all of us who are concerned about the future of our economy to take into account the real needs of such small communities, where there was a great emphasis on acquiring skills and education. I know that only too well, having been educated there, as was my husband. The people of those communities want their children to go out into the world with the best possible background, be it obtained in the formal educational structure or through the acquisition of skills.
  One in four people in Monklands, East are out of work, and young people account for one third of them. One in five are on benefits. It is also a tragedy that, in all the statistical analysis of health and sickness in Scotland, Monklands, East breaks all the records. It is a constituency that has been visited by poverty and unemployment.
  Much can be done by the House and the wider community to help encourage the regeneration of such communities—there are many like them, not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. I want to see more jobs brought to those communities, bearing in mind their strong, proud heritage. A number of small industrial sites are located within the constituency, but not too many large ones, although a number of such sites throughout north Lanarkshire would be very attractive to inward investment—not least, of course, the former steel plant at Ravenscraig.
  The constituency offers a number of opportunities for the siting of small businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) mentioned the need to encourage small businesses, and I have a particular interest in that, because I have a particular desire to see new skills and new opportunities brought to the constituency that was good enough to elect me on 30 June.
  Many opportunities for small businesses in Scotland are not taken up. In the 1980s, for example, if Scotland had had the same level of business start-up as the south-east of England, where we are today, we would have created 195,000 more jobs. Even if we had imported the death rate from that decade, which was all too apparent in the south of England, Scotland would still have been 36,000 jobs ahead of the game. That is an attractive statistic to those who are concerned about attracting jobs to Scotland, and in particular to communities such as Monklands, East.
  We must do more to encourage small businesses and put fewer obstacles in the way of establishing them. Many men and women who are now seeking an opportunity in their middle years, who have perhaps lost their jobs as a consequence of the recession, wish to put their skills and expertise to much greater use in the small business sector.
  Other communities in other parts of the world attract such small business most effectively. The state of Massachusetts, for example, has become the hotbed of new business start-up in the United States because of the marriage between its business community and academic institutions. I would like to see that same partnership developed in the west of Scotland and throughout it.
  In Bavaria, the banking system has changed banking arrangements to make the raising of capital for small

  83
  businesses that much easier. Many people who wish to start up small or medium-sized enterprises in Scotland are confronted with the traditional Scottish bank manager, who is scared of risk. Risk is endemic to small businesses. We must recognise that, before we achieve success, we may have to take into account the possibility of failure.
  We cannot brook too many failures in a community that so desperately needs jobs and hope. It has so much to offer. The skilled artisans, who made sure that there was a future for people like me by offering us educational opportunities, as well as offering other opportunities to everyone, regardless of their background, are entitled to pass on to the next generations the kind of communities that they worked hard to build.
  Those are the communities among which John Smith worked, and they are the communities that I dedicate myself to serve. I am very grateful to the House for its courtesy in listening to my maiden speech. I hope now to go on and continue my parliamentary career in serving the people of Monklands, East as John Smith did.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: It gives me particular personal pleasure to follow the maiden speech by the new hon, Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell). It was an impressive introduction to the House. The hon. Lady talked eloquently and movingly about the people of her community, their hopes and their aspirations. She linked what she said about their desire for new skills and new opportunities with her own experience. We know from the election that she is a bonny fighter and we wish her well in the House. I hope that we shall hear much more from her in the years to come. It is appropriate to mention that, for several years, John Smith was my pair in the House. All my contacts with him were a pleasure due to his humour, integrity and friendship and I, too, felt a sense of real loss at his tragic death.
  I firmly support the motion before the House and congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on his approach since taking on that difficult and important job. In his speech, he dealt in a pragmatic and sensible manner with the current position of the British economy, its outlook and forecasts on it. By comparison, the performance of the shadow Chancellor was disappointing. He told us nothing of the Labour party's policies but simply made broad generalisations. I genuinely wanted him to say how, for example, the Labour party intends to enable, encourage or command the City to take longer-term decisions about industry. I accept that that problem exists, but changing it needs a concrete approach and we heard no concrete arguments from the shadow Chancellor.
  The position of the British economy today bears no relation to the picture painted in the shadow Chancellor's speech. We have achieved good results: low inflation, low interest rates and a mortgage lending rate of less than 8 per cent., which is the lowest for more than 25 years. Those achievements have a positive effect on individuals' home budgets.
  I agree that there are areas of difficulty and deprivation. Much has already been said about unemployment, which is and will remain a key economic and social issue in the years ahead. In national terms, it continues to be important
  84
  and I appreciate that it can be a personal tragedy for individuals who are directly affected. I agreed with hon. Members who focused on the concerns of young unemployed people at the start of their working lives.
  However, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) pushed out some unreal proposals to deal with unemployment. He described how unemployment had been dealt with during the second world war, when we took measures to provide the armaments that the nation needed and, in doing so, ran up an enormous national debt. Thank goodness that America was there to assist us in dealing with that problem. We could not run the economy like that today and it was unrealistic to argue that we could.
  The only way in which we can safeguard jobs is to ensure that we have a thoroughly competitive economy. That is why I firmly support the Government's actions to ensure that we are not burdened with the paraphernalia of the social chapter, which would only increase costs for British industry struggling to compete with the vigorous and ever-growing economies of the Pacific rim. High costs of manufacturing are now a growing problem for Europe. It is a major benefit to Britain that we have a lower-cost economy than the rest of our European partners. We need to keep it that way.
  My view on the exchange rate mechanism has been changed by hindsight. I accept that there were benefits in our membership, particularly its effect on inflation. It ensured that we squeezed inflation down to levels that have not been experienced for many years. I am pleased, however, that the Government have said that they do not expect to rejoin the ERM in the foreseeable future. We should not lose the control which we now have over our economy as a result of being out of the ERM. The effect on Britain of a future ERM-type organisation, let alone a single currency, would be much more damaging in a larger Europe. I strongly support the enlargement of the European Union but it must mean that the opportunity to get all convergence criteria moving in the same direction at the same time, with the measurements necessary to achieve a single currency, is much less likely to happen.
  If we decided to go for a single currency, we would endanger the unity of individual nations and put the European Union under a strain that might lead to its break up. Some of my hon. Friends might welcome that, but I would not. I want a European Union that gives us the benefit of a wide market but it must be loosely organised on the basis of a strong market rather than tying member states too closely to each others economies.
  It is important that the electorate appreciates that, although the Government have embarked, quite properly, on a ever-tighter control of public spending, we have none the less continued to increase spending on social security, education and the national health service. As last week's statement spelled out, we are attacking areas of bureaucratic overspending, such as those in the back-up to the armed services. Dealing with those is long overdue.
  I applaud the Government's actions in that respect and encourage members of the Treasury Front Bench to continue the line that they are following. I see and hear positive responses from many people in my constituency, which suffered heavily during the recession, that the outlook and opportunities for them are improving week by week and month by month.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: It was with a great deal of pleasure that we heard the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), who took over a seat from an hon. Member whom we held in the highest regard. The way in which he departed from us made us feel even more poignantly the loss that we suffered. The fact that we could give my hon. Friend such a clear vote of confidence in taking over from him means that we shall listen to anything that she has to say to us in future with great care and interest.
  The Government have committed three disastrous errors. Many of us expect Governments to take a certain amount of time to learn the problems of government. But this Government have been in office for 15 years and still have not learnt much. The first disastrous error was on monetarism; the second was to waste North sea oil; and the third was the introduction of the poll tax, which did so much to assist the decline of local government.
  We suffer from the problem that the growth of monetarism did much damage to manufacturing industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was right repeatedly to point out the need for that type of investment.
  Conservative Governments have obviously had contempt for manufacturing industry, especially Nigel Lawson, when, in a speech at the Mansion house, he scorned the valuable work done by the House of Lords Select Committee in pointing out the importance of manufacturing industries. The service industries were held to be the great wave of the future—they were going to provide the great prosperity.
  However, service industries are not alternative to manufacturing industry; they are a natural consequence of manufacturing industry. One needs efficient operations to service machinery and so on, but, less obviously, the City of London owes its eminence to manufacturing industry.
  What are the big financial centres of the world? They are London, New York, Tokyo and Frankfurt, and they became financial centres only as a result of their manufacturing industry. It was because Britain in the last century was a manufacturing nation that London was created as a financial centre; it is only because America became the next big industrial power that New York was created as a financial centre; and it is only because of their industries that Frankfurt and Tokyo have become financial centres.
  Whoever heard of Tokyo as a financial centre before its industry, in the post-war world, became the power that it subsequently became? Whoever heard of Frankfurt before it became an industrial centre? But Frankfurt will now be the main Community centre for our financial institutions, and we are losing the battle for financial centres in a number of ways, because our manufacturing industry is unable to support them.
  I strongly welcome the existence of our City of London; it is very important, but we must understand the underlying strength that comes from manufacturing industries.
  As for the service industries such as health, education and transport, they rely on the wealth creation that comes from manufacturing industry. Manufacturing industry is the substratum of all those other advantages that we obtain from service industries.
  That wealth creation comes from our factories—from the skills and abilities of those people who work in them.
  86
  I accept that, when jobs are needed, only some of them will be found in those factories. There will not be an enormous increase in employment opportunities as a result of the greater concentration on, and the greater understanding of the need for, manufacturing industry. I accept all that. However, the output from manufacturing industry is all-important. That output creates, not so much the jobs as the wealth, and from that output, from that wealth, we can create the service industries—we can create educational opportunities, health services and all the other facilities that we require.
  Services rest on the backs of manufacturing industry. We want a sensible acknowledgment of the wealth creation possibilities. That will provide the means for us to employ many more people in the public and the private service sectors. That is the principal way that we shall get people back to work—through the service industries, by getting people to work in restoring our infrastructure and repairing the decay in our cities, in a sensible programme of reconstruction, paid for by a new, firm industrial policy.
  Our recent productivity increases have resulted mainly from investment for efficiency rather than from investment for efficiency and the expansion of output. If one invests simply to obtain efficiency, one will reduce employment. One needs to invest both for efficiency, which is important, and for an expansion of output. That is why our manufacturing base has not expanded in the way that those of other countries have. We need today a new understanding of the importance to our country of manufacturing investment. That should take place in this country and in our industries.
  Many years ago, in 1961, there was the bank rate investigation of a Governor of the Bank of England who had advised the sale of sterling and commented:
  "It may not be patriotic but it makes sense."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has commented on one aspect of patriotism today. The wish to invest in our country is an aspect of patriotism. Of course there is a need to invest overseas in certain areas, but patriotism means that we should try to improve our manufacturing processes, our manufacturing industry and our employment opportunities here in Britain. Those matters should be paramount.
  We need to encourage people to invest. The Government can do something about that immediately, by increasing capital allowances. The present 25 per cent. rate for capital allowances is ludicrous. I have argued repeatedly that is not an investment incentive but with with an investment disincentive.
  Everyone knows that many items of capital equipment actually depreciate by more than 25 per cent. a year. That is especially true in the first year. The profit made by the sellers of a piece of capital equipment means that it will not be worth 75 per cent. at the end of the first year—that may be the profit that is made on it. If one buys a piece of capital equipment for £1,000, there are not many cases when, if one tries to sell it, one will receive £750 for that piece of capital equipment at the end of the first year.
  So we are dealing, not with an investment incentive, but an investment disincentive. That is something that the Government can change straight away.
  The other great error was over North sea oil. It was a great pity. We had a wonderful opportunity. I minuted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Denis Healey, in 1977 and told him, "If you do nothing with this money, it will just be spent on consumption. If we do something for

  87
  manufacturing industry—that is not the best way to invest, I grant that—it is better than using it to increase our consumption, which we shall not be able to maintain over a long period."
  That was the case then for doing something with our North sea oil. It is a great pity. We missed the one opportunity that we had, which has now gone, because now it is part of our current basis of consumption.
  Speaking of consumption, a consumption-led boom is not the way to spend our way out of recession. We want an investment-led boom, an investment-led recovery, and we should be working towards that. I do not think that the way to proceed is to try to increase the levels of consumption to bring an improvement in the economy.
  The third great disaster was the poll tax. The poll tax was not just a foolish tax—of course it was—it was difficult to collect, in many cases easy to avoid, and very much more unfair than the old rating system. The specific problem that has resulted is that we have diminished the role of local government, and the position of local government is now far worse as a result of the introduction of the poll tax than ever it was.
  I remember—I was only a small player in those days —that we created Manchester airport in the spirit of the old Manchester ship canal, whereby 95 per cent. of the ships of the world could come right into the heart of Manchester. If we were to be worthy successors to those people, we wanted our own airport.
  That was the spirit, and we must return to that spirit. We must return to the spirit of local government—the spirit of co-operation between people in different ways. The beginning must be made with industry, and it is to that area of the economy that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must turn.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I join all those who have recently spoken in expressing my pleasure at the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell). She spoke with fluency and passion, and I felt that she brought to us some of the adrenalin that she plainly felt during a hectic election campaign. One could think, as she spoke, of the sweat and energy as she sat up thinking what she was going to say at that difficult meeting the next day, and as she rehearsed it to herself, perhaps rehearsed it to her husband and then delivered it with passion and energy. Let us hope that she continues to grace the House with the energy and interest that she undoubtedly must have displayed in her successful and difficult by-election.
  I should like to start from a slightly different point of view from that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He said that the Chancellor did not control anything and that international capital controlled everything.
  All Front-Bench spokesmen address the House on the basis that the Government control most things. I diffidently suggest that the Government control few things. The Government govern best when they attempt to create a known and stable framework within which the people may make their own prosperity, both for themselves and for their fellow subjects of the Queen—and, I should add, the
  88
  citizens of the European Union. It is important to decide whether the rate of growth and the general prosperity at present time are consistent with a stable framework.
  One thing that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor did not say about inflation was on the extent to which it inevitably distorts the economy. One of the great distortions of the boom was the housing market. We all recall that in the three years 1986, 1987 and 1988 the value of private housing rose by 20 per cent., 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively. Housing was not bought for shelter or even for the display of personal goods; it was bought for speculation. People of a very young age were trying to get on to the housing ladder as quickly as possible.
  As the economy adjusts to about 2 per cent. inflation from about 10 per cent. inflation, young married couples are now buying houses later in life and the rented sector has picked up satisfactorily, not just because of the reduction in inflation but because of the considerable reduction in the stranglehold of rent controls and excessive security of tenure. In addition, the housing market is having to work its way through the negative equity suffered by about 2 million home owners who bought just before the end of the boom.
  The economy is now stable and sustainable—mainly, I suspect, because of the delayed advantages of having come out of the exchange rate mechanism on 16 September 1992 and because of the substantial relaxation in monetary policy that followed that.
  I do not want to be too technical in this short speech, but for those who enjoy technicalities I commend a good article in the Financial Times of 5 July, which set out what is happening to sterling M0. That means cash in hand, which is now circulating at about the same rate as it was at the top of the boom in 1988. There is every sign that the retail sector is very strong. People are not borrowing to buy big items such as land or housing, but they are spending money on consumer items. One of the best signs of that can be found in that article, which details the extent to which more and more £20 notes are coming into circulation.
  There is also anecdotal evidence of the strength of the retail economy—for example, the absolute explosion in car boot sales. I understand that about 1,500 car boot sales take place every week— [Interruption.] All right, it is part of the spiv economy. Hon. Members may laugh at that and say how dreadful it is, but it creates wealth and that is what the economy is about. We should note the strength of M0, the strength of the retail sector and the considerable activity in the new car market.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) nods. He knows a great deal more about the car market than any other hon. Member will ever know. I am sure that a car manufacturer is rather like a farmer, and I have never met a farmer willing to admit that he was doing well. If an hon. Member with a car manufacturing interest agrees that the industry is doing well, car manufacturers must be doing jolly well indeed. Therefore, I contend that we have the basis for sustainable growth.
  Sometimes when we talk about general trends, the man or woman in the constituency says, "We don't see much of it in Wolverhampton," or Stourbridge or wherever. I draw hon. Members' attention to two recent reports on how the local economy of Wolverhampton is growing. The first is from the Wolverhampton chamber of commerce. In its quarterly economic survey, published on 11 July, its chief executive says:

  89
  "I find the responses for the first half of the year especially encouraging. The Chamber has always held the view that our emergence from this very deep recession should be moderate and this clearly seems to be the pattern."
  He then gives details of the way in which he notices sustained and satisfactory growth in all the areas that his chamber covered over the past half-year.
  Those of us who have been in the House for some time may remember Mr. Geoff Edge, who is now the chairman of the west midlands economic bureau. In that capacity, each month he provides Members of Parliament and others in the west midlands with what he describes as a labour market briefing. Mr. Edge was a distinguished or, if not distinguished, vigorous supporter of the policies so consistently put forward by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. Mr. Edge would not easily applaud much of the activity of a Tory Government. However, he says about the west midlands that unemployment among the under-25s has dropped greatly over the past year—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  7.37 pm
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: It is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), not least to welcome her into the doughty and select company of Lanarkshire Members of Parliament. Our constituents expect a great deal from us and over the many years that we have known her, in her election campaign and, now, in her remarkable maiden speech, she has demonstrated how much she will contribute.
  I am sure that the Chancellor will be pleased to hear that I agree with him that there is no reason why we cannot look forward to a long period of sustained growth with unemployment falling, low inflation and the balance of payments and public borrowing coming within sustainable limits.
  On macro-economic policy, both the Government and the Opposition have now rejected the argument that one target will do. In the old days it was unemployment, then money supply, then inflation, and then the exchange rate. Now, perhaps, it is unemployment again. It used to be argued that if the one chosen target is achieved and maintained the rest will come right, or at least be accepted that they are outside the Government's influence. But successive targets have been missed and abandoned, because the measures needed to achieve them would have such damaging consequences for other aspects of the economy that they could not possibly be pursued.
  All the objectives are affected by all the instruments of policy—tax, public spending and interest rates—and they must be kept in mind. It is not possible to put everything right overnight. It takes years for most of the effects of policy changes to appear. Objectives now satisfactorily achieved cannot be assumed to stay achieved.
  The emerging consensus is that all the instruments of policy must be used in the balanced pursuit of all the objectives—not just inflation, unemployment, the exchange rate, the current balance or public borrowing, but all of them together, with one or two more added according to taste, and for several years ahead. I have carried out the exercise of designing such balance-achieving policies with the Treasury's own apparatus of policy optimisation on the Treasury's own model. In successive years since 1987, they were published and sent to the then Chancellor. Had
  90
  Chancellors followed those analyses, they would have avoided the major mistakes of economic policy, which, in the event, were made. No doubt similar analyses were carried out at the time in the Treasury.
  This year, the same analysis of the Treasury model is more or less consistent with the Treasury's summer economic forecast. But it makes it possible to look further ahead, which, of course, the Treasury does internally. It goes into more detail and explores the trade-offs. The prospects are not exciting, but nor are they calamitous. With general Government consumption kept at around its present share of 25 per cent. of gross domestic product, the standard rate of income tax edging above 26 per cent. after 1995, and allowances indexed, the public sector borrowing requirement is still not brought below 3 per cent. of GDP until 1997.
  Without a clear exchange rate stabilisation policy, there would be major destabilising swings of the sterling exchange rate. So policy towards the exchange rate and its mode of stabilisation, allowing for rational market expectations, needs to be treated in the policy design process. The expected exchange rate index remains near its current level of 80. The current balance remains in deficit to the extent of 1 to 2 per cent. of GDP. Inflation rises above 4 per cent. for three years from 1996, in mild breach of the Government's target range, as the effect of the increased indirect taxes and public utility charges come through.
  The growth of GDP falls below 2 per cent. in the three years from 1997, and the growth of real disposable personal incomes falls by 2 per cent. in the three years from 1996. Unemployment does not fall below 8 per cent. until 2000. All that, of course, will adapt to external circumstances. It will not work out quite like that, but that is the general picture that will follow in response to the external circumstances and internal performance as events unfold.
  Such an overall prospect would not be welcomed by Government or Opposition. Can we do better? For the first time this year, the Treasury model contains a genuine supply-side effect. Investment in manufacturing industry is allowed directly to increase manufactured exports. The halt in the fall of the UK share of world exports of manufactures in the late 1980s was seized on and extrapolated in past years, without explanation, to produce hopelessly over-optimistic forecasts of the current balance. Now, a plausible, long-term explanation has been found. It is taken into account in the forecast. Could further supply-side effects be found?
  The first report in this Session of the Select Committee on Science and Technology drew attention to recent work, using international comparative data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, on the effects of business research and development on total factor productivity, and linked that with other recent work assessing US experience with research and development tax credits. Taken together, those analyses suggest that an R and D tax credit, with supporting measures and within European Union rules, could increase the rate of growth of GDP by 0.8 per cent. per annum within five years.
  The place where that would start, because it would act on competitiveness, is in manufactured exports. Putting it in there alone and not into the rest of manufacturing output, which contributes to domestic consumption, and applying the same policy rules to the better-performing economy, we get an improved picture. Of course we do, but how

  91
  much? Income tax can be kept to 25 per cent., and growth does not fall below 2 per cent. per annum. Unemployment falls below 8 per cent. in 1996 instead of 2000, and to below 5 per cent. in 2002, by the end of the next Parliament. There would be more supply-side effects to go for if hard evidence could be found—as we found with R and D incentives—of the effects of investment incentives and improved training, let alone special employment measures.
  Can such results be believed? Do they offer a viable approach to more stable economic growth? Certainly, they need double-checking and cross-checking. Sound judgment will still be needed, and there will, of course, be remaining risk and uncertainty. The macro-economic modelling consortium, consisting of the Economic and Social Research Council, the Treasury and the Bank of England, which finances the academic models, is asking the modellers who are applying for grants this year for the next four years to pursue such policy analyses.
  The report of the consortium, referring to my work, says that there is a need for a clearly stated framework for economic policy. It says:
  "The objectives and priorities of policy makers can be established (or at least postulated and, where appropriate, alternatives can be given). The modelling teams can then recommend the actual adjustment of policy instruments which would best serve these objectives and priorities, and present the expected outcomes. This makes it possible for public policy makers and businesses to see how alternative objectives and priorities affect the expected results. Teams could participate in a number of policy advice exercises."
  Those are not my words, but those of the consortium—the Economic and Social Research Council, the Treasury itself and the Bank of England. Economic policy-makers now have a firmer basis for judgment if they have the wit to use it.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make a few brief comments this evening.
  As we look back over the past two years, it has been clear that we have been slowly but surely in a recovery process. As with all such processes, it has been somewhat patchy. We have seen regions and industries recovering at different rates. But there is no doubt that the economy is recovering for everybody to see. What is somewhat different about this recovery, given that it has now been going for that long, is that the "feel good" factor remains low.
  I read in one of the Sunday papers that some 70 per cent. of people believe that we are still in a recession. That is despite the fact that the economy is growing by nearly 3 per cent., unemployment has fallen by some 330,000 and many other indicators look good. Indeed, the OECD and other economic forecasters have made very positive observations about the British economy.
  For decades, the "feel good" factor has been linked largely to property prices. Monetary and fiscal policy has been inextricably linked to that process. Since the war, the result has been something of a rollercoaster in interest rates as we have sought to revive the economy by lowering interest rates and encouraging activity in the property market, then cutting down on the revival by jacking up interest rates again and depressing property activity.
  92
  Unfortunately, time and again, the "feel good" factor that has resulted has led to a hangover. But what is unique about the economy now is that the recovery is happening with low inflation and low interest rates, without any visible inflationary pressures, without the traditional recovery and, indeed, sometimes, speculation in the property sector. The evidence is very clear. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Is a strong property revival essential to sustain growth? On the contrary, we appear to have healthy economic growth free of all the property shenanigans of the past few years. That bodes extremely well for the future.
  The distortions which have undoubtedly been caused by mortgage relief in the past are now withering on the vine. Next year we shall see tax relief reduced to 15 per cent. I hope that that process will continue, except perhaps for first-time buyers, until the tax distortions disappear altogether. They have been part and parcel of the yo-yo in interest rate movements that has paralleled the yo-yo in property prices that has been wholly unwelcome.
  So we now have in prospect economic recovery with stability, without the property element involved. I am confident, as we look at the economic indicators and the lack of any inflationary pressures, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, in maintaining the course that he is successfully pursuing, will bring about low inflation growth for many years to come.
  As other hon. Members have observed, we were hit during 1994 by weakness in the bond market. Traditionally, weakness in the bond market comes about through inflationary expectations. But where, indeed, is the inflation? It certainly does not exist at the factory gate or at the retail level. It has been limited to a number of commodities. The rot started in the United States, where people saw the signs in the US Government deficit and foresaw it increasing yet again as a result of the proposed spending plans of President Clinton.
  Another factor has been the illiquidity of world capital markets. Given the volatile nature of the world capital markets and our need to continue to borrow, it is vital that we continue to scale back our deficit. Between 1993 and 1996 we shall cut our budget deficit by some 4.5 per cent. of GDP. Despite that, spending will continue to rise next year and the year after that. We need to support my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the spending round to ensure that we keep public expenditure in check.
  The post-war experience of Japan is certainly instructive. The Japanese economy is now maturing and it has its problems, but much of the Japanese success story has been based on access to capital at low interest rates. Low interest rates have attracted borrowers and investors because they have believed in the coherence and stability of Japanese fiscal and monetary policy. Japanese business got its reward because the Government played their part. Low interest rates and low inflation have been at the heart of the Japanese post-war recovery. Now here in Britain we have policies which are taking us along that route. It is already happening and that bodes well for the future.
  Under the great welter of macroeconomic statistics there are sometimes good stories to tell. I should like to relay the experience of my constituency. I am happy to relay to the House that unemployment has dropped by some 20 per cent. in the past 12 months. We are seeing a revival in the local economy. Bury St. Edmunds has the

  93
  lowest unemployment in East Anglia. The agricultural sector is in good shape. The two United States air force bases in my constituency are expanding.
  By far the largest employer in my constituency is the horse-racing industry. On Saturday my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary visited the town of Newmarket and saw for himself the increased number of owners, the increased number of horses in training and the rising price of blood stock. That vital part of the economy of west Suffolk is fully in revival as a result of the help of Treasury Ministers, to whom I am enormously grateful, as are my constituents.
  Apart from that benign situation in the western part of Suffolk, we have a constellation of good overall economic indicators. I sat here this afternoon and recalled the words some months ago of Bryan Gould. He said that the Labour party had no proposals on macro-economic policies, specifically on interest rates, money supply or any of the key elements of taxation that go to make a coherent economic policy. Nothing has changed. We have certainly heard that today. No serious attempt has been made to present any coherent alternative.
  We know one policy of the Labour party. It would be hugely destructive. I have spoken to many employers in my constituency about it. It is minimum wage legislation. We know that in Spain and France, where there is similar statutory wage legislation to that proposed by the Labour party, youth unemployment is tragically high, with all the consequences that flow from that. We certainly do not want to see that here in Britain at any price.
  We cannot survive as a nation without exporting. I should like to take this opportunity to welcome the initiatives taken by the Department of Trade and Industry to promote exports for our business men and women. It has also undertaken an initiative to have 100 individuals seconded to the DTI from key British companies. It will help them and the DTI in the spirit of enterprise to enhance our export capabilities. That is welcome.
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has said that we have made major strides in restructuring our economy. As we survey the current economic scene, we can see that the restructuring is paying off in a truly sustainable way. The Labour party knows in its heart of hearts that that is certainly the case. Therefore, I look forward, Madam Deputy Speaker, after the next general election to continuing to sit on your right hand side.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: We have heard from the last two Conservative Members who have spoken that the key to our economy is the horse-racing market at Newmarket and car boot sales in Wolverhampton. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) put it, there is no difference for him between a car boot sale and a motor car sale. I am proud to speak for the west midlands and I declare my interest as a chairman of a public limited company that supplies the United Kingdom, European and world motor industry. For us there is a world of difference.
  The increased size and rate of growth of the United Kingdom motor industry is much to be appreciated. We are glad to see it take off after the most dismal years in its history, engineered as only the Conservative party could, with that marvellous disregard for the interests of British
  94
  manufacturing, to give it the worst two years since the second world war. After such a bad period, it is inevitable that things will get better.
  I was a little surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) say that his model showed that, if the Government had followed that model, their economic policy would have been better. Anything would have been better than the economic policy of the Government since about 1989 to 1990. Nothing could have been more cack-handed or better conceived to produce exactly the opposite of the Government's stated purposes of policy than the economic and industrial policy that they have pursued.
  I pay a personal tribute to the maiden speech by my hon. Friend the new Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell). Having heard her today, I am sure that she will be a most successful and distinguished successor to the late John Smith. I am sure that all my hon. Friends will join me in saying that, having heard her remarkable maiden speech.
  All that we can say about the Government's economic policy is that they have stopped digging a great hole. They have finally started to dig themselves out of it. As is always the case, if one creates a big enough recession, one comes out of it. There is nothing remarkable about that. We saw it back in 1966 when we abandoned the plan for growth and decided to go back to the old Treasury policies of cutting and recession. Sure enough, the balance of payments came right and unemployment increased. Sure enough, two years later in 1970 the economy was booming again. We have always seen that old pattern. The only difference in this case has been the length, depth and frequency of the recessions engineered by the Government since they first came to power 15 years ago. Three recessions in a decade must be a record.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Two in 15.
  Mr. Robinson: No, there have been three. All were marked by a continual pattern of boom doom, go bust, stop and go. Throughout economic policy, we have seen that pattern under this Government and previous Governments. It has been as simple as that.
  Now that we are coming out of recession, the Government display nothing but the usual complacency that all is well. Of course, all is not well. None of the fundamentals in the British economy has changed. All that has changed is that we are at a different stage in the stop-go cycle. Instead of being complacent and thinking, "God, we have got rid of that; we have managed to win an election despite the recession"—a remarkable achievement—the Government should ask what they can do to put right the fundamentals of the British economy and British industry. All that the Government are trying to do is settle their internal differences and divisions in the hope of trying to smooth their way to the next general election.
  Nothing is more apparent than the total disdain and mutual incompatibility between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who put a scarcely credible distance between themselves and could not bear to look each at during the debate. I have not seen that since we had the remarkable spectacle of the occupants of No. 10 and No. 11 Downing street not speaking to each other, but choosing to disagree every time that they did speak. I am pleased to see the Chief Secretary deny it. It has been denied on previous occasions too.

  95
  I doubt very much that the Chief Secretary will be operating from his current position in a week or two weeks' time. I am sure that he will not. One of the chief reasons for that is that cohabitation between him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has become impossible, as it is throughout the ranks of Conservative Back Benchers, who agree about nothing other than some implicit, sordid deal to patch over their differences in an attempt to win the next election. This time, that will not work.
  Meanwhile, the job of getting the British economy and British industry right, and the need for investment and a policy on exports and industrial investment, goes by the board. What causes most concern about our recovery is that, unlike the German recovery, it is based on consumption. Although we welcome the growth in the home car market, we need to achieve a massive increase in car output. There has been an increase, but it is nowhere near enough. We need to achieve a massive increase in exports. We have achieved some improvement, but it is nowhere near enough.
  The trade balance and the public sector borrowing requirement deficits remain far too high. Although the Government might smooth over the problems for a couple of years, in three years' time, we shall return, as we always have before, to the same old problems of the endemic, structural weaknesses of the British economy and manufacturing industry. They go hand in hand. They are diferent sides of the same coin.
  What have the Government got to offer? Nothing except a policy to try to nudge through the next week, the next set of figures and the next problem. They will deal with anything but the real problem, whatever it is.
  A few people tell us that Germany is in great trouble. Germany is a massive continental power of 80 million people. It has invested enormously in the former East Germany. In the eastern countries on its border with the former Soviet Union, countries in the far east and in China —where its investment is much higher than our investment —it is emerging as the powerhouse of the European Union. We shall be a tiny island, a sideshow compared with what is going on in Europe.
  That is a future that the Chief Secretary may welcome. I happen to share many of his views and reservations about the common currency and the so-called purport of the Franco-German alliance. But running away from the problems will not help our problem; and trying to pretend that we have achieved growth in gross domestic product and in income will not hide the basic problem that the Germans and the French are investing in productive output and in the strength of their economies, but all that we are doing is achieving growth out of consumption.
  That is the central problem of the recovery. That problem is bound to come home to roost. That is why in the foreign markets sterling is still so weak. For the moment, the attention is on the dollar, but where will the international currency markets focus their attention next? It is bound to be on sterling, and sterling's weakness will therefore be exposed.
  We need a policy for our manufacturing industries, exports and investment. We need a policy that will encourage growth in investment and exports. We must understand net exports. As we all know, exports are not enough if our our propensity to import is disastrously high.
  96
  Unless there is a policy for the growth of net exports and for investment in manufacturing, and unless a series of projects are geared towards that, in two years time we shall be back to where we were two years ago. That is the sum total of Government policy. The country deserves far better.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) should have read the Evening Standard—not a paper that traditionally supports the Conservative party—three weeks ago, when it carried the headline "Triple Whammy". The article in question talked about the Government's good economic news of the past few weeks. That headline said it all. It referred to the fact that unemployment and inflation were decreasing and to the fact that productivity was increasing. Perhaps it should have read "Quadruple Whammy" or "Quintuple Whammy", as retail sales and manufacturing output have also risen. Many of the hon. Gentleman's comments did not add up; and, unfortunately, owing to lack of time, I cannot answer the points that he made.
  Of the great whammies referred to in the Evening Standard headline, inflation was the most important. If one buys a property, the three most important rules are location, location and location. If one tries to run an economy, the three most important points are inflation, inflation and inflation. Our respective inflation policies illustrate the differences between the Conservative and Labour parties.
  The Labour leadership election has been more revealing of Labour party policy than any speech in the House. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said that jobs should be a higher priority than inflation—and the fact that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that low inflation and low employment were mutually incompatible shows the distinction between the two parties. To take a comment by a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), and turn it round, the Labour party is now saying that high inflation is a price worth paying for lower unemployment.
  I am pleased that in his Mansion house speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor rejected that approach and said that he was not prepared to throw away the hard-won gains of recent years—he did not want Britain to go into a boom that we all knew would be followed by a bust. I must say that talk of a boom takes those hon. Members with seats in London or the south-east a little bit by surprise, as unemployment remains stubbornly high. But the recovery is now stronger than expected.
  The first reaction to the Chancellor's Mansion house speech came from Lord Lawson, who disagreed, saying that one could not stop the ups and down of the economic cycle. As he saw a few ups and downs in his time as Chancellor, one has to say. "He would say that, wouldn't he?" Both Chancellors are right. One cannot flatten out the economic cycles but one can do as the United States of America has managed to do and make them less violent. With a different approach to economic policy, the United States had a shorter and shallower recession.
  Why should we, as members of the governing party, be believed when we say that history will not repeat itself and

  97
  that inflation will not run away again? First, we have a clear determination to get public finances under control and to control public expenditure. The defence statement and what I am hearing from the Department of Social Security is encouraging and leads me to believe that we will, indeed, get public expenditure under control. In addition, the public sector borrowing requirement is perhaps now lower than we originally thought.
  The second reason why we shall be believed about our efforts to control inflation is that the minutes of the meetings between the Government—the Chancellor—and the Bank of England are now published. It has dawned on everybody what a significant step publication represented: it makes it impossible to abandon the battle against inflation for a quick political fix.
  That battle remains finely balanced. The good news is that there is no house-price inflation. House prices are not soaring as they did in the late 1980s, primarily because of the erosion of mortgage tax relief and the rise in fixed-rate mortgages. Buyers are no longer putting their last pound into property, so I hope we shall see an investment-led recovery rather than a housing-boom recovery.
  All the indicators are set to green, and the danger is that inflationary pressures will build up. I remind the House that the target for inflation is between 1 and 2 per cent. by the end of this Parliament. The acid test of the Government will be whether, having reduced interest rates for some years, they will be prepared to increase them if circumstances require it. Monetary policy is extremely loose.
  Real interest rates are very low, but long-term interest rates are quite high and the gap between the two is quite substantial. The market expects interest rates to rise, and that is confirmed in the Bank of England's inflation forecast. I have no doubt that the tax rises will take some heat out of the inflationary pressures and that the imposition of VAT on gas and electricity has barely started to bite, but we must raise interest rates if necessary—coupled with tight control of public expenditure in the November Budget if appropriate.
  My great surprise is that the public are still not aware of the recovery. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) said, some 70 per cent. of the country still believe that we are in recession. There is no doubt that unemployment is still a problem, particularly in the south-east, but one of the signs that things are beginning to turn is that skill shortages are appearing.
  The disappointment is that the recovery has not led to a rise in confidence in the City. In the past six months, the stock market has gone into substantial slide, which has probably been linked to the interaction between the yen and the dollar and the herd-like instincts of fund managers in the City in following the New York markets. There has been scepticism about the American Government's handling of the economy, and a leading American forecaster said the other day, "Whenever a Government spokesman says something about the US economy, I think, `Sell'."Only two weeks ago, the United Kingdom market finally broke away from the American market and there has since been a 4 per cent. rise in our stock market, which shows that fund managers are placing reliance on our own instincts and our own good results rather than worldwide indicators.
  We must remain competitive to sustain recovery. As the President of the Board of Trade is well aware, having just published his competitiveness White Paper, we must
  98
  change and move on. The City should become more involved in companies' and industries' future and economic well-being.
  Everyone must change their attitudes. I believe that the modest proposal from Mr. Alistair Ross-Goobey, chief executive of Postel, one of the largest fund managers in the City, to abandon three-year rolling contracts and replace them with two-year rolling contracts is a step in the right direction, showing that institutions can and should change their attitude to and involvement with the City.
  We must aim to be the world's best, but if that is our aim we are already out of date because the world's best have already moved on. We have the ability to be the world's best and I support the motion.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Alan Milburn: This debate has been characterised by much false optimism from Conservative Members. According to them, the green shoots of recovery promised so long ago by the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), are finally blossoming and everything in the garden is rosy. I am afraid that most people outside this place probably would not recognise that picture.
  The recovery is far from well established, with much uncertainty and lack of confidence prevalent among consumers and industrialists. They know that the Government are promising a false dawn yet again, for they have not forgotten that £7 billion-worth of tax rises are still in the pipeline, with 10 more Tory taxes on the way.
  It will take more than a puff of hot air about full employment and a visit to a TUC conference to convince people of the Government's ability to manage their way out of the economic mess that they have created. The public will know that Ministers have been forced to talk the language of full employment not by the misery of 3 million people being without jobs but by the threat to their own jobs from the consequences of their economic and political failure.
  The Government's conversion to the merits of full employment is belied by their actions. There is no Treasury forecast for unemployment. I notice that there is a forecast— quite rightly, because these things are significant— for growth, inflation, the trade balance and the public sector borrowing requirement, so why not for unemployment? The answer is simple enough: the projected growth rate of 2.75 per cent. is simply not enough to reduce unemployment to anywhere near its pre-recession levels. Interestingly, while the number of people on the unemployment register is falling, claimants clearly are not going into jobs. The number of people in employment fell by 73,000 in the last quarter and by more than 100,000 in the last half year. No wonder the air is thick with accusations of statistical jiggery-pokery.
  The conjuring trick has been given a new slant by documents released to me—or, rather, leaked to me—in the past few weeks from the Employment Service, which show that unemployed claimants are being deliberately offered low-paid, hard-to-fill vacancies in out-of-the-way parts of the country to try to con them out of their benefits. Ex-miners, who have been made redundant through no fault of their own, risk losing their benefit entitlement if they turn down jobs as hairdressers, debt collectors and so on. That seems to be the Government's vision of the future

  99
  —less concern for unemployed people than for meeting artificial Treasury targets imposed by Ministers and a low-pay, low-wage, low-skill and no-hope economy.
  If there was any correlation between forcing down wages and driving up employment, my region would be the boom region of Britain, but the north has the worst of both worlds. We are the low-pay capital and we have had the highest regional unemployment in every month since the Conservatives took office in May 1979. Nor is it just the north that is suffering. Between March 1990 and March 1994, unemployment in the previously prosperous south-east almost trebled. That has been the Government's triumph—the creation of a level economic playing field, where economic dislocation and devastation stalk the whole land from John O'Groats to Land's End. That is why, north and south, the Government's false promises will not be believed.
  The Government's record tells its own story: it is a record of low growth and high unemployment; of deceit and broken promises on tax; of a failure to pay our way in the world, with record trade imbalances in the past few years; of casualisation of employment; and of one of the worst levels of investment in skills training, research and development and manufacturing. That record promises no long-term future of sustainable growth for our country or its citizens. Britain will succeed only if we can harness the strength of every part of Britain. If we allow any region to decline, economic and social decay will result and the ability of the whole economy to compete will be weakened.
  The structural unemployment that characterises so much of our nation is a symptom of political failure. It is wasteful, inefficient and, most of all, unnecessary. However, it is the direct by-product of a market-driven approach, determined from the centre, which ignores the regional impact of central Government policy. That approach failed in the 1980s and it will fail again in the 1990s.
  Mr. Heald: If the hon. Gentleman looks across Europe, he will see far higher unemployment, particularly in countries such as Sweden which have followed the kind of philosophy for which the hon. Gentleman is arguing. Can the hon. Gentleman see other reasons why unemployment is high in Europe but low in Britain? Perhaps unemployment is low here because of the flexibility of the labour market. What does the hon. Gentleman say about that?
  Mr. Milburn: I would not call between 2 million and 3 million unemployed a low figure. That is a direct insult to those people who are out of jobs and reflects the complacent attitude that we have seen throughout the debate. The Government seem to be content to sit on their laurels and rest with the achievement—if that is what it can be called—of creating 2.5 million unemployed. I do not know about Conservative Members, but people in my part of the world are not happy to sit back and satisfy themselves with that kind of record.
  The current structural unemployment is a disgrace and it is quite unnecessary. During the 1980s, the market-driven approach produced an overheated south and an under-resourced north. Pressure on the green belt,
  100
  labour shortages and crazy property prices sat side by side with under-utilised industrial sites and unemployment—and that in regions just 200 miles apart.
  A sensible Government would have redirected spending to mop up excess supply and to dampen down excess demand by switching investment priorities. Instead, the brakes were slammed on: interest rates were forced up, plunging the whole country into a deep and damaging downturn. The recession, which was born and bred in the south of England, grew into a Frankenstein's monster that stalked the whole land.
  Quite simply, Britain's centralised decision-making process could not produce the necessary flexibility to deal with the differing needs of different parts of the country. Instead, it treated the whole nation as though Liverpool and London were exactly the same.
  No other industrial nation has such a centralised decision-making and financial system. Indeed, the success of economies such as that in Germany is built on the sure bedrock of decentralisation and devolution. Public banks are organised in such a way that they are embedded in the local and regional clusters that make up the German success story. That approach has been underpinned by a more widespread diffusion of economic and political power to ensure that industrial enterprises across the whole nation and in all regions receive the lifeblood of investment that they need to survive and to compete.
  In this country, long-term sustainable growth is dependent on the adoption of industrial and employment policies that place the premium on investment for the long term in all regions of Britain. However, in this country there is no proper annual regional audit of public spending and no regional element to monopolies or mergers policy. There is no attempt to diffuse outwards the centralised financial structures that dominate the United Kingdom economy. Instead, we have the absurd spectacle of a Government cutting regional aid spending during a recession—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I call the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I will not try to follow the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) down his route. I want to begin by declaring an interest. I placed a substantial bet last week, not on one of the horses of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring), but with my bookmakers, the IG Index, on the sterling contract that short-term interest rates would not rise as fast as the market thinks that they will. I did that because I have such confidence in -the Government's anti-inflationary abilities.
  Two years ago, I made a speech in which I took the then rather fashionable view that monetary conditions were too tight while the fiscal position was too loose. Since then, the Government have taken several sensible steps to control the fiscal position. However, I may be almost alone tonight in arguing that the monetary position is still too tight. How can that possibly be when short-term interest rates are at their lowest for a generation?
  In my speech two years ago, I quoted Professor Tim Congdon's model, but I suggested that he did not include a major factor—the massive one-off impact on the monetary figures that the changes in the housing market

  101
  were likely to have. Professor Congdon kindly sent me his latest document a couple of days ago, and I was intrigued to see that he devoted all the copy to that subject.
  If Professor Congdon's approach is now correct—I argue that he has not gone quite far enough—we should be profoundly interested for three reasons. First, it will mean that our inflationary projections are, if anything, not optimistic enough. We really have beaten inflation in the medium term. Secondly, it will mean that in the medium term our outlook for a healthy economy is even better than impartial observers such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are suggesting, but— this is an important and significant "but"—we may have, in getting from here to there, a significant monetary glitch to cross.
  The broad money supply today is growing at only 3.1 per cent. Coincidentally, that is almost exactly the rate at which it was growing two years ago. If the one-off surge in money lent to speculators of various sorts is removed, the actual growth in broad money is only about 1 per cent. In other words, for the first time in a generation at least, and as far back as we have a really good record for broad money, there is a sustained shrinkage in the real money supply.
  That is backed up by several subsidiary factors. For example, the growth in wages is running at only 3.75 per cent. Given the rapid expansion in productivity at the moment, that is only just a real increase. Most significantly, I want to focus on the workings of the housing market.
  The housing market is difficult to measure because there are so many indices. They include the Halifax and the Nationwide and can be seasonally adjusted or not. However, they all show that, as I suggested might be the case two years ago, the housing market has not recovered. I believe that it is right that it should not recover. Lower property prices are healthy.
  Why has the housing market not recovered? First, we must consider the inflationary factor. People believed that it was worth spending more money on a house if, because of the fall in the value of money, the debt that they borrowed would erode vis-a-vis the house price. Secondly, we must consider the fiscal factor, in that the real value of mortgage interest relief has declined. However, thirdly and crucially—I believe that all the economists who focus on housing have left this factor out of the picture—we must consider the geographical impact of the collapse in the cost of travel to the continent which occurred at the same time as the introduction of the single market.
  The massive disproportion in house prices in northern France and southern England cannot be sustained indefinitely. Some of my constituents are moving across the channel to retire and people are selling second homes in my area, and I am sure in other areas in southern England, and purchasing properties from estate agents advertising their wares in English in northern France.
  That factor could, in the 1990s, match in reverse the one-off inflationary impact of the liberalisation of credit in the 1980s, which gave us such problems with the monetary indicators then and which fed through into a most unexpected burst of inflation in spite of apparently high interest rates.
  We might appear to have low interest rates now, but they are not as low as they seem. Long-term interest rates at 8 per cent.—that is, a real rate of 5.5 per cent.—are quite high. A short-term base rate of 5.25 per cent. is not as low
  102
  as it looks, because the banks have widened their margins. It is certainly nothing like as low as the 3 per cent. which the Americans, whose economic experience is much closer to ours than to our European partners, chose to sit at for some time. Even if those rates are as low as many people believe, the impact of that one-off, massive, painful adjustment in the housing market—I am convinced that, it is a good thing in the long run, but it is monetarily painful in the short run—will cause a one-off shrinkage in the money supply, which could give us a bumpy ride over the next year or so.
  The reaction to that is easily coped with, and the clear water is on the other side—non-inflationary growth on a major scale, and with the extra bonus that, because money is no longer being channelled disproportionately into bricks and mortar, it will be available for the investment which Opposition Members have mentioned and which we would like to see boosted in industry. It is noticeable that those countries which have been most successful economically are often those in which home ownership levels are not especially high and house prices are not particularly high in terms of the economy. Switzerland is a good example of that.
  We must be ready to take swift monetary action if the broad money figures become any lower. That can mean only one of two things—either keeping the base rate down or even lowering it further, in which case I shall make even more money at the bookies than the little bit by which I am ahead already, or being willing to tackle the other end of the interest rate curve, which would be my preferred solution, by reducing the amount to which we fund the deficit so that we get broad money moving again. That course is potentially rocky.
  I shall devote the last couple of minutes of my speech to ways in which we can tighten the fiscal position a little further. Like most hon. Members, I believe that a gently expanding money supply and a tightening fiscal position will deliver the non-inflationary growth that we need. First, I firmly believe that we should go the whole hog on social security spending and introduce identity cards and a proper central register, which would be the single most effective way to tackle fraud.
  Secondly, as I have proposed in previous debates, and as I have a university in my constituency, we should fund the remarkable growth that we have achieved in higher education by going even further toward student loans. In the long run, grants should be confined only to certain specialist groups such as mature students and those with other special positions.
  Thirdly, we must reconsider the scope for legal aid. We have narrowed the group of people who are eligible, but we have not narrowed the type of cases that they can bring. For example, pensioners in my constituency can dispute a garden hedge, and, having spent £20,000 of their own savings, can ask the Treasury to fund the next stage of the dispute—incidentally, the case was brought against a war hero who has lost a leg—at the taxpayer's expense. I find that incredible.
  Fourthly, we should look again at home improvement grants, which are frequently paid to people with substantial incomes and which result in a one-off capital gain for those people. Why should not grants be repaid on the sale of the house?
  Fifthly, like other hon. Members, I believe that we have to look again at housing benefit, but not by sharpening the taper still further and screwing down still more tightly on

  103
  those with modest savings. The way to tackle housing benefit is by recognising that we have a largely artificial property market in many areas because most people in rented accommodation in some areas are now on housing benefit. The answer is to limit the amount which councils are allowed to pay, thereby bringing down prevailing rents.
  I end where I started. I declared unnecessarily my interest because I thought that it was right to do so. I am betting that we have beaten inflation.
  8.33 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: It is rather interesting that no Conservative Member has referred to this as a "feel good" recovery. I refer to it as a "feel no better" recovery, which is certainly an improvement on feeling worse, and probably very much preferred to the "feel good" recovery which ends in inflationary tears. That is not my phrase, it is the phrase of a well- known journalist who writes for The Guardian. As he rightly comments, the real question is whether the "feel no better" recovery will fizzle out or end in an inflationary boom.
  The problem that we face is the lack of industrial strategy, which is the worrying aspect of the Government's approach. The Chancellor admitted this afternoon that investment in industry is not increasing as he would like. The recovery is being led by consumer spending, not by investment in industry. Too much of our consumption is of goods that are manufactured abroad, which is increasing our trade deficit and producing longer-term inflationary pressures.
  Over the past 15 years, we have seen the decimation of our manufacturing industry. That in itself must have shown some of us at least that it is essential to have an industrial strategy that will help to rebuild the desperately needed manufacturing industry. We need a strategy that will help put our people back to work and help to use our skills and expertise to their best advantage.
  People are often surprised when I tell them that unemployment in the Cambridge constituency is about the same as the national average. For some reason, people always think that Cambridge is one southern constituency with low unemployment. Some 3,400 people are registered as unemployed in my constituency. The rate is 9 per cent. overall. One reason why unemployment is not much higher than that is that we have good reason to be grateful for the strong growth of the small high-tech firms which have dominated the industrial scene in my area. That has developed despite the Government, rather than because of Government policies.
  I should like to talk about the importance of high-tech firms. Although that is not the only small business sector that we should support, it is extremely important because it provides interesting and satisfying work. It is not part of the low-skill, low-tech economy that the Government are trying to promote, and it is an essential way of capitalising on our skills and expertise and enabling manufacturing industry to benefit. Through the promotion of high-tech industry, we can achieve economic growth and increased employment and, at the same time, ensure that our manufacturing industry improves its competitiveness.
  Last weekend, Cambridgeshire county council published a survey of 1,000 companies in Cambridgeshire, which showed that there has been 7 per cent. growth in
  104
  high-tech jobs in the past two years. In the city, more than one in eight of all employees work in high-tech industry, and in the surrounding villages the proportion is one in five or higher. It is a crucial part of our local economy.
  In the past two years, an additional 1,900 high-tech jobs have been created, bringing the total to more than 27,000 in the county, including an extra 500 jobs in research and development. Some of those jobs replace jobs that were lost in other sectors, and many of them are financed by European research and development money. Thirty-two per cent. of those jobs are in the city of Cambridge, the great majority of them in my constituency.
  Without those jobs, the unemployment rate would treble, and I would be talking about not 9 per cent. but 27 per cent. unemployment. That is higher than the levels in Tottenham, Liverpool, Hackney and Monklands, East—my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) referred to the latter in her maiden speech.
  I hope that the Government will take due note of an excellent report that has just been published by the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology. The report, entitled "Innovation and the Tax System", makes several recommendations, some of which I hope that the Government will implement, which have been part of Labour party policy for a long time. It suggests, for instance, a detailed study of the relationship between the UK tax system and the innovative activity of UK-based businesses.
  The momentum of innovation depends on access to financial and other resources. The tax system is important in determining post-tax profits from which businesses can finance such innovation. A technology-based firm in my constituency, Xaar, has developed an ink-jet printing system and a range of complementary inks. Several million pounds raised from venture-capital organisations in the UK and Europe have been invested in the development of that technology. Xaar has been successful in seeking licences for its technology, and has concluded agreements with major Japanese office manufacturers, IBM Sweden and, most recently, Zeneca Colours Ltd.
  Under the terms of the agreement with Zeneca, together with the Xaar chemists, a programme of joint development to produce top-quality inks to service the market being created by Xaar's printhead manufacturing licensees is being embarked on. The key element of that agreement is the joint development programme, and the transfer of Xaar know-how and technical information.
  Xaar was shocked and disappointed to find, when the first payment came in under the licence, that a deduction of 25 per cent. had been made to cover tax. The trouble is that Xaar will not be able to recover that amount until it is in a position to pay corporation tax—which, given the accumulated losses arising from the development, will not be for several years.
  Xaar's chairman wrote to tell me of those developments, adding:
  "The strangest factor is that had Xaar concluded a deal with an overseas manufacturer then the income would not have been subject to 25 per cent. withholding tax. Even licence fees and royalties from Japan have only 10 per cent. withholding tax."
  The chairman makes the following plea:
  "We ask the question, why do the UK tax laws seek to penalise companies like Xaar who are engaged in keeping British technology at the forefront of product development."
  I believe that our tax system could do a great deal to develop small high-tech firms. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) referred to tax incentives

  105
  that would help not only high-tech industry but many of our manufacturing industries. We should recognise that not only investment in research and development, and in equipment and machinery, but investment in people is vital to the future of our industries. We need trained people to fill the jobs that will result from the development of high-tech firms, and we need people who are free to work. Many women in my constituency already have the skills, but cannot work because of child care and other care responsibilities.
  We need a strategy that will enable such people to work, will help to develop the high-tech firms that will provide the jobs and will help to turn this "feel no better" recovery into a really "feel good" recovery.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Barry Legg: I intend to concentrate on public finances. The Chancellor's summer economic forecast reveals much improvement in our general economy: the first 41 pages show a recovery over the past 18 months which is projected to continue in the medium term—a recovery based on a low-inflation environment.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottoway), who welcomed the openness initiative in monetary policy to which the forecast refers. The. publication of the minutes of the monthly meetings between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England are a significant development, in terms of both accountability and the quality of advice on monetary policy that is likely to be presented. More openness in government is likely to strengthen our institutions rather than weaken them.
  So much for the first 41 pages of the forecast. The remaining nine, which deal with our public finances, paint a much less sanguine picture. Opposition Members have called for more public spending today, although they have not quantified the increase for which they have asked. Contrary to some of what we have heard from them, however, both the Red Book and the summer economic forecast reveal that public spending is alive and well, and expanding in the British economy. Despite the best efforts of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the controlled total over the past three years has risen by some 10.9 per cent. in real terms.
  Earlier today, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor attributed that increase to the recession, but I suspect that economic historians will not regard all of it as having arisen in that way. They will probably conclude that it is also due to the Government's efforts to offset the over-tight monetary policy that resulted from our membership of the exchange rate mechanism with a more lax fiscal policy.
  As a Conservative, I do not support increased state intervention in the form of higher public expenditure 'when Governments follow inappropriate monetary policies. Boosting public expenditure is very easy and apparently popular in the short term, but it is very difficult to bring it down again in a modern democracy. Lobbyists and interest groups will fight to ensure that spending levels remain the same or rise, whatever the national interest demands.
  So what of the future? Table 2.2 of the summer economic forecast, on page 43, shows that general Government expenditure over the next two years is set to increase from £278 billion to £310 billion—an increase of
  106
  some £30 billion; a cash increase of 11 per cent., and a real-terms increase of some 6 per cent. in a low-inflation climate.
  The figures show other worrying trends. For instance, cyclical social security is planned to increase further in the coming years. That seems strange when we are experiencing above-trend economic growth: at such a time, cyclical social security would be expected to fall. As for the total social security budget, over the next two years it is due to rise to more than £90 billion. It is difficult to understand the magnitude of that figure; perhaps it would be simpler if it were expressed as the amount of tax that would have to be raised from the average family to pay for it. The average amount of tax levied on the average family to meet that social security burden would be some £4,500 per annum.
  I believe that reform of social security spending is now essential. The scope and size of that budget must be reined in. As long as we put off fundamental reform of social security, our reputation for firm control of public spending and our ability to create a low-tax environment will be in danger.
  When Beveridge produced his White Paper on social security, he said that the great danger was that men might become comfortable and settle down to benefits. That is the position we are in—men have settled down to benefits. The social security system that has evolved for 50 years has not helped good neighbourliness, but has set neighbour against neighbour. So often, we hear of people complaining about neighours who exploit the benefit system while they pay the taxes.
  Too generous a benefit system also stops people from going back to work. The most important ingredient in getting people back to work is net take-home pay after tax, which determines the supply of labour. If people find that they receive more on benefit than they would in net take-home pay, their determination to find work will obviously falter.
  In recent months, there has been significant discussion and argument about whether the United Kingdom economy can combine European welfarism and American free-market efficiency. If one accepts such a proposition, it has some inconsistencies. Free-market efficiency requires a low-tax system, whereas welfarism pre-empts the nation's resources. Even in Britain today, the state is pre-empting more than 44p in every pound of private sector resources.
  Deregulated labour markets are not enough. Low tax is a necessary prerequisite for a successful free-enterprise economy. High welfare spending is not a part of that virtuous circle. High public spending usually leads to high public deficits and high long-term real interest rates, because the markets want a risk premium for the money they lend to spendthrift Governments.
  We have an agenda that we must adhere to during the next two years, and we must ensure that low taxation is at its heart. To achieve such low taxation, firm control of public expenditure cannot be mere rhetoric: it has to be a commitment that we are determined to deliver. A social security budget of £90 billion must be reformed.
  Last week, we heard from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that Government running costs are £20 billion a year, or £1,000 a year for every family in this country. We must focus on reducing these levels of public spending during the remainder of this Parliament, because a low-tax economy must be an obligation that we do not dishonour.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) on her impressive and forceful debut in this place. I know that my new hon. Friend will be a great credit to her predecessor.
  The Chancellor forecast a golden vista of his creation —rising investment, low inflation, reduced public borrowing and lower taxes. To the public, he says, "All this and more can be yours, if only you vote Tory next time." If he thinks that the public will be so easily conned, he is wrong. They know that such forecasts come from the same crew who failed to predict the Lawson boom, ruled out the possibility of a recession, did not foresee sterling's exit from the exchange rate mechanism, and denied the need for tax increases before the last general election. Their record for forecasts is abysmal, and their record on economic management is worse.
  It is true that we are climbing out of recession, but that is part of the economic cycle. It would have happened sooner if the Government had got their policies right. We stayed in recession longer than most other countries. The economic cycle meant that we were bound to come out of recession eventually, as we came out of the 1981 recession, but the Government's stewardship has left the economy in a bad state to take advantage of recovery, just as it did after the 1981 recession.
  The Government cannot even claim that the recovery is a result of the success of their policies, because it is clearly the result of the failure of the policy that they set out at the last general election. The present Prime Minister was Chancellor when he took us into the ERM at an unsustainable exchange rate. It was an appalling judgment. We entered the ERM at the wrong time, the wrong rate, and for all the wrong reasons.
  Massive damage was done to our manufacturing base, and a million jobs were lost as the then Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, sought to sustain what was unsustainable. Even those people such as myself, who believed that the principle of the ERM was right, knew that that exchange rate was not sustainable. Once forced to abandon their preferred policy, the Government found that a slow recovery began. Their false judgments created the recession, the damage to manufacturing and now, paradoxically, the recovery.
  The budget deficit, which produced value added tax on fuel and car and home insurance, and a new airport tax, was created by the fiscal irresponsibilities of the 1980s and 1990s—primarily, by tax cuts at the wrong time, and again for the wrong reasons. I well remember the forecast that the Lawson boom would lead to prosperity. The reality was boom, bust and job losses, and it will be again, because this Chancellor does not get his judgments right, either.
  Value added tax on fuel was introduced because we supposedly had a £50 billion deficit. That was his forecast and his judgment, but he was wrong. The deficit was £46 billion. He did not need to introduce VAT on fuel; pensioners and the poor did not have to be hit in that way.
  The Chancellor made the wrong judgment in imposing an unnecessary burden on people, so will he remove it? He would not agree even to fail to impose the second stage of VAT on fuel when he came before the Treasury Select Committee. I suggested to him that there was no more need for the tax. He said, "Well, we're going to do it anyway."
  108
  Like his leader, who took us into the ERM at the wrong rate, this Chancellor decides when confronted with realities that the best thing to do is to ignore the pain they cause, and carry on regardless. It is the same sort of attitude that he displays towards the fundamental problems of the economy—he ignores them. The result is that the recovery is not sound.
  Yesterday, David Hardisty of the Finance and Leasing Association said:
  "Confidence is still fragile, because there is no feel good factor at the moment. The tax rises, low wage settlements, static house prices and fear of unemployment mean people do not feel their economic situation is improving."
  Sixty-three per cent. of the association's members were no more confident about their prospects this month than they were in February.
  The housing market is a particular problem. In paragraph 3.28 of the Red Book, the Chancellor predicted:
  "Increasing confidence should lead to higher activity and prices in 1994."
  He got that wrong, too, as he admitted to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.
  The failure of the housing market is probably due to three factors: first, confidence in recovery is weak; secondly, the Governor of the Bank of England has predicted that interest rates will rise later this month, which deters borrowers; and, thirdly, taking out a 25-year mortgage is based on the principle of being able to pay for it, and uninterrupted employment.
  The new insecurity and uncertainty in the job market caused by the removal of many employment rights means that people are less likely to enter into large loans, because they are not sure that they will be able to pay them. The housing market may not be the same ever again while current Government policies continue. That will affect the need for a mood of confidence which the Chancellor predicted but which, again, has not materialised.
  There is also no real evidence that the Chancellor has created one extra full-time job. That was the consensus view not only of the distinguished panel of economists who advise the Select Committee, but of his panel of independent advisers, who said in paragraph 13 of their report on the summer economic forecast:
  "Full-time employment has continued to fall."
  It is true that people are coming off benefits, but that is for three reasons: first, changes in the benefit rules, especially on invalidity benefit; secondly, more young people are going into education; and, thirdly, the creation of more part-time jobs. However, the statistics show that full-time jobs are still not being created, and, as the Chancellor's advisers said, full-time employment has continued to fall. There are also concerns about the sort of jobs that are being created and the sort of full-time jobs that might be created, hopefully, in due course.
  If recovery is to be sustained in the long term, we need an export-led recovery; we need a recovery primarily in manufacturing. The damage to our manufacturing base in the recent recession has been enormous, but as Professor Christopher Johnson pointed out, the damage to manufacturing investment under the Tories has been long-term, rather than only during the current recession. During the period 1982 to 1992, while capital stock in finance and business rose by 107 per cent., in trade and tourism by 57 per cent. and in other services by an average of 38 per cent., capital stock growth in manufacturing industry was only 14 per cent. That has left manufacturing weak over the past decade.

  109
  As the Chancellor's economic forecast acknowledges, that has led the Confederation of British Industry, in its measure of capital utilisation, to say that the manufacturing sector is already close to its normal level of utilisation. There is little spare capacity left in manufacturing; spare capacity is in other sectors. That means that, even if we are able to bring ourselves slowly out of recession and into recovery, the manufacturing demand is unlikely to be able to met domestically, and we will have to import products.
  If we are not careful, and if there are no changes in policy, we are then looking at a balance of payments problem, certainly in the next year. Manufacturing is fundamentally weak, after years of neglect. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has called for policies to encourage investment in manufacturing, and to tackle the skills deficit in Britain.
  Any modern western economy should have managed a sustained growth rate of 2.2 per cent. over the past decade or more. We did that before 1979; we should have been able to do it after 1979. As Professor Johnson has shown, an output gap has grown since 1979. Under the Conservatives, the economy has gone from boom to bust, but throughout that period it has under-performed.
  Professor Johnson predicts that the current massive output gap will take five years or more to close, even at the current rate of growth. It will take five years of the current growth rate to take us to where we should have been if there had been prudent stewardship of our economy. It is a miserable record. In the 1990s, the growth rate is likely to be an average of only 1.6 per cent.
  We also have the highest taxes on record. The Conservatives like to say that they are the party of low taxation, and argue that the present tax rises are a temporary hiccup. However, that is not true. Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) gave the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee statistics from the Library of the House. Their effect was devastating.
  In 1978–79, the ratio of tax to gross domestic product was 34.3 per cent. In every year up to 1993–94, it was a higher proportion of gross domestic product than in 1978–79. This year, it is 34 per cent., but it is set to rise to 37 per cent. in 1994––95 and 1995–96. That is not a temporary phenomenon or a hiccup.
  If hon. Members think that the statistics for 1978–79 are somehow or other an aberration as far as the Labour Government were concerned, it is the case that the figures for 1975–76, 1976–77 and 1977–78 were also lower than for almost every year under the Conservatives. The data show that it is simply a myth that the Conservatives tax less than Labour. It is true that the Conservatives tax the rich less than Labour, but, for the working class and for middle-income families, Labour's tax policies not only cost less but are more progressive and fair.
  A married couple on average earnings with two children in 1978–1979 paid 34.2 per cent. of their earnings in direct and indirect taxation. In only one year from then until 1992–1993 does the proportion fall below that, and that was 1979–1980, following a Labour tax cut. In every single year since 1980, a typical family has been taxed higher under the Conservatives.
  That leaves the debatable point about whether Labour would or would not have taxed higher than the Conservatives in the 1980s. But it is not debatable that,
  110
  since 1979, under Mrs. Thatcher and the present Prime Minister, the Tories have taxed more than Labour Governments.
  The Chancellor cannot be relied upon to get it right. His judgment is unsound, and he and his predecessors have made too many bad judgments in the past. He has no clear view of where he is going, he has not addressed the fundamental problems of the economy, and he does not have solutions for those problems. The Conservatives seem to see their only hope in trying to extend the policies of the 1980s—the "me decade"—into the latter half of the 1990s, no matter that tax cutting and trickle-down economics were supposed to lift all the boats, but have instead lifted only the yachts and damaged the harbour in the process.
  Labour rejects that. We want to move from the "me decade" policies and to make the 1990s the "we decade". We say that, unless the many prosper, none will. It is for that reason that I say that the electorate will not be conned again by the Chancellor's predictions of prosperity. The Government have got it wrong far too often, and they have got it wrong again. The electorate know that, and they will reject them.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to this interesting debate. I have sat through virtually all the speeches and I have listened to them with considerable attention.
  Speaking at this time of the evening, and looking at the open green Benches, reminds me of the old saying, "If you want to keep a secret, make a Back-Bench speech." There is no doubt that it is somewhat difficult to speak at this time of night.
  I was going to make three main points, but I shall confine myself to one, for reasons of brevity. I wanted say some nice things about the growth of the economy, but those points have already been made adequately by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I shall content myself with making one practical suggestion by way of an early Budget representation to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and to his colleagues on the Treasury Bench.
  One of the besetting difficulties in our economy since the war—perhaps for longer—has been the relatively low level, and sometimes also the poor quality, of the investment made in the economy. There has also been rather too low a level of aggregate savings which have been put aside by all sectors of the economy towards that investment. The time has come for the Government, and Parliament as a whole, to try to make a constructive contribution to rectifying that situation, or at any rate to lean against the national malaise of inadequate aggregate savings.
  I shall quote one or two figures which relate to the time that the Government have been in office, from 1979 to the most recent available date. Total savings as a percentage of GDP moved from 23.1 per cent. in 1979 to 13.5 per cent. in 1993—a rather depressing decline.
  If one looks, for example, at the international figures and compares our record with those of Japan and Germany, one finds that in roughly the same period—in this case, the figures relate to 1979 to 1992—Japan's gross national savings as a percentage of its GDP stayed roughly constant at 31.5 per cent. in 1979 and 33.9 per cent. in 1992. In

  111
  Germany, the figures were 22.8 per cent. in the first year and 22.7 per cent. in the second year. The United Kingdom's figures were 19 per cent. in the first year and 12.8 per cent. in the second year. I therefore want some measures to be taken not just in the forthcoming Budget but in succeeding ones to help to rectify that situation.
  On the personal side, it is very important not to attack the tax regime for institutional savings, because we shall all need the efficiency and positive contribution made by such savings to thrive and grow in order to achieve the other objectives of Government policy in the sphere of occupational pensions. Rather, my right hon. and learned Friend would do well to consider introducing an overall tax incentive for any form of personal savings up to a maximum of, for example, £10,000 in a given tax year, which would be completely neutral as between one savings product and another. In the context of the move towards self-assessment, it could be self-certified by the taxpayer, subject to rigorous spot checks and fierce penalties from the Inland Revenue.
  That should increase the aggregate level of personal savings in the economy, reduce the need for savings churning between different novelty products and encourage the old habit of direct equity or bond investments by individuals. If properly channelled by institutions and properly used by companies—obviously it is not just the quantity of investment, but the quality and the direction of it which matters—it should produce a higher level of overall investment in our economy.
  If my colleagues on the Front Bench want to learn more about this idea—if they are not already up to speed on it —I commend to them a recent publication by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which put forward an idea similar to the one that I have outlined. I believe that it would be in the national interest to pursue this idea.
  9.10 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: The argument in the debate centres on a fundamental difference of analysis of the state of the economy and a fundamental difference of view about the role of Government in the economy. The Opposition believe that the economy remains fundamentally weak and that the power of Government must be used to address that weakness. The Government tell us that the economy is doing just fine and that all they have to do is carry on as they are.
  Rarely during an economic debate can such a contrast have been drawn between the picture that the Chancellor painted of the economic background and the daily reality that faces the people of Britain. Listening to Ministers today is like eavesdropping on the inhabitants of a different world.
  The terms of the Government's motion celebrates their victory in the battle against unemployment, but in the real world, and according to the Government's own reckoning, the number of people in employment is actually falling, and still 2.6 million people remain unemployed.
  The Chancellor tells us that we have an economic recovery that is the envy of Europe. Britain, of course, went earliest into recession and has, therefore, emerged before our competitors, but the effects of the recession have been far more severe here than those experienced elsewhere. That is why the OECD's forecast predicts that,
  112
  between 1990 and the end of 1995, the economy of Britain will grow at a slower rate than that of any other G7 country and at a slower rate than that of any other European Union country and that our economy will grow at less than half the average of those of OECD countries. That is why it is only in the make-believe world of Ministers that we are the envy of our competitors.
  Ministers trumpet Britain's improved competitiveness, but the reality is that our trade deficit is the worst in the European Union and we are second from bottom in the OECD skills league table. That is the dream world in which Ministers are living—the dream world in which they can talk about tax cuts even as they impose the biggest tax rises in history and ordinary families face 10 more tax rises still to come. No wonder the Chancellor can detect no feel-good factor. People do not feel good about tax increases; they feel betrayed. They do not feel good about their employment prospects; they feel insecure. They do not feel good about economic recovery, because they do not believe it.
  Moreover, people know that Britain's current economic weakness is reflected in a history of failures that stretches back to 1979 and embraces every aspect of economic performance. I am not talking the country down, but telling it straight. The Conservatives have failed on key tests set not by their opponents but by themselves.
  Mr. Butterfill: If the hon. Lady does not believe the Government's statistics, she may believe those produced by the Library. Page 3 of the research paper that the Library produced for this debate shows the pattern for industrial production. Under the last Labour Government, industrial production fell rapidly between 1974 and 1976, and returned to its original level only in 1979 whereas, under this Government from 1980 to 1990, there was considerable recovery and we are now back to the record levels of 1990.
  Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman should look at what is happening in other countries. Manufacturing output in this country has grown by a mere 4 per cent. since 1979. Compare that with the record in America, where it has grown by 30 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take manufacturing output as an indicator, he should be extremely concerned about that fact.
  The Conservatives have failed their own tests on borrowing, public spending and taxation. The story is one of ignominious retreat from their explicit promises.
  Sir Peter Hordern: The hon. Lady specifically mentioned borrowing. Does she remember the great man, Dr. Johannes Witteveen, a director of the International Monetary Fund, who presided over the bailing out of the last Labour Government? I cannot remember the name of the gentleman who presided over the bailing out of the previous Labour Government. However, no Conservative Government have ever borrowed as much, as a proportion of GDP, as the last two Labour Governments. Labour Members are concerned only with increasing Government spending, which must have the same result.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Ms Harman: Ministers say "Hear, hear", but the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. This Government have borrowed record amounts. Back in 1988, when the Prime Minister was Chief Secretary, he promised a zero

  113
  PSBR year on year. The people who promised to end borrowing altogether have now become the biggest Government borrowers in history and lamely propose that they may eliminate Government borrowing by the end of the century.
  On public spending, which the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) also mentioned, the Government made two promises: to protect investment yet, at the same time, reduce overall public spending. But they have done neither. They have cut investment in the economy and public services, but failed to reduce overall spending.
  The Government's most notorious and humiliating failure of all is on tax. People now pay more tax than they did in 1979. The Conservatives said nothing equivocal on tax in the general election campaign. They specifically promised income tax cuts. Moreover, they promised them year on year. They ruled out a rise in national insurance and promised not to put VAT on fuel. As we know, all those specific promises have been cynically broken. Now, the best that they can do is offer us, as the Chancellor has today, their instinct to cut tax. They are like a football team that promises to bring home the world cup and, having been humiliated in the qualifying round, comes home and tells the public about its instinct for scoring goals.
  The Government's failure on the economy lies at the heart of all their other failures. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) addressed that failure in her maiden speech. She showed the strength of character and determination that will clearly make her an asset to her constituents. She spoke of her deference in following in John Smith's footsteps, and I am sure that the whole House will agree that he would have been proud of her speech.
  For 15 years, the Tories have tried to present issues of spending, tax and borrowing in isolation from the state of the real economy, but the truth is that economic performance is crucial to performance on borrowing, on spending and on tax. That is why the Government have not succeeded, and will never succeed, even by their own standards.
  It is the Government's failure on the economy which has sent the public sector borrowing requirement soaring to record levels. Economic failure has meant that the cost of keeping people unemployed has trebled, and the Government have responded by cutting investment. Economic failure means that, with more people unemployed, everyone has to pay more tax.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) asked exactly the right questions about tax. He said, "The question is, what is it for and who pays?" The answers, under the present Government, are, "What is it for? It is to pay the price of economic failure", and "Who pays? Middle and lower income families."
  That record of failure obviously was not inevitable. It was not some unfortunate accident. It is the direct result, the product, of an economic dogma that simply has not worked—a dogma which says that the Government can play no positive role in the economy, and says that Britain can compete only as a low-wage, low-skill economy, with a weakened welfare state left to pick up the pieces.
  That dogma stands condemned by the Tories' record of failure. It must be replaced by an approach that uses the power of Government to ensure investment for the future, which recognises that some markets need a regulatory framework that will foster economic success, and which has at its heart the commitment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) mentioned, to a
  114
  high-tech, high-investment, high-skill, high-wage economy to give people economic opportunity, and a welfare state that gives people pathways out of poverty.
  Some Ministers, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are trying to shift their ground, but remember, his is a party which said that unemployment is a price worth paying, and believed that manufacturing did not matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) reminded the House, with the benefit of his experience, as he always does, that our economy has not prospered without a strong manufacturing base.
  Have these Tories really changed? The answer is of course no, because although their words are changing, their actions are not. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) made it clear that the Government still believe that unemployment has nothing to do with them, and that their rhetoric on full employment is meaningless.
  Mr. Forman: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is very kind. Before she gets too carried away with Labour's prospect of spending its way out of recession, were it ever to be in government, does she recall the memorable words of Lord Callaghan, the last Labour Prime Minister—in perhaps every sense—who said to the Labour party conference in 1976:
  "I tell you in all candour, comrades, you cannot spend your way out of a recession"?
  He was referring to public spending.
  Ms Harman: The Government have failed to cut public spending, although they have cut investment, because they are spending more on the consequences of their economic failure. The history of the Tories' economic policy is failure destined to repeat itself, first as the tragedy of two recessions, followed by the farce of a Government trumpeting their success as they create the conditions for yet more failure.
  For the Government, recovery is simply the absence of recession, but recovery, if it is to be sustained, must be more than that. They have not conquered the economic problems that they have created. They have not ended the pattern of boom and bust that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) so excellently described. This fragile recovery is nothing more than an interval between the first two Tory recessions and the one that is yet to come.
  Just as the Chancellor is trying to change the mood music on economic policy, so he has tried to change it on social policy. While the Chief Secretary still says that Government action undermines individual responsibihty, the Chancellor has started to speak about a strong welfare system.
  The Chancellor has every reason to -be embarrassed by the Government's record on social policy. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Why"?] Conservative Members should look at the Government's own figures, which show that since 1979 the income of the poorest one tenth of the population, in real terms, has actually fallen by 17 per cent. while that of the richest has increased by 62 per cent. That is the direct result of an economic strategy based fairly and squarely on high unemployment and low wages. It is the direct result of a tax policy based on tax loopholes for the super-rich and tax increases for low-paid and middle-income families. It is the direct result of a social policy based on cutting benefits.
  Just as the Government's economic strategy remains unchanged so, too, their tax and social policies remain

  115
  unchanged. It was the Chancellor who insisted on going ahead with VAT on fuel—and still, despite the outcry in the country and despite its obvious unfairness, he refuses to cancel the increase from 8 to 17.5 per cent. He still refuses to end the tax privileges for the rich, such as executive share option schemes that give the richest people thousands of pounds in untaxed income. Meanwhile, the Government's policy of punishing the poor remains unchanged, cutting invalidity benefit and unemployment benefit—and now housing benefit is also on the hit list.
  At the heart of Tory economic policy has been the commitment to cut public spending and we heard much about that in the debate. In 1979, the Conservative manifesto asserted:
  "The state takes too much of the nation's income: its share must be steadily reduced."
  The Government have not done that. Public spending is 44 per cent. of gross domestic product now and it was 44 per cent. of GDP in 1979. It is no lower now than it was when the Tories took office in 1979. That is not because they have been investing in a stronger economy; it is not because they have been modernising the health service or giving us a state-of-the-art transportation system—far from it.
  The Tories are not spending less as a percentage of GDP, but what they have done is to change the composition of public spending. More is being spent on the costs of economic failure and less on investing for economic opportunity and success. They pay out income support for the growing number of single parents instead of ensuring the provision of nursery places so that they can go out to work. They pay out unemployment benefit to the unemployed instead of ensuring investment in skills to help them to get a job.
  In the face of the Government's inability successfully to manage the economy, Tory public spending, instead of being a springboard for economic success, has become increasingly a palliative for economic failure. It is not that this Tory Government have been short of public money to spend. They have had £118 billion of North sea oil receipts and they have squandered it. They have had £69 billion of privatisation receipts and they have squandered it.
  Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once and I will not do so again.
  The Government have lacked not public money, but an understanding of how to use it in the public interest. People are paying tax increases not to invest in success in the future but to pay the price of the Government's past failure. The truth is that the Tories are no more the party of low public spending than they are the party of low tax. Everywhere they turn, they are confronted with the consequences of their failure and their inability to deal with that.
  At this time of crisis for them, the message goes forth from Tory central office, "Fellow Conservatives. Ask not what can you do for your country. Ask who in the country you can blame." So they target the victims of their policies. Unemployment, homelessness and poverty, which the Government created, are the fault of the unemployed, the homeless and the poor. Insidiously, they invite the voters, the general public, to blame those groups, to divert anger away from the Government.
  116
  The Chief Secretary, however, goes one step further. He does not simply blame the victims for the public dissatisfaction with the Government. He goes beyond the middlemen. He blames the voters themselves. As he put it in a recent interview, the reason why the Tories now trail Labour on tax among the electorate is because
  "their judgment has become clouded".
  Britain is plagued by a muddled electorate—it is their confusion which is responsible for the Government's unpopularity. At this point, I know that some of my hon. Friends will suggest that the confusion lies not with the electorate but in the Chief Secretary's own head. Undaunted, however, he comes back with more revealing insights.
  The voters, he says, are flawed in other ways, too. They are not merely confused. They have also become cynical. According to the Chief Secretary's preachings, voters no longer
  "respect those who lead and manage them."
  Then, last month, from his speech in Spain, we learned that the voices in his head told him that he must speak out again, this time about a great threat to democracy. Apparently—I shall translate, because by this time he was speaking in tongues—
  "Voters feel they own their government, and since they feel they own it, they believe it should do what they want."
  In common with the people who walk up and down Oxford street with sandwich boards on their backs proclaiming, "The end is nigh" or that "Protein is the root of all evil" the Chief Secretary believes, I am sure, that the world will one day wake up to his perspective.
  But perhaps it is not fair to single out the Chief Secretary, because there are other forms of delusion equally worthy of our attention. Everyone knows, for example, about the worrying influence of computer games and the consequent blurring of fantasy and reality. But an even more ominous phenomenon is emerging—virtual reality headsets. One just puts one on and enters a fantasy world where one can make anything happen.
  So now we know why Ministers are so removed from the real world. They sit around the Cabinet table every Thursday morning, and when talk of traffic cones and service station toilets fails to distract them from the mountains of problems that are too painful to be faced, they get out their headsets and enter a world of their own creation. They press their control pads and the unemployed are made to disappear. At the touch of a button, our ailing economy rematerialises—this time as the envy of the world. With a deft swivel of their joy sticks, the law of gravity is reversed and taxes appear to be falling, even as they are soaring upwards.
  But the problem for Ministers is that no one else lives in virtual reality. Everyone else lives in the real world: the world of falling living standards, economic failure, social division and rising taxes. [Interruption.] I see that a Conservative Member has such a headset on even now. People bitterly resent a Government who say that everything is fine when, clearly, it is not.
  This summer economic debate comes at the end of an historic parliamentary Session. The Government have been exposed on their tax record, exposed for their deceit on tax, exposed for their unfairness on tax and exposed as the perpetrators of the biggest tax rise in history. The Tory's last remaining electoral weapon—the myth of low tax—

  117
  has been taken from them. They failed on economic policy and social policy. Despite their pretence that everything is fine, they know that they have failed.
  That is why some of them are tentatively moving on to Labour's ground. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, they are: all this talk about full employment—not in here, but out there—and about community. But Labour's language will not work for the Tories. Bear that in mind. It will not work because people who are worried about unemployment will not look to the party that has created mass unemployment. People who care about modernising the welfare state will not look to a party that has undermined it. People who want a strong economy will not look to a party that has weakened it.
  People have made it clear in local council elections and European elections that they no longer trust the Tories. There has been an historic shift in the allegiance of the British people. They are now ready to entrust their future to Labour.
  9.35 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir Terence Higgins) and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) complained that there were too few opportunities to discuss the economy. During the course of the afternoon we have heard a series of interesting speeches on the economy from my right hon. and hon. Friends and, indeed, from some Opposition Members.
  Unfortunately, we did not hear any explanation from the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen of what the Labour party's economic policies might be. For the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), in the dying moments of her speech just before it fizzled out, to talk about the Conservatives wanting to move on to Labour's ground, when it was perfectly clear from the whole debate that there was no ground to move on to, really took the biscuit.
  I pay tribute to one speech from the Labour side. The hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) made her maiden speech. It was a speech full of personal modesty. The House will have appreciated the tribute that she paid to her predecessor, John Smith. It was a speech of substantial eloquence and she showed her keenness to serve her constituents. I wish her well with her parliamentary career.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, East paid a great deal of attention to the need to create jobs in her constituency. She put particular emphasis on the need for small businesses to develop in her constituency and to do well. I would say to her that for that to be the case, there has to be confidence, and confidence is what the Government have been restoring by their economic policies.
  I want to make a speech to close the debate which is about principles, specific policies, achievements and a programme to make sure that our economy is strong and that there can be confidence in that economy. I shall contrast our approach at every step with the lack of policy from the Labour party.
  I wish to detail the steps that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have worked at to restore confidence in British economic management. We have done it under the headings of monetary policy, public spending and fiscal policy. I want to talk about all three.
  Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the things that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said was factually incorrect according to the information from the Library? She said that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecasters had said that our growth would be lower than that of other countries. The Library research paper shows on page 19 that our growth will be higher than almost any other OECD country in terms of GDP for both the present year and 1995. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that is correct?
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. The prospects are that we shall have the highest growth rate of any major European Union country this year and next.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No. I want to get on.
  The reason why we have a monetary policy is that we believe that the basis of economic confidence and stability must be low and sustained low inflation. We believe that it is essential for social cohesion that there should be low inflation. That is why we have set specific targets which say that the underlying rate of inflation will be kept between 1 and 4 per cent. and that we will be in the lower half of that range at the end of this Parliament.
  That is why we have laid out the other factors that we shall bear in mind in judging whether monetary conditions are right or whether they need to be tightened or loosened. We have referred to asset prices, to monitoring the money supply and exchange rate, and to watching a range of other factors to identify inflationary pressures. We want to make it clear that interest rates in this country will be set according to economic conditions in this country and not according to economic conditions in other countries. We want to make it clear that interest rates will be set in this country for economic reasons and not for political reasons.
  That is why we have embarked on making our monetary policy ever more transparent, publishing the monthly monetary report, setting up the independent panel of forecasters, publishing the minutes of meetings between my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England when they discuss monetary policy. That is why the OECD has paid tribute to the steps that we have taken to establish that monetary policy framework and has described the publication of the minutes as a significant step forward.
  That is why my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) made such a point of referring to the importance of low inflation.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No, I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has not been here for the debate.
  The second heading under which I want to deal with our policies for creating confidence is public spending. We believe that the Government's control of their spending is critical to confidence in that Government. One cannot have confidence in a Government unless they are able to control their spending.
  Conservative Members believe strongly that the Government and the state are there to serve the individual and that it should not be the other way around. That is why we believe that a Government who are spending 45 per

  119
  cent. of gross domestic product need to reduce that proportion progressively year by year. We believe that the citizen is the customer of the Government and that he must be given good services and good value for money. We recognise that taxpayers, whose money the Labour party would spend with such alacrity, are not well off and may be much less well off than the people to whom the money is being given, which has been removed from taxpayers.
  We believe that controlling public spending is vital for the competitiveness of this country. Although the Government are spending about 45 per cent. of our national income, the Governments of the great competitors—the United States of America and Japan—are spending no more than about a third of their national incomes. That is why we have embarked on a process for the complete control of public spending. That is why, despite the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), I believe that we have achieved considerable successes.
  In the Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was able to announce that the plans for this year had been reduced by £3.5 billion. That came on top of the reduction in the previous autumn statement and it means that the plans for this year are £8.25 billion below the level at which they were set in the 1991 public expenditure survey. We have taken £15 billion off the plans for the three years of the public expenditure survey.
  I have set out the Government's belief in low inflation. I have set out our monetary targets. I have set out our inflation targets. I have set out achievements in public spending. I would like to know from the Labour party whether it believes that inflation should be higher. Does it believe that the monetary targets are wrong? Does it believe that we are following the wrong inflation indicators? Does it believe that publication of the minutes of meetings between the Governor of the Bank of England and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor should not be published? Does it believe that public spending is too high? Does it believe that it is too low? Will the Labour party please tell us what its principles are?
  I can tell the House specifically what our principles, our goals and our achievements are. That is why I say to my hon. Friends who are concerned about the level of public spending that they should remember that we are planning for a rate of growth of only 0.25 per cent. per year in real terms for the three years of the public expenditure survey.
  We have been able to find, however, more money for health, more money for education and more money for pensioners. That is because the Government have, as my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) have been urging us to do, controlled the growth of the social security budget and turned our attention in particular to social security fraud. It is because we have reformed the social security system to ensure that it is better targeted, because we have put great emphasis on increased efficiency in public services and because we have tightly controlled our own costs in government that we shall reduce the proportion of national income taken by the Government to 42.5 per cent.
  Mr. David Shaw rose—
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has not been here, but I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that public expenditure control is paramount and that when decisions are taken in government, such as to remove the Royal Marines school of music from Deal, a proper investment appraisal should always be undertaken first? Does he agree?
  Mr. Portillo: Of course a proper appraisal should be made. If my hon. Friend has any point to pursue about that, he should do so with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Mr. George Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No; the hon. Gentleman has not been here.
  Ms Harman: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about public spending, will he explain why in 1979 public spending as a percentage of GDP was 44 per cent. and yet, after 15 years of Tory government, it is still 44 per cent. of GDP? Can he explain that to his colleagues?
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady should be ashamed to remind the House that she offered us 44 per cent. as a proportion of national income at a time when the economy was in recovery, at the end of a boom period. We are at 44 per cent. following a recession. The average figure under the Labour party was 46.5 per cent. During the 1980s, when we had a period of strong recovery for a number of years, we got it down to 38 per cent. Would the hon. Lady now like to commit herself to getting it down to 38 per cent., or to any figure at all? Is she saying that 44 per cent. is too high, or that, as it was the figure under Labour, it is the figure that she supports? I am prepared to tell her that I think that the figure is too high, and we are determined to reduce it. What is her policy, please?
  Ms Harman: Too much public expenditure in this country goes on mopping up the consequences of this Government's economic failure. We see spending on unemployment, on poverty—on income support—and on housing benefit because of their failures on economic policy and their failure in housing policy. We see investment being cut. Is that the pattern of public spending that the right hon. Gentleman expects us to applaud as a success? I think not.
  Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Lady believes that unemployment is too high and if, as I understand it, she is saying that she would cut unemployment and that that would solve all her problems, why is it that a country like France, which has a minimum wage—the policy that she advocates—has a rate of unemployment higher than Britain's? Why is it that Sweden, which spends 72 per cent. of national income through government—a country that follows the policies advocated by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)— has a high rate of unemployment? Why is it that Spain, which has a socialist government, has a rate of unemployment of 25 per cent. and a rate of youth unemployment of 40 per cent.? I will tell her why. It is because Spain has had 10 years of socialist government, and the only reason why there is any hope for the people of Spain is that the leader of the Spanish Opposition is charismatic, is 41 years old, was born in 1953 and is a Conservative.
  I now want to deal with fiscal policy. We believe in controlling the rate of Government borrowing because we

  121
  are aware that the borrowing that we pass on from this Parliament is a burden that must be paid for by our children. That could lead to permanently higher rates of taxation or fewer choices for our people. We have taken decisive action—more decisive action than, I believe, any other Government, to control our rate of public borrowing.
  As a consequence, the PSBR as a proportion of our national income will reduce from 7.25 per cent. last year to 5.25 per cent. this year and to 4 per cent. next year.
  Most importantly, the ratio of the debt that we have accumulated over the years to our GDP will not pass 50 per cent. whereas in Greece it is now 104 per cent., in Italy it is 116 per cent. and in Belgium it is 145 per cent. The only EC country which has a lower ratio of debt to GDP than we have is Luxembourg. That point may be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) who was interested in the appointment of Mr. Santer.
  All the policies that I have described, policies which are backed by principles and which are very clear, have been endorsed recently by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In its voluminous report, one policy after another followed by this Conservative Government has been vindicated, upheld, praised and underpinned by the OECD.
  We remember perfectly well that, under the Labour Government, the British economy was run by the International Monetary Fund. Under this Conservative Government, the economy and its economic management are praised by the OECD. That is the difference between the two.
  We now have the fastest rise in retail sales of any major European Union country. We have the fastest rate of growth of GDP of any major European Union country. We have the fastest growth in industrial production of any major European Union country.
  In the European Union this year, only in this country is unemployment falling. Inflation is below the European Union average. Interest rates are among the lowest in the European Union. Manufacturing output is up 3.2 per cent. this year, car production is up 3 per cent. and export volumes are up 9 per cent.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) that there is no fantasy in all that. They are solid achievements brought about by sound economic policies. They are solid achievements which could be brought. about only by a Government who have principles and the courage to stick to those principles and the policies that are derived from those principles.
  We have established the stable economic conditions and the conditions of low inflation that enable unemployment to be reduced and employment to be increased. Over the years, we have shown the courage to tackle the vested interests, including the trade unions, in order to create flexible labour markets.
  Against what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said, the winter labour force survey shows that there are 150,000 more jobs in the United Kingdom than there were a year ago and that the number of people in employment is rising. He knows perfectly well that the proportion of our working age population in work is now the highest of any major European Union country. Those are facts to which the hon. Members for Dunfermline, East and for Peckham should pay tribute. If they cannot do that, at least they should say what their policies are.
  122
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) described the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East as disappointing. I believe that it was closer to being disgraceful. I read in The Daily Telegraph this morning a comment of Mrs. Blair. She was paying tribute to her husband, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and, in paying tribute to her husband, she said that he was able to cook, change nappies and discuss economic policy over the telephone with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East all at the same time.
  Having listened to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East today, and on the principle that it is garbage in, garbage out, it seems to me that the cooking, the nappies and the economic policy somehow were confused during the course of the hon. Gentleman's speech. His speech today was characterised by a refusal to answer questions and by a reversion to platitudes. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it is not fair and it is not honest with the people of this country to try to fool them about serious matters such as unemployment and economic recovery.
  The new leader of the Labour party would be proud of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. His speech today was vacuous and fatuous. It was airy-headed, it was full of guff, and it was full of blah. Labour Members are about to elect a leader of the Labour party whose very name is a combination of blah and of air. It was a disingenuous, deceitful and dishonest speech. It was half-thought out, half-baked and less than half true. All the way through the hon. Gentleman's speech there was the hint of a planned economy re-emerging.
  The electorate know that the only way that more jobs will be created is by having stable economic conditions and low inflation. That is what we have created. The people of this country know that the only way in which more jobs will be created is the way that has been followed around the world.
  Over the past 10 years, 1.5 billion people have gone from dictatorship to democracy. All around the world, people see the strong connection between political freedom and economic freedom. All countries that have recently achieved political freedom are now following a policy of flexible labour markets, low tariffs, deregulation, privatisation and competition—all the policies which are espoused by the Government. It cannot be that only in Britain and only in Europe should those policies be tossed aside. The Government will follow those policies and carry them to fruition.
  The leadership contest in the Labour party has been characterised by sound bites and hooey, signifying nothing. The Labour party contest has been a no-score game which has had to be settled on penalties. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) have had to pay the penalty. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East once admitted that the social chapter would destroy jobs. He has paid the penalty for having sometimes been right, and the right hon. Member for Derby, South has paid the penalty for having sometimes been left.
  As always, when games are settled by penalties, people are left feeling that they have been cheated, and the people who have been cheated in this instance are the British public. The British public want to hear from the Labour party a serious exposition of an alternative economic policy. [Interruption.] Labour Members have had all afternoon to do that, but they have put forward not one

  123
  serious idea. [Interruption.] I tell Labour Members frankly that they will not be able to go from now until the general election without answering the serious questions that arise. [Interruption.]
  Sir Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. Portillo: Labour Members will not be able to reply to every question by referring to—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I have a point of order.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: You must be aware, Madam Speaker, that it has become extremely difficult for right hon. and hon. Members to hear the debate because of the noise that is coming from the Opposition. Will you persuade the House to be quieter?
  Madam Speaker: I have speakers beside me, so the debate is very clear for me, but I wish that the House would come to order so that we might hear the final two minutes of the winding-up speech.
  Mr. Portillo: It will not be sufficient for the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East to reply to every question between now and the general election by referring to what people said in their election addresses. One cannot smile one's way to an economic policy, one cannot grin one's way to competitiveness, and one cannot build a stronger economy out of platitudes. No—one needs principles, convictions, policies, determination and courage. The Labour party has none of those. We demonstrate every day that we have those qualities, and that is why the British people will place their confidence in us.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 302.

  Division No. 297]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Byers, Stephen

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Caborn, Richard

  Allen, Graham

  Callaghan, Jim

  Alton, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashton, Joe

  Cann, Jamie

  Austin-Walker, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Chidgey, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Barron, Kevin

  Church, Judith

  Battle, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clelland, David

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Benton, Joe

  Coffey, Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cohen, Harry

  Berry, Roger

  Connarty, Michael

  Betts, Clive

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Blair, Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Blunkett, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Boyes, Roland

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bradley, Keith

  Cousins, Jim

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cox, Tom

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Cummings, John

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

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  124

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Darling, Alistair

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davidson, Ian

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Liddell, Helen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Livingstone, Ken

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Denham, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dewar, Donald

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dixon, Don

  McAllion, John

  Dobson, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McCartney, Ian

  Dowd, Jim

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McFall, John

  Eastham, Ken

  McKelvey, William

  Enright, Derek

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Etherington, Bill

  McLeish, Henry

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fatchett, Derek

  MacShane, Denis

  Faulds, Andrew

  McWilliam, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Madden, Max

  Fisher, Mark

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Flynn, Paul

  Mahon, Alice

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mandelson, Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marek, Dr John

  Foulkes, George

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fraser, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maxton, John

  Galloway, George

  Meacher, Michael

  Gapes, Mike

  Michael, Alun

  Garrett, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Milburn, Alan

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Miller, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morley, Elliot

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Gunnell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hain, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Hall, Mike

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hanson, David

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Hara, Edward

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Parry, Robert

  Heppell, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hodge, Margaret

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoey, Kate

  Pope, Greg

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prescott, John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Radice, Giles

  Hutton, John

  Randall, Stuart

  Illsley, Eric

  Raynsford, Nick

  Ingram, Adam

  Redmond, Martin

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Rendel, David

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jamieson, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rowlands, Ted

  Keen, Alan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

  Salmond, Alex

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  125

  Short, Clare

  Tyler, Paul

  Simpson, Alan

  Vaz, Keith

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Walley, Joan

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

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Snape, Peter

  Watson, Mike

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Spellar, John

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Winnick, David

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Wise, Audrey

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Wray, Jimmy

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Straw, Jack

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Timms, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Couchman, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cran, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

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

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Amess, David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Ancram, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Devlin, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Atkins, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dover, Den

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dunn, Bob

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bates, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Batiste, Spencer

  Eggar, Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Elletson, Harold

  Bendall, Vivian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brazier, Julian

  Forman, Nigel

  Blight, Graham

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Burns, Simon

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  French, Douglas

  Butcher, John

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Buttertill, John

  Gale, Roger

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gallie, Phil

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carrington, Matthew

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Cash, William

  Gill, Christopher

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Clappison, James

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Congdon, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Conway, Derek

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hague, William

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  126

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hannam, Sir John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Harris, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Norris, Steve

  Hendry, Charles

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Page, Richard

  Horam, John

  Paice, James

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-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, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Richards, Rod

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Key, Robert

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

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

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Legg, Barry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lidington, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stem, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Stewart, Allan

  Maginnis, Ken

  Streeter, Gary

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sumberg, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mans, Keith

  Sykes, John

  Marland, Paul

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Martow, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Merchant, Piers

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

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tracey, Richard

  127

  Tredinnick, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Trend, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trotter, Neville

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wilkinson, John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Willetts, David

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wilshire, David

  Walden, George

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Waller, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ward, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Yeo, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Watts, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Whitney, Ray

  Amendment accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the publication of the Government's latest economic forecast, which shows growth continuing at a steady and sustainable rate and inflation remaining within its target range; and congratulates the Government on its economic policies which have laid the foundations for the non-inflationary growth, rising industrial production and falling unemployment that is now being seen.
  It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question which she was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.).

  ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1994–95
  Resolved,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £116,027,407,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1995, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 276, 277, 278 and 447.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Sir John Cope and Mr. Anthony Nelson.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain funds out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31 March 1995; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

  Railway Pensions
  10.17 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move,
  That the draft Railway Pensions (Transfer and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
  The House will recall that, when we debated the Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994 and the Railways Pension Scheme Order 1994—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who are having conversations must do so outside the Chamber. They must move on quickly. [Interruption.] The doors must be closed, and hon. Members must move out quietly.
  Mr. Freeman: The House will recall that, when we debated the Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994 and the Railways Pension Scheme Order 1994 on 23 May, I indicated that a further affirmative order would be required to transfer the pension rights and assets in the BR pension scheme to the railways pension scheme and to allocate them between the sections of the RPS.
  We have long agreed with the trustees that when the time came to transfer funds from the British Rail pension scheme into new schemes, that would have to be done on an agreed actuarial basis and that, unless the BRPS was in deficit, the accrued rights of all active and pensioner members should be adequately funded. Since that was agreed, we have built on the policy considerably and now have the one railways pension scheme and its sections. The original policy on transfer of funds is safeguarded in the order. The order also has the effect of allocating between the sections any initial surplus that there may be in the scheme—and it is likely that there will be an initial surplus.
  As I have said, we have long agreed the broad principles of this order, but, in past month or so, we have had intensive discussions with the trustees. The trustees' officers kept the trustee board members closely informed about that process. We went out formally to consultation on this with the trustees, the employers and the trade unions on 29 June, and laid the order before Parliament on 7 July.
  The result of all those consultations was that the Government's proposals were changed in some points of detail as we explored the issues with the trustees and others. The provisions of schedule 11 to the Railways Act 1993 required us to consult the trustees on the provisions in the order relating to the transfer of pension rights and the pension scheme assets, and also the amendment of existing schemes, and further to lay before Parliament copies of the trustees' written comments. I am pleased to tell the House that we reached full agreement with the trustees, and that they do not wish to make any comments. I have placed in the Library a copy of their letter of 6 July confirming that.
  The trustees have a fiduciary duty to all members of the scheme, both participating members and pensioners, and also, of course, to the participating employers. Both we and the trustees consider the transfer provisions equitable in the interests of all concerned.
  Article 2 of the order has the effect of transferring the existing members of the main BR pension scheme, the BRPS, together with the assets and pension liabilities, into

  129
  the railways pension scheme, the RPS, on 1 October—with the BRPS then being wound up. Provision is made for the assets and pension rights to be allocated as appropriate to one or other of the pensioner sections or, in respect of serving staff, into the BR open section. In due course, participants may be moved, under the provisions of the scheme, out of the open section into the new sections of other employers as they are established.
  Schedule 1 makes detailed provision for the allocation of assets between sections on a basis which, as I said earlier, we and the trustees consider to be fair both to serving staff—the participants—and to pensioners, existing or deferred. Once assets related to additional voluntary contributions, which are separately invested, and any contributions paid by an employer during the period of the current contribution holiday have been allocated to the appropriate section, the remaining assets will be apportioned between the sections on a "share of fund" basis—that is, in proportion to the respective pension liabilities.
  For that purpose, the existing reserves for contribution holidays or reductions will count as pension liabilities of the open section, and the open section liabilities will also take account of any pensionable pay increases agreed on or before 30 September 1994 for implementation before 1 January 1995. The liabilities of the pensioners' sections will include an allowance for future administrative expenses because those expenses in respect of the pensioners' sections can no longer be met out of future contributions. The proportions of any pension rights funded under the Transport Act 1980 are excluded from the calculation of liabilities because Government support payments will be made direct to the relevant section.
  Provision is made for the assets to be allocated net of apportionment costs, but those costs are likely to be minimal as BR will reimburse the actuary's costs in carrying out the valuation—the only substantial cost of making the apportionment.
  The Government's and the scheme's actuaries have agreed the detailed actuarial assumptions set out in part III of the schedule. We have made provision for the trustees to make an initial allocation of assets, but have specified in the order certain minimum proportionate holdings of certain categories of assets in the final allocation of assets to the pensioners A section, again with the trustees' agreement. That ensures that the investment policy of that section has an appropriate degree of caution from the outset.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Minister will be aware that railway pensioners have been exceedingly upset by the suggestion that, as part of its current campaign, Railtrack might withhold some of the assets liable to be handed over to the funds. Will he assure us that under no circumstances will Railtrack be in a position to withhold any part of the pension funds or assets due to railwaymen and women and which they have paid for many times over?
  Mr. Freeman: I give that assurance. It may help the hon. Lady if I explain the position. There is a substantial pay restructuring reserve of approximately £600 million currently within the pension fund. If an agreement is reached in the present dispute with the signalmen, for example, on new pensionable pay rates before 30 September this year, it will be possible, on the vesting of
  130
  the new pension scheme, to allocate a suitable proportion of the total pay restructuring reserve direct to the account of individual signalmen who contribute to the pension fund.
  I assure the hon. Lady that Railtrack has no power to withhold the allocation of those funds. If no agreement is reached on improved pensionable pay for the signalmen, the pay restructuring reserve moneys go to the account of the open section of the fund. All that happens is that the signalmen and women who contribute to the British Rail pension fund will not have the specific allocation of funds that would otherwise be their right as at 1 October. The rest of the restructuring reserve will fall into a generality of funds allocated to the open section of the fund, but the money remains within the pension fund.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify this matter now to save time later. We are discussing a sum of about £100 million. Am I right in thinking that, if that money does not go to the signalmen because the dispute has not been resolved, when the Minister says that it goes to the "generality" of the fund, he means that it would be divided on a 53:47 per cent. basis like the rest of the surplus in the fund?
  Mr. Freeman: The initial surplus as at 1 October, which includes a large measure of the pay restructuring reserve released for allocation to the closed and open sections of the fund, may result in £200 million or £300 million being allocated to the closed fund and a fraction more to the open fund. Those proportions have been fixed by the actuaries, not by the Government or Railtrack. I confirm that the part of the surplus allocated to the open section of the fund must, in due course, be allocated to the various employers in the rail industry, such as Railtrack, the British Railways Board and the franchised train operations. So that surplus will be allocated to specific sections of the pension fund.
  If the strike is not resolved and no agreement is reached on higher pensionable pay for signalmen, they must join other members who contribute to the BR pension fund in claiming their right to that surplus in due course, possibly in terms of higher pension payments. There is no question of the money being removed or of Railtrack controlling its use.
  Mr. John Heppell: Is there a chance of the date of 30 September being changed so that an extra factor does not enter the signalmen's dispute and the threat of losing money from their pensions is not held over their heads as blackmail?
  Mr. Freeman: It is not a question of blackmail. There has long been agreement with the trustees that 1 October was the target date for vesting. I remember an exchange with the hon. Gentleman in Committee on this very subject. The present dispute has arisen since the target date was fixed. I pay tribute to the trustees and their officers, who have been working with the Department to that target date, which is entirely achievable and realistic. It is in the interests of all existing and deferred pensioners within the railway industry that those outstanding difficulties should be resolved.
  We have worked extremely hard in the past six months to fulfil our pledge on a guarantee of the pensions in the closed section of the fund, both for the existing and deferred pensioners, and the indefeasible right of all those

  131
  who were employed by British Rail on 5 November 1993 to remain in the pension scheme. We have agreed that, on voluntary transfer, there will be a continuous period of employment for purposes of calculating pensions. We have fulfilled all the obligations that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have given, and we have ended up with a situation with which I think all parties—but represented by the trustees—now agree. To move the date, or even to hold open the prospect of moving the date, would be in the interests of no one.
  Mr. Heppell: Is it not a fact that the money that the Minister is talking about removing from the signalmen's pensions will effectively be used to cushion the Government's past guarantees in relation to solvency? The 47 per cent. that was intended for signalmen and drivers under the restructuring schemes will be going into the closed fund. Now it is in the closed fund, and effectively making it more difficult for the Government ever to have to honour that solvency guarantee, because they will have a cushion of approaching £300 million.
  Mr. Freeman: I think, with respect, there is a confusion between two points.
  Railtrack suggests reforms to the structure of the pay of signalmen and women, consolidating into basic rates of pay allowances that are in general not pensionable. If that happens before the vesting date, there will be an allocation of part of the pay restructuring reserve specifically for the benefit of the signalmen and women.
  The rest of the pay restructuring reserve—the rest of the surplus that is agreed by the actuaries—will be allocated between the open and closed sections of the funds, not by Government diktat but by agreement between the two scheme actuaries. There is likely to be a significant surplus for allocation, and that is to the benefit of the pensioners as much as it is of those in the open fund, because they have that much greater a degree of security. That has arisen through good investment management of the fund, not by Government policy.
  Schedule 2 makes detailed provision for the allocation of pension rights between the appropriate sections, and for the members with those pension rights to be allocated to the relevant sections.
  Article 3 makes drafting amendments to clarify the meaning of the Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994, which came into force on 31 May following the undertakings that I gave to the House to reconsider some of the drafting. We have honoured the undertaking that I gave. The amendments, however, do not change the substance of those earlier orders.
  Article 4 introduces schedule 3, which amends the trust deed of the BR 1974 pension fund to enable BR staff who are transferred to new employers to remain in certain schemes that are included in that fund, and to enable those schemes to be wound up when appropriate.
  Schedule 3 also makes a standard amendment to certain schemes other than the BRPS, for which the trustee company acts at present. That amendment would give the trustee company, and its directors and officers, an indemnity from the participating employers in those schemes against liability for honest mistakes but not wrongdoing, and a power to take out indemnity insurance
  132
  similar to the provisions contained in clauses 2E and 2F of the RPS trust. It will formalise the existing indemnity in respect of those schemes which the trustee has from BR.
  Article 5 introduces schedule 4, which amends the schedule to the Railways Pension Scheme Order 1994, containing the trust and rules of the RPS. One amendment extends the limit of liability and indemnity in the RPS trust to any liability for breaches of trust transferred from the old trustee to the new. Another provides for the trustee of the RPS to amend the scheme before 1 October 1994, with the consent of the Secretary of State. It is the intention to use that provision to make amendments agreed to between us —inter alia, to clause 8C, which deals with transfers out of the trust, and to rules 13, dealing with surplus assets, 14, dealing with shortfall, and 16, dealing with winding up of the pensioners sections. The trustees' solicitor is currently preparing a deed of amendment for execution once that order has been approved.
  The other amendments effected by schedule 4 include clarification as to eligibility to join the scheme and sections of it, and amendments to the model deed of establishment and participation to clarify the continuation for participants in open sections of the RPS of the present BRPS contribution reductions/holiday.
  Article 6 introduces schedule 5, which designates sections of the scheme for the purpose of enabling or requiring the payment of Government support contributions under the Transport Act 1980. Article 7 introduces schedule 6, which makes consequential amendments or modifications to existing legislation.
  Although we have still to lay a substitution order under section 52B of the 1980 Act varying the timing of Government support payments to the pensioners' sections on the basis already agreed with the trustees, the provisions to be implemented under the order complete the delivery of the undertakings given by the Government. They provide the promised security, protection and peace of mind to BR's existing staff, pensioners and deferred pensioners. They provide no mechanism for the Government to get hold of the funds, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear right from the outset. I hope that the House will support the order.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: On one level, the order is non-controversial; on another, it is deeply controversial and raises fundamental issues. It also relates directly to some topical matters that I hope we can explore during the debate, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has rightly referred.
  It is important to put on record the fact that, every time we debate the future of the railway industry pension fund, there is no consensus in the House, no cosy agreement, no technical agreement that everything is fine and that we are progressing on a bipartisan basis towards satisfactory conclusions. It is the Opposition's view that the railway industry pension fund should never have been interfered with and should not be broken up, and the fact that it is being broken up is entirely a by-product of the unwanted fragmentation of the railways with a view to their privatisation.
  We do not believe that there is any public support for those policies. We do not believe that there is any political support for them outside the narrow clique promoting them

  133
  within the Conservative party. The reprehensible aspect is that a great deal of concern has been caused to railway pensioners throughout the country, not specifically by the order but by the fact that their pension fund has been tampered with by a Government who have been acting not in the best interests—or indeed, any interests—of those pensioners, but who instead have been driven by the political imperative of fragmentation and privatisation of the railways.
  That is the context in which we debate the order. While there will be agreement on the narrow basis of the order and although we may not divide the House—depending on what we hear later—there will be no agreement on the wider framework. Even now, when we believe that we have beaten back the worst intentions of the Tories towards the pension fund, there are still many, many railway pensioners who remember their original intentions only too well. They remember the intention to split the fund in two and transfer half of it to the Treasury, to be set against the public sector borrowing requirement. They remember the intention that there be no increases in benefits to pensioners other than the rate of the retail prices index. We and the railway pensioners remember all that, which is why they are right not to trust the Tories or to take anything that they say at face value.
  I have been told, as the Minister has, that the pension fund trustees have no specific objections to the order. I am satisfied that, on purely actuarial grounds it is non-controversial. However, I stress that the context within which it arises is, and will remain, controversial and, in our view, downright wrong.
  There is a direct relationship between what we are discussing tonight and the signalmen's dispute, as I shall show later in my speech. One thing that I want to get out of the way and firmly on the record is that if anyone says that previous settlements for railway workers have not taken account of past productivity gains—gains that have already been delivered—that is quite simply an untruth. That means that the Government's position, and therefore Railtrack's position, in the present dispute is based on the same—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that is strictly out of order, because it does not relate to the order that is the subject of the debate.
  Mr. Wilson: With all respect, I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it relates very directly to the order, as I will show if I am allowed to develop the argument a little. It relates closely for the reasons already alluded to by my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich and for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), and, indeed, which were acknowledged by the Minister when responding to their interventions. If you will allow me that degree of latitude, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will show you directly how it relates to the order tonight, without any—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I will certainly give the hon. Gentleman a short opportunity to do so, but I have to be convinced.
  Mr. Wilson: Among other things, it is my job to convince you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But I place it within that context. There is no question of it not being related to the order.
  134
  I shall now quote from a document that was produced by the railway staffs arbitration tribunal, in settlement of the previous national dispute on the railways, on 7 July 1989. The chairman and other members placed on record that
  "The railway industry has been marked, in the last two years particularly, by very significant improvements in productivity as clearly demonstrated by data in the BRB latest annual report and accounts. Indeed, these productivity improvements have been of such an order that there has been no contribution to cost inflation from the wage bill of the rail industry in the last financial year.
  In our view, the exceptional productivity performance of this industry and its workers, and the co-operation displayed by the group involved in this reference towards restructuring, should properly be reflected in some real improvement in basic rates of pay."
  In other words, the previous rail dispute was settled specifically by taking account of past productivity gained within the industry.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has now been given the opportunity to demonstrate the connection between what he has been saying and the order. I have to say that he has not demonstrated that connection to me. I am sorry, but he must not continue along those lines.
  Mr. Wilson: You are being uncharacteristically ungenerous, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the amount of time allowed to develop an argument. Perhaps I can help you in reaching your decision by referring to the headline in The Independent today, which states:
  "Railtrack strikers threatened with £50m pension loss".
  That is why the two things are related. They are threatened with a £50 million pension loss precisely because of the relationship that I have mentioned.
  Initially, the settlement of the dispute was related to the order not by me but by Ministers and Railtrack seeking to tie up the future of the pension fund with the outcome of the signal workers' dispute. I would be delighted to say that there is no relationship between them, but as long as such threats appear, clearly on the basis of a Government briefing, that relationship exists and cannot be said not to.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. But we are not debating newspaper reports. We are debating the order, and I see no connection.
  Mr. Wilson: I shall try to make headway and take account of what you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have said—
  Dr. Keith Hampson: This is irrelevant.
  Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman wanders in late at night and makes sedentary interventions, which, frankly, I think that he would be embarrassed about if he read them the next day in Hansard, that is his concern, but we will try to make serious arguments about serious subjects, which include the future of railway workers' pensions and which seems to me to be rather important.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would never dream of questioning any ruling from the Chair, as you know. We are in some difficulty. I understand that you will not want to discuss newspaper reports in general, but the difficulty that those of us who represent railwaymen are in is that the two things are directly linked, and they are of great concern to the people who work in the railway industry and feel that the remarks of Railtrack are directly linked to the order.
  Mr. Peter Snape: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you also bear it in mind, before you stop my hon. Friend from proceeding along this particular track—if I can use that unfortunate phrase—that other groups of railway workers who were rewarded for productivity deals before the dispute had their pension payments based on those productivity deals, under the terms of the order? The anxiety that my hon. Friend expresses is that the delay in concluding the deal will directly affect the pensions of railway signal workers. Surely that is relevant to the order. It is the reason why most of us are here.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not clear, as my hon. Friend the Minister spelt out, that the date in the order is the end of September or beginning of October and the earnings of signal staff are relevant? However, for those of us who represent travellers on the railways as well as for some people who work on the railways, to go into the full ins and outs of the dispute would, as you have said, be out of order.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I have heard the various points made. I fully understand that there are concerns about the current dispute. There are other ways to raise those concerns. Tonight we must deal with the specific order before us.
  Mr. Wilson: I have no difficulty with that ruling. I recognise the distinction that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has made, but it cannot be said that there is no relationship. I have put on record a quotation which I am sure will be hung round the neck of Ministers in other ways. It disproves the idea that settlements of railway disputes have never been based on recognition of past productivity.
  I shall now narrow the relationship between the order and the dispute. We have here the threat, ill-defined though it may be, that £50 million will be lost for ever to the railway employees pension fund. More specifically, the threat is that each striking signal worker will personally lose £1,700 in later life as a result of the dispute. That gives a whole new dimension to the order, which is certainly not irrelevant.
  The threat arises out of the restructuring of railway workers' grades. The result of regrading employees and increasing their basic salaries is that the pension fund has to pay out more than expected because pension entitlements are based on the final salaries of fund members. I am pleased to see the Minister nod. In order to meet that reality, a substantial kitty was created out of the pension fund surplus. Indeed, the Minister obliged by giving it a more formal name. He called it the pay restructuring reserve.
  Various groups of workers who successively have had their terms and conditions restructured have already benefited out of the pay restructuring reserve. The signal and telecom engineers, the permanent way staff—that is the track workers, for the ill-informed who have joined us —the traffic grades—that is the station staff—have all had their terms and conditions restructured. All have received increases in their basic rates of pay. In each case, the employer drew on the fund to meet the extra payments to pensioners as they drew their increased entitlement. In each and every case, past productivity was incorporated into the restructuring of the employees' pay and grades.
  136
  That leaves just two categories to be settled in the same way—the drivers, who are not immediately germane to tonight's discussion or the current controversy—and most significantly for the purposes of our discussions tonight and for the travelling public, the signalmen.
  I have no doubt that the signalmen's dispute would not have happened and that their pay and conditions would have been restructured in the same way as the signal and telecom engineers, the permanent way staff and the traffic grades if we had not had the lunatic transfer of the role of negotiator from the British Railways Board to Railtrack.
  So the signalmen are the people we have in our minds tonight. They have a direct relationship to the order. I understand, and I think that the Minister confirmed, that £600 million is left in that fund. Rather less than one fifth of that amount attaches to signalmen—a little more than £100 million. The threat is that, if agreement is not reached by 30 September, that pay restructuring reserve will effectively close.
  The order would break down the fund on a 53:47 basis. Signalmen who are current employees would lose the 47 per cent., which would go to the fund for pensioners. In the words of The Independent and of a Department of Transport and Railtrack briefing, £50 million could be gone for ever. Others may offer advice to the contrary, but that is the relevance of my argument to the debate.
  If one divides £50 million by the number of signalmen, it works out at about £1,700 per head. That is the basis of the threat that has been widely reported today in the briefing of the Department of Transport and Railtrack. It states that signalmen are to lose £1,700 in pension entitlements.
  Two questions arise directly from that. The first is: is it appropriate for Ministers to associate themselves with such a threat? Will it help to solve the dispute if one threatens people—who in many cases have given their lives to the railway industry and have been employed on low pay—not only with what Ministers or Railtrack will do to them in their attempts to confront and defeat them in the dispute, but with the knowledge that, after they have left the employment of Railtrack, £1,700 will be taken from them? Does that improve the atmosphere of the dispute? I hope that the Minister will agree that it will not, any more than the Government's initial interference in the dispute assisted its settlement.
  The second question is also worth asking to place on record one of the possible answers. What do the Government get out of it? Again, my colleagues have been right in the points that they have made. The Government have a vested interest in not achieving a settlement. If a settlement is not reached with signalmen by 30 September, £50 million will revert to the fund for railway pensioners. If a settlement is not reached with drivers, about £280 million will revert to that closed fund. The Government's interest lies in the fact that there would be a £280 million hedge against the solvency guarantee on the pensioners fund, which they so bitterly resisted in the first place.
  I am not a conspiracy theorist, so I do not say that the Government are driving the dispute and preventing a settlement because they want £280 million. [Interruption.] The master of sedentary interventions, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) must have something tremendously important to say. If he wishes to rise to his feet, he would be welcome to say it, but I suspect that he is limited to monosyllables.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I take it from the hon. Gentleman's comments that he would like the dispute to end sooner rather than later. If that is so, will he advise his brethren in the RMT union to return to the negotiating table to try to find a solution?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members of my previous strictures. Comments must be narrowly connected to the order.
  Mr. Wilson: I hope that I have proven conclusively, Madam Deputy Speaker, that everything that I said was directly related—
  Dr. Hampson: Nonsense.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the speech of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I do so to say that I deplore seated interventions, from whichever side they come. I frequently say so in the House. I do not want to hear any more from the Conservative Benches.
  Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not need protection, but the House does, against such foolishness.
  On the question of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), of course I want negotiations. I want people to return to the negotiating table tomorrow and I want the minimum of political interference in the dispute. With no political interference, the dispute would not have reached industrial action and it could have been resolved easily. That is why I asked earlier today whether the Government would block the restoration of the:5.7 per cent. offer, which would have been the basis of a settlement if only Ministers had not forced it to be taken off the table.
  I do not want to stray wider than the order and so far I have resisted doing so, but I hope that the few hon. Members who have an interest in the matter will recognise that there is something in the order, in the delay, that is of potential benefit to the Government and to the Treasury. The Government may plant stories about a £1,700 threat to individual signal workers and about £50 million being taken out of the pension fund and not put back, but it is a double-edged sword because anyone who knows anything about the matter will be able to examine the circumstances and find out that there is a vested interest concealed in that story—the vested interest of government not to allow the issue to be settled. Other vested interests working in government do not want the dispute to be settled, but they are not germane to tonight's debate.
  I do not know what reshuffling is going on, but if the present Secretary of State gets the heave later this week the nation, with one voice, will say "godspeed and good riddance" because all that he has brought to the industry has been fragmentation and chaos and a lowering of morale and investment to the point where the only country in Europe that invests less in its rail network is Finland. A boardroom in Helsinki may want him, but nobody in our public transport industry does.
  Let us have none of the double talk. There is no agreement that we should be here tonight, because in the first place we should not be breaking up our railway industry, and if we were not doing so we would not be breaking up the pension fund. If we were not breaking up the pension fund, we would not have caused anguish and despair in the past 18 months to tens of thousands of railway pensioners. The Labour party, rail pensioners,
  138
  trade unions and public opinion have forced the Government to back off from their original intentions in respect of the railway pension funds, and for that much we are thankful, but there is no consensus on the primary aims and certainly no consensus on the fact that, once again, the Government seem to be using pensions as a threat to win a dispute.
  Instead of doing that, the Government should be settling the dispute, which means people getting around a table, talking about a normal industrial dispute through normal industrial channels and recognising that it involves a retrospective claim that has been recognised as legitimate for every other section of the railway industry.
  10.57 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: That was a pretty pathetic speech. In effect, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was saying was that if the dispute were settled before the end of September, twice as much of the signalmen's pay—£100 million instead of £50 million—would become eligible for pensions.
  I strongly object to any party spokesman being sponsored by one of the producer interests. We should be speaking of the fair division of the pension fund now that the railway industry is being divided, but when talking about the interests of the producers—signal staff and others who work in the industry—we should think first of those whom they serve: the travelling public.
  My constituents want the order to give the full £100 million benefit to signalling staff because they want to see consolidation of people's earnings for sick pay, for mortgages and for pensions. When the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North spoke of the eligibility for pensions at low pay—pensions are obviously linked to pay--he should have said that the rate of increase of signalling staff's pay eligible for pension purposes now, and twice as much if they agree a modern pay deal, had risen significantly faster than the pay for manual workers.
  One of the reasons for that is that signalling staff are on the bridge between being manual workers and modern industrial workers in a modern railway industry. Part of the agreement should have been to move them on to full, effective salary status, rather than the hotch-potch of allowances, overtime rates and shift and roster payments.
  For seven years, the RMT, which sponsors 12 hon. Members, has failed, with management, to get a pension deal that doubles up the eligibility for pension.
  You were absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker, to point out that if we confine our remarks to the pay that is eligible for pensions, and to that date at the end of September when the £50 million would return to the closed part of the fund rather than be eligible, open and available to those who are still working in Railtrack, and also for others working in the railway industry, we will stay in order.
  I want everyone working in the railway industry to have modern terms and conditions of employment. That means that pension arrangements should take their full earnings into account. If people argue that the present dispute, which is tangential to this debate, is justified because of the amounts of money involved, I ask them to consider that a top grade member of the signalling staff would be able to have earnings of well over £20,000 a year eligible for pension entitlement.

  139
  If the dispute were settled, the average earnings eligible for pension entitlement would be £17,000 a year. Many of the people who travel on the railways, especially those who travel from stations in my constituency, who earn less than £17,000 a year—and certainly less than the £24,000 that top signalling staff receive—believe that the signalling staff should be doing what other people on lower pay have done, and that is ensuring that all their earnings are eligible for pension entitlement so that that entitlement is not made up of a basic pay which is half their average earnings.
  When I first entered the industrial relations and personnel field and was working in industrial relations for the British Steel Corporation in the late 1960s, we tried, with the representatives of the people at work, to provide people with what was, in effect, common status.
  Hon. Members who are sponsored in this House, apparently sponsored to be silent rather than to speak up, should have told the RMT that they wanted modern conditions and pension arrangements which do not involve leaks to the newspapers about the £50 million that may go missing, as that has been obvious for the past seven years of negotiation.
  If the signalling staff are not aware of that, and of the effect of the order, what on earth have their representatives in the RMT being doing and saying to them for the past seven years, let alone for the past seven weeks of this dispute? [Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) interrupts from a sedentary position. He is One of those people who should give up his "money for votes" sponsorship by the RMT so that he can feel as free to speak on behalf of the travelling public as spokesmen of other parties are to speak on behalf of those who are supposed to receive the benefit of services in transport or other areas.
  Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me, as a sponsored Member of the RMT, and as a former railwayman and railway signalman, that the RMT and its sponsorship does not influence my voice or my vote in this place? What the hon. Gentleman is saying is absolutely despicable and totally wrong. Seven years ago, there was no intention of progressing down this particularly barmy path of fragmenting the railway industry. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to participate in these debates late at night, he should do the House the service of reading something about the subject under discussion and read something about the order.
  Mr. Bottomley: Other hon. Members will be aware that the order is about the division of the pension fund. It is a consequence of earlier legislation. I would be surprised if the hon. Gentleman had missed his chance of contributing to those debates; I thought that he had contributed to them.
  If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) argues that union sponsorship has different effects from those that I have outlined, I would put it to him that a sensible union would want to have agreed a deal for its members whereby all their earnings were eligible for pensions seven years ago.
  Would the hon. Gentleman disagree with that? It would be very surprising if he did.
  Mr. Snape: I do not want to drag this out. However, I urge the hon. Gentleman to understand that the matter of salaried status for railway signal workers and others has
  140
  been the subject of long and contentious discussions. Of course the RMT would like its signalling staff to be placed on the salaried grades and thereby make their wages and salaries liable to the pension payments under the terms of the order. Understandably, the RMT also sought a lump sum payment for the productivity concessions that had already been made. That is partly what the dispute is about.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I caution the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) to keep narrowly to the terms of the order, rather than debate the history of the railways and any disputes therein.
  Mr. Bottomley: Even leaving aside the past seven years, we seem to have established agreement that getting on to full pensionable earnings makes sense.
  During the past seven weeks, when we have been moving toward this draft order coming before the House and when hon. Members have been speaking outside about the rights and wrongs of the dispute, we have had to face two facts. First, the RMT has failed to deliver fully for any of its members modern terms and conditions of employment. That is a tragedy.
  Those who consider the past know that one of the reasons why the order, although not contentious in itself, is brought forward in a contentious atmosphere is that the RMT has had a different industrial relations history from that of many others. One has only to read the books to understand that point.
  Secondly, the RMT sponsors 12 Members of Parliament, but, to my knowledge, it has not sent a full briefing to the other 630-odd Members of Parliament. In general, its sponsored Members have been almost silent and their communication with the rest of us on this and associated issues has been very slender.
  If the union wants to say that it is important for its members to be able to get the pay restructuring reserve in the order, it should ask all hon. Members, "Will you say to the signallers and to other railway staff in your constituency that it is important that the RMT reaches a deal with the employer, so that we do not go past the end of September with the issue unresolved?" I am not talking about the strike, I am talking about how people are paid and—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman now seems to be debating who should have said what and to whom. That is not relevant. The hon. Gentleman must deploy his own arguments and allow others to deploy theirs.
  Mr. Bottomley: One of the reasons why I shall not get very far in politics and for my not hanging on to my telephone for the next two or three days is that I am not always very good at communicating. Under the heading "Citation and commencement", article 1(b) refers to
  "articles 2(1) to (10), 6 and 7 on 1st October 1994"
  and is directly linked to my sentence before you gave me guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  All of us should be saying to all signalling staff in our constituencies for their benefit and, for that matter, for the benefit of the travelling public that a deal should be done before the end of September so that the provisions in the statutory instrument are to the benefit of those still working in the railway industry and not just for existing pensioners, which is where the money would go otherwise.
  I hope that, by the end of September, the provisions in the order will be available in full measure to those working

  141
  in the industry, but I give this warning: if there is a failure by those who are sponsored by the union to help put pressure on the union to reach a deal, the people who will lose are those whose union subscriptions have been paying part of the election expenses of the silent 12, including a potential Labour leader, the Opposition's trade and industry spokesman, their transport spokesman, their employment spokesman and their social security spokesman.
  11.7 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is not my intention to detain the House very long, but this is a very important subject and I hope that it will be seriously considered, at least for the rest of this short debate.
  I do not believe that the Minister is unaware of how tremendously worried railwaymen and railwaywomen are about their pensions. This and other orders are the culmination of much negotiation, frankly great misunderstanding, and certainly great unease. I am a sponsored Member of the RMT, and many railwaymen and railway women in my constituency regularly talk to me about their pension entitlements. They have been exceedingly disturbed by the negotiations, first, because they saw no need for them; secondly, because they were extremely concerned by the Government's attitude to the closed funds; and, thirdly, because they believed and still believe that there is considerable doubt about the veracity of the Government's arguments.
  I am afraid that, in a miasma of total disbelief, people who have given their lives to the railway industry will find it very difficult to accept that they should accept what the Minister is proposing. They are deeply worried; they are not at all happy about the fact that what should be a straightforward organisation of their pensions for the future has suddenly become a political football. It upsets them very much that, at every stage of the negotiations on the pension funds that we are discussing, the Government appeared to have been forced into giving way until some kind of agreement was reached with the trustees.
  I hope that a solution will be found to the current dispute. I believe that passengers' safety should be paramount, that the House should strive to retain the reliability and good will of railway operators and, above all, that no one inside or outside the industry should be in any doubt that the pension funds of a basic industry are being administered for the good of those who have contributed to them. If those people believe that the Government or their puppet Railtrack may be seeking to use their pension funds as a political football, they will not only feel real dismay and fear; they will feel that they have been betrayed by the House of Commons. I not only understand that attitude, but see it in my day-to-day dealing with railwaymen and women.
  I must tell the Minister that there is a long way to go in rebuilding trust between the Government and transport operators. I hope that tonight's debate will not make the gap even wider.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: Let me begin, as I always do in debates about pensions, by declaring that I am a British Rail pensioner—a deferred pensioner. I have
  142
  been told on previous occasions that my interest is not significant enough to prevent me from speaking, but it is fairly significant to me, which is why I am speaking.
  I was amazed by what was said by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). I shall do my best not to refer to it much, but part of the reason for my being a deferred pensioner is the fact that I was made redundant. If the hon. Gentleman's speech and—I think—the mood of the country are anything to go by, in the near future the hon. Gentleman may begin to know what redundancy feels like.
  The order affects my income, and that of ordinary pensioners. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that this is just a product of the fragmentation of British Rail; I think that it is much worse than that. From the beginning, I had no doubt that the Government intended not just to privatise the railways but to get their hands on my pension fund. Their actions showed that. Only my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North, other Labour Members and pensioners themselves, who rose up in anger at the proposals, stopped the Government taking control of the pension funds.
  The Minister was right: the Government did not actually take anything out of the pension funds. What they did was stop putting something in. The payments that they used to make have now ceased and will not be made again. I believe that undertakings have been made to resume them if they are needed, but, effectively, they have ceased.
  I lost out. It is no use the Minister's saying that the trustees agreed to the move; they did not. They accepted it because it was the best deal that they could get from Government, but they did not want it or volunteer for it.
  The trustees have a narrow role. They have a fiduciary duty and that is why they have had to accept—not agree to —the Government's tabling this order. I am not prepared to accept it, because I recognise that the pension that I had previously was better than the pension deal that I will get now. I am prepared, however, to accept that nothing that I say or do will change the Government's mind and that the deal will not get any better.
  I take exception to one thing, to which other hon. Members have also referred. In fighting to protect my pension fund, one of the guarantees that we got—it had to be fought for—from the Government was a solvency guarantee. If the fund looked as if it were in difficulties, the Government would guarantee its solvency. What do I find now?
  The Government stepped in as the unions and Railtrack were about to reach a 5.7 per cent. settlement and effectively snookered the deal. It was finished and I thought that it was merely political vindictiveness. I thought that Government were union-bashing again, and wanted to blame the difficulties on all -the left-wingers in the unions. I have sat with many signalmen and there are not many left-wingers among them, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will confirm, as en ex-signalman. Their political viewpoint is conservative—with a small "c"—and they have commonsense views. If they vote for a strike, it means that there is something radically wrong.
  It really annoyed me when I found out that it was not merely dogma that had made the Government interfere in the pay settlement, that there was another reason. Once again, the Government were trying to get some money out of the fund. As before, they were not intending to take something out, but to stop themselves from having to put

  143
  something in. If, on 30 September, the fund is distributed, 47 per cent. will go to the closed fund and, effectively, will act as a cushion, which will mean that the Government will not have to pay the solvency guarantee if it is required. The money will have been stolen from the signalmen—possibly from the drivers as well.
  I feel annoyed that the Government are using the pension funds to blackmail signalmen and, by doing so, are souring industrial relations and the chances of Railtrack's arriving at a settlement. The Government are using the money not merely for blackmail, but to hold the travelling public to ransom. Without Government interference in the strike, the dispute would have been settled by now and the travelling public would not have been inconvenienced in the way—
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I have been present since the beginning of the debate and this is the second time that it has been suggested that it is somehow to the Government's advantage to spin the dispute out until the end of September. Has the hon. Gentleman no idea of the cost to the country, the Government, the travelling public, the businesses of this country and the prosperity of the nation caused by the dispute? The suggestion that the Government should be trying to spin it out for the benefit of some putative robbery of the pension fund seems bizarre.
  Mr. Heppell: I should like to think that the hon. Gentleman is right. There is an easy solution—for the Government to tell Railtrack that it can do as it wants and decide on whatever settlement it wants. The answer would be simple, and Railtrack would already have settled because it was in the process of doing so when the Government interfered.
  I recognise that what I say tonight will not make any difference to the Minister or to Tory Members. I want to make it clear, and put it on the record, that there is no consensus about what the Government are doing to railwaymen's pensions and my pension. My pension will be worse as a result of what the Government are doing. It is all right for the Minister to shake his head; he will not feel the difficulties in his wallet. I will feel the difficulties.
  I am in a privileged position because I do not have to rely on only my railway pension. I will have the opportunity of a pension from here, which is much better than any railwayman's pension will ever be. However, many people, including many of my constituents, will be relying on that pension. I do not want to see them in the same position as the Maxwell pensioners in another 20 years.
  11.20 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I speak as a Member sponsored by the rail drivers' union, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. I say to the Minister, as I have had occasion to say to him before, that the peace of mind that he deems with his sanguine carelessness to be part and parcel of the lives of employees and pensioners of the railway industry is not anything other than a hope at present for the members of ASLEF.
  The Minister and Tory Members who have spoken tonight in this debate, as in previous debates, have
  144
  persisted in attempting to present an image of the British Rail pension as something which the Government have restructured, and made safe and viable.
  The Minister knows, as do all hon. Members in the House, that the British Rail pension scheme was one of the best managed, and certainly one of the most productive, schemes in the country. The turmoil came about when the Government decided erroneously, as Opposition Members believe, and as the majority of the British public believe, to restructure—effectively, to break up—the British Rail network in the ideological pursuit of privatisation.
  It is that break-up which has caused the concern that is still being felt, certainly by the members of ASLEF, over what they perceive to be unnecessary breakages in what was an efficient and highly productive pension scheme. Nothing that the Minister has said this evening, and nothing in the statutory instrument, will bring about peace of mind for ASLEF members. It is extraordinary that the Minister can depute or, in fact, give a name to a sizeable proportion of the pension fund. It is the pay restructuring fund, £230 million of which is earmarked for the engine drivers' pension scheme. Yet, if no agreement is reached by 1 October, that entire sizeable amount will go into the general fund and be split 53:47. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) that there is a believable case for thinking that the Government wish effectively to drag things out until 1 October because such a sizeable amount in the fund would release them from having to make their first contribution to the pension fund.
  I hope that I am wrong in this instance, but experience of the way the Government have handled the restructuring of the pension scheme for the rail industry leads me to believe that I am probably right. If the Minister really wishes the peace of mind to which he constantly alludes to be a reality for employees of the rail industry and pensioners, I urge him to clarify that issue tonight.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Doug Hoyle.
  11.23 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: Nearly, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) is not here. He is senior to me, anyway.
  I had no intention of intervening in this debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, if I had realised that you thought that I was the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, I would not have done so. I have been provoked into so doing by the deplorable speech of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who displayed all the reasons why he was fired as a Transport Minister some years ago. He displayed a total lack of any knowledge of the subject which we are discussing tonight, and he made a deplorable attack on some of us who are proud of having worked in the railway industry.
  I am proud of my background and that of my father, who also worked in the railway industry.
  I listened to the scoffs a few moments ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) said that she was sponsored by the Association of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. I wonder at some Government Members who are prepared to defend some of the things which takes place here and the conduct of their

  145
  hon. Friends—particularly with regard to the events of the past week—yet sneer at those of us in the Opposition who are sponsored by industrial trade unions.
  Anybody who knows me—including your good self, if I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker—knows that I am hardly likely to be told either how to speak or how to vote in the House because the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers pays a sum of money to my constituency party to see that I am elected from time to time. It has never paid me a penny, any more than ASLEF pays my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate or the RMT pays my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). Yet we continually suffer jibes during debates such as this, that we are somehow bought and paid for. It is, of course, not true.
  There are genuine fears among railway workers about the future of their pensions. Those fears have not been caused by Opposition Members, but have arisen directly from the legislation which has so fragmented the railway industry and, in so doing, has fragmented the pension funds on which those workers will depend in later life.
  It is always interesting to listen to the emollient words of the Minister of State, who I hope survives the reported purge this week. It is not for me to rearrange the ornaments along the Government Front Bench, but some of us would welcome the Minister's survival, because he shows a genuine interest in and concern about the future of the railway industry and the pension funds.
  I hope he will acknowledge that there are already deep-seated and genuine fears among not just the signalling grades, but all grades within the industry about the future of their pensions. The conduct of the Government and Railtrack during the current dispute has done nothing other than to exacerbate those fears.
  Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he thinks that the future of the rail industry will be helped or hindered by the current industrial action by the RMT?
  Mr. Snape: The straight answer is that the future of the rail industry is in no way helped by the industrial action, and I wish that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends would acknowledge that fact. The 5.7 per cent. offer which was made to the signalmen and withdrawn after the intervention of the Secretary of State does not help. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked me a straight question, and I have given him a straight answer.
  The future of the railway industry will not be helped by the intransigent attitude of Ministers, who reacted to the 5.7 per cent. offer by saying that it must be 2.5 per cent., and interfering as they have done to drag on the dispute.
  There are various other grades within the industry which have settled and received payment for past productivity, which means that their pension entitlement is obvious, laid down and transparent under the terms of this order. That does not apply to signalling staff, and without being, I hope, unduly partisan—my sympathies are well enough known, and I shall reiterate them tonight—there are real and understandable fears among signalling staff that they are being coerced into a settlement for which many will not vote. If the dispute comes towards a conclusion, signalling staff who voted for a strike in the first place will have to vote on whether any offer is acceptable.
  146
  They are enormously concerned that pressure will be put on them under the terms of the order to go back to work and see that the dispute is concluded by 30 September, or they will lose. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate pointed out that a considerable sum of money —£250 million—is involved in the order, which would be paid in pensions to drivers. That is not an inconsiderable sum by any stretch of the imagination.
  So far as signalling staff are concerned, the pension fund will be considerably affected and altered under the provisions of the order.
  I hope that the Minister of State will ignore some of the more inflammatory comments made tonight, especially those from the hon. Member for Eltham. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say something sympathetic about those who have voted for action. The action has nothing to do with the extreme left. In a poll conducted among 80 per cent. of signalmen, they voted 4:1 for industrial action. Despite the terms of the order and question about the future of their pensions, the signalmen will not vote to return to work until they are satisfied that the efforts they have made are given some recognition.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will resist the temptation to make further propaganda and will ensure that the dispute is settled honourably, so that those signalmen too may benefit under the terms of the order, just as other railway grades, who have made equal contributions to the productivity of the industry, have already benefited.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Wilson: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply on behalf of the Opposition.
  We have had a useful debate, not least because it has kicked around some of the current issues. The one contribution that I exempt from that description came from the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). When the dispute started, I remember taking part in a discussion with him on radio, although we were in separate studios. The following morning, I did another radio interview when a tape of the comments of the hon. Member for Eltham was played. I said that that must have been what he said the night before, but I was told, "No, no. That is what he said this morning."
  That demonstrated conclusively that he was reading from exactly the same script. After six weeks, he has managed to learn it off by heart, which is progress, I suppose, in terms of the hon. Gentleman, but it is still the same rubbish and is completely unhelpful in terms of resolving anything.
  Dr. Hampson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You might rightly have been irritated by some of us on the Conservative Benches, who were getting extremely irritated by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr.Wilson), who was abusing the terms of the narrow order to score points about the industrial dispute. The hon. Gentleman has now started to do just that again; he is deliberately using the debate to make points about the current dispute. He has just proved that by talking about events in past few weeks.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member may safely leave this in my hands.
  Mr.Wilson: When the hon. Member grows up, he might make a speech on the subject.

  147
  We have demonstrated to your satisfaction, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to that of the Minister, who has some understanding of the matter, that there is a connection between the order and the dispute. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr.Hampson) was perfectly right to draw attention to the narrow terms of the order.
  I am not accusing the Government of using the pension arrangements as the motivating factor in perpetuating the dispute. The charge is that they are perpetuating the dispute anyway. The secondary charge is that, once they started the nonsense of threatening signal workers with £1,700 losses, as result of £50 million being taken out of their pension entitlements, it was necessary to show that there was another side to the dispute coin. There is a potential gain to the Government if the dispute continues. That is all we have sought to demonstrate.
  It is much more important to get the dispute settled than to set out that territory. That means that both sides in politics should step back from the dispute and that the negotiations take place—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is now referring to the general dispute, and is not linking it, as he did previously, with the order under consideration. I ask him to restrain himself.
  Mr.Wilson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that that point has been made.
  In the debate, we have proven conclusively that settlements take account retrospectively. We have also proved conclusively that the pension fund of signalmen and employees in other sectors of the railway industry is under threat if settlements are not reached by 30 September. We have linked that threat to the order under consideration.
  We have no specific objection to that order, but we have made it absolutely clear that, although we do not contest it, we are not acquiescing with the general principle that has guided what has happened to the railway workers' pension fund. That outcome is a by-product of fragmentation and the potential, but not yet delivered privatisation.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) that one of the great dilemmas in this issue is whether the Government thought first of railway privatisation and then recognised that, as a by-product, they might get their hands on £4 billion of railway pension fund money, or whether they thought, first, that they would go for the pension fund, but, in order to do that, they would have to break up the railways.
  We have won half the battle in that the Government will not directly get their hands on the railway pension fund money. We shall win the other half of the battle, which is to stop them privatising the railways.
  11.34 pm
  Mr. Freeman: May I correct some misapprehensions, so that pensioners and contributing members of the British Rail pension fund are properly informed about this debate?
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) raised a number of issues and asked me a number of questions. First, he referred to the change in employment patters and therefore the pension liabilities building up in the pension fund. He is right to say that the number of signalmen has been substantially reduced from
  148
  7,600 in 1980 to 4,940 at the end of 1993. But, within the change in the total numbers employed and, therefore, the pension liabilities accruing, a dramatic change in grading has occurred. More signalmen are now on the top grades. In 1980, 22 per cent. of signalmen were on the bottom grade, grade A; by the end of 1993, only 9 per cent. were on grade A. So a reduction in the number of signalmen has been brought about by substantial investment over the past 10 years, resulting in higher grading as signalmen perform more complicated tasks, better pay and higher pension-accruing liabilities. The tragedy is that that has resulted in an increase in basic pay, not in allowances.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that the Government briefed The Independent. The Government have not briefed The Independent and the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred are not correct. He said that £100 million from the pay restructuring fund might be attributed to the signalmen; I believe that the figure is closer to £30 million. And he obviously reaches the figure of £50 million by dividing that mythical £100 million by two and calculating what might go to the closed fund.
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Freeman: Let me first answer the hon. Gentleman's point. The £1,700 per head to which he referred is a figment of The Independent's imagination.
  The importance for the signalmen is to so restructure their pay that their pension calculation is improved. They should agree with Railtrack the restructuring of their pay and allowances not just for their pensions but for their mortgages, which are calculated on the basis of their basic pay, not their total pay because some of the allowances are not guaranteed.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the solvency pledge. The Government do not determine the allocation of the surplus. It has been determined by the two actuaries —the scheme actuary and the Government actuary. It has not been Ministers' responsibility to decide that. Simply to allocate part of the initial surplus to the closed fund does not help Government public expenditure because the more money that is allocated to the closed fund, the less is allocated to the open fund and the higher the subsidy required from the franchising director. This allocation was done strictly on the basis of actuarial neutrality.
  Mr. Wilson: I cannot pursue all the points that I would wish, but on the £50 million vis-a-vis £1,700, we agreed earlier that £600 million is left in the fund. Will the Minister confirm that the two categories still to be settled out of it are the drivers and the signalmen? If they divide numerically on roughly a 4.5:1 ratio and the figure is not, as I suggested, half of £100 million, which is £50 million, where does the rest of that fund go? My figures, which are the same as those which The Independent arrived at, are logical. There seems to be a large gap in the figures that the Minister suggested.
  Mr. Freeman: We have no idea what the drivers may settle for in terms of restructuring their pay and allowances. Those negotiations have been desolatory and have been continuing for a number of years. I hope that they will reach a conclusion. I repeat what I said at the outset of the debate: it has long been held to be a sensible target to create a new joint industry scheme effective from 1 October. The signalmen's strike occurred long after that target was set. If the dispute is settled before 1 October, a

  149
  portion of the pay and restructuring reserve can attach itself directly to the earnings of signal men and women, and their pensions will benefit.
  That is a statement of fact. If the drivers do not settle, they will have a claim on the generality of the surplus allocated to their own sections in the joint industry scheme. I have spelt out the truth as clearly as I can.
  I shall briefly mention the other contributions to the debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) that we want a modern railway industry, with a modern pay structure, because that means that one gets a decent pension scheme, which means that railwaymen and women can look forward to a decent pension in retirement. It also means that they are able to borrow properly from the building societies on the basis of higher basic pay and lower allowances.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) spoke about the responsibility for creating fear of exploitation and the loss of assets. That charge cannot be levelled at the Government. The Government have not been creating the fear in the minds of pensioners. I think that other politicians have done so. It certainly does not help the peace of mind of pensioners, who do not understand the details and complexities of the reform of the pension scheme.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) spoke about the Transport Act 1980 payments. They will not cease; they will continue. Fifty per cent. of the payments to the closed fund will continue, fifty per cent. will be deferred, with interest attaching to that deferment, and payments will be made in order to honcur the guarantee of RPI indexed pensions. That is an excellent provision for the closed section of the pension scheme.
  Mr. Heppell rose—
  Mr. Freeman: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish now?
  Finally, there is no truth in the allegation that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) makes that the Government want to seek to drag out the signalmen's dispute until September, in order to benefit in some unexplained way from the reorganisation of the pension fund. Every strike day costs £10 million. That is a loss to the railway industry and to the country. The sooner that the strike is settled, the better.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Railway Pensions (Transfer and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.—[Mr. Freeman.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  PESTICIDES
  That the draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.—[Mr. Mackay.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  STONEBRIDGE HOUSING ACTION TRUST
  That the draft Stonebridge Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.—[Mr. Mackay.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  EDUCATION (INTER-AUTHORITY RECOUPMENT)
  That the draft Education (Inter-authority Recoupment) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Mr. Mackay.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX
  That the Insurance Premium Tax (Taxable Insurance Contracts) Order 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1698), a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.—[Mr. Mackay.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

  POSTAL SERVICES
  That this House takes notes of European Community Documents Nos. 7390/92 and 7133/93, relating to the development of the single market for postal services; supports the Government's view that the deregulatory thrust of the Commission's Green Paper should be welcomed, whilst reserving judgement on the proposals to liberalise direct mail and all intra-Community and international mail; and urges the Commission to make progress on the formulation of specific proposals.—[Mr. Mackay.]
  Question agreed to.

  Oldchurch Hospital, Romford
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. MacKay.]
  11.42 pm
  Sir Michael Neubert: I greatly value the opportunity of raising on the Adjournment the issue of the proposed closure of the accident and emergency unit at Oldchurch hospital in my constituency at Romford. I have lost count of the times that I have had to mention threats to Oldchurch hospital on the Floor of the House before Ministers during the 20 years that I have served here, but once again I find it necessary to do so on behalf of my constituents, and many other people outside my constituency, who have expressed their outright opposition to the latest proposal.
  In January, in response to a parliamentary question from me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) stated that the Secretary of State had received a petition of about 46,000 signatures and about 17,000 pre-printed letters and postcards from members of the public, as well as letters from individuals, and of course hon. Members.
  The closure has been condemned by the London borough of Havering, of which Romford is a part, and by the London borough of Barking and Dagenham. It is opposed not only by myself, but my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who, as a Minister, has to observe ministerial silence in this place on the subject. It is also opposed by the newly elected hon. Members for Barking (Ms Hodge) and for Dagenham (Ms Church), who I hope may be successful in catching your eye during the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  If public consultation is to mean anything, the verdict can be seen only as an emphatic thumbs down. Of course, it is not a Government proposal; its sponsor is the Barking and Havering health authority, which acts as purchaser, aided and abetted by the Havering hospitals trust as provider. My hon. Friend the Minister, whom I welcome and thank for being here tonight, is required to act as arbiter and judge between the local managers of the national health service and the public they are there to serve.
  The strategy has now been approved in principle by the North Thames regional health authority and passed to the Secretary of State for decision. The region was the original author of the strategy. It is a tale not of two cities but of two hospitals—Oldchurch hospital in Romford in my constituency and Harold Wood hospital in the Upminster constituency. Throughout the 1980s repeated attempts have been made to close services at Oldchurch in favour of Harold Wood. Capital investment has been largely directed towards Harold Wood, widening the gap between the two hospitals and hastening the day when Oldchurch hospital can be closed, or virtually closed.
  That is the point that we have now reached. Once the accident and emergency unit goes, other major specialties will go too and we will effectively have one district general hospital for a district of more than 400,000 people and an above average instance of ill health in parts of the district.
  When the proposal for the Havering hospitals trust—note the plural, Madam Deputy Speaker—was brought forward as recently as February 1992 by the previous chairman, it was accepted that there would need to be some rationalisation of services between the two sites, as took
  152
  place, for example, in the case of the ear, nose and throat service. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who is in his place tonight, was with me in expressing concern when we discussed that prospect with the chairman at the time.
  At that time it was stated that
  "no significant change is envisaged in the disposition of accident and emergency"
  and that
  "trauma and orthopaedics will be retained on both sites as there is a close clinical link with accident and emergency services."
  Yet within weeks of the trust coming into force, A and E was targeted for rationalisation. The two hospitals are now officially described as hot and cold sites and Oldchurch at Romford is the one to get the cold shoulder.
  On 9 June 1992, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) wrote to me as follows:
  "You implied that the unit could be trying to achieve a single site strategy through the back door. Havering hospitals final application for NHS Trust status describes a twin site strategy. If we approve the application, then the NHS Trust will be required to abide by that strategy."
  The trust was approved and Oldchurch may be retained as a site, but reduced in size. On present plans, it will be not much more than a hi-tech cottage hospital providing out-patient clinics and elective day surgery.
  So much for the background. The community health council, whose resolute stand on the issue of accident and emergency services is the sole safeguard against the strategy being rubber stamped, has conceded a reduction of two A and E units to one, but believes that if there is to be one it should be centralised at Oldchurch. That is the position that I support tonight. It is not the least irony that it is proposed that all A and E services in the district should be centralised at Oldchurch while expansion proceeds at Harold Wood. That compounds the waste of public assets implied by the abandonment of past investment at Oldchurch hospital.
  The nub of the argument was set out in my question in April this year:
  "Should not ease of access by road and proximity to the main centres of population be the overriding factors in determining the location of casualty departments? Does not that consideration point to the continuing need for Oldchurch hospital in that all important life-and-death role?"—[Official Report, 26 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 93.]
  There is also the question of capacity. Other hon. Members may speak of that, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), who has concerns relating to his local hospital.
  Mr. Vivian Bendall: I do, indeed, have concerns. We have a new hospital, the old one having closed approximately a year ago. Our A and E cases increased by 13 cases in the first year. If the A and E unit goes from Oldchurch, it is expected that that figure will increase by a further 25,000 cases in a year, which would mean a further 100 beds to our hospital. That would certainly mean a very large expansion programme on a new hospital that has just been built.
  Sir Michael Neubert: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for those figures and for painting a rather wider picture than I can from the vantage point of Barking and Havering health district. We know that the ricochet effect of the closure of A and E services, say, from Bart's eastward out as well as from Oldchurch westward in, could have on other hospitals in the wider area of north-east London.

  153
  I return now to the two main considerations that I have highlighted. Romford is at the centre of a strategic road network, and Oldchurch hospital is on a dualled ring road close to the centre of the town. Access is easy from east London and Essex—it has to be, for Romford to have acquired the reputation of a thriving commercial and retail centre. Harold Wood, by contrast, is some miles to the east and reached only by roads which were once and are now not much more than country lanes. Romford is much closer to the densest population, where, on average, accidents are more likely to happen, and to those areas of above-average illness and deprivation, which are a major feature of the district.
  As distance and travelling time are of the essence in an emergency, Romford is much the more suitable place to have the only A and E department if there is to be only one. Let me illustrate the point by specific reference to the annual report of the director of public health, 1993, entitled "Bringing Health to Life in Barking and Havering". It states, on page 31:
  "In Barking and Havering, there are major contrasts between the localities."
  It takes as a yardstick mortality from coronary heart disease at ages under 65. The current national average is 58 per 100,000. The district average is 57, but that represents a twofold spread from 39 per 100,000 in one part of the district to 71 per 100,000 in another. The report goes on to point out:
  "at ward level variations are even sharper,"
  and cites 97 per 100,000 in Goresbrook compared with 25 per 100,000 at Upminster, which is very comparable with what it calls
  "more affluent Harold Wood".
  The conclusion is clear. If I am under 65, live in the west of the district and suffer a heart attack—I am three or four times more likely to have a heart attack in the west than if I lived in the east of the district—I would want the A and E department to be at Romford rather than Harold 'Wood. The extra travelling time might well prove fatal.
  The health authority defends its strategy by all kinds of arguments: from paramedics attending every emergency, to green field helicopter sites, to minor injury units around every other corner. But my constituents are not convinced that that represents the real world, and, unlike the authority, they do not believe in the priority of "timescale financial and logistical reasons" to use the phrase used by the authority in defending its proposal.
  My constituents believe that the patient should come first. It would be irresponsible not to put health needs higher, when two recent press reports record Havering hospital trust as bottom of more than 30 authorities for assessing people quickly in the A and E units—now, before two units are reduced to one.
  The London ambulance service is the slowest in the country in responding to 999 emergencies. The North Thames regional health authority, in a debate which, it is reported, raised many doubts, approved the strategy in principle, but hedged it about with such an extraordinary number of caveats—I could list them if there were time, as set out in its letter of 21 June to the chief executive of Barking and Havering health authority—that one wonders how approval could be given on such a conditional basis. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, for his part, will not be prepared to accept such a flawed strategy. Meantime, he may be interested to know that the region has
  154
  apparently given permission for preliminary building work to start at Harold Wood. So much for the process of consultation.
  11.54 pm
  Ms Judith Church: I thank the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) for giving me a moment to speak tonight and for raising this important matter. Although Oldchurch hospital is in his constituency, it is only a few hundred metres from my constituency.
  The proposed closure of the accident and emergency unit at Oldchurch hospital is yet another ill-judged decision which has been thrown up by the national health service market that the Government have created. Why is it closing? It is closing to save money. The people of Dagenham need the accident and emergency unit. To get to Harold Wood, which will be the nearest alternative, will take an extra 15 minutes. That is an extra 15 minutes on a Sunday morning when there is little traffic. In peak periods, it will take considerably longer.
  Last week, in a two-hour period, 59 people attended the accident and emergency unit at Oldchurch suffering from asthma and other breathing difficulties as a result of the dreadful air pollution over the city. If the accident and emergency unit at Oldchurch hospital closes, people will lose their lives as the ambulances do not get through to Harold Wood.
  I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will reconsider the proposals when they come through and that this hopelessly ill-judged decision will not be taken. It is a decision against which the people of Dagenham voted significantly in the recent by-election.
  11.56 pm
  Ms Margaret Hodge: I thank the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) for allowing us to participate in the debate. Although Oldchurch hospital is in his constituency, it serves the needs of people from my constituency. I ask the Minister to consider rejecting the proposals that have been put to the Secretary of State for the closure of the accident and emergency departments at Oldchurch hospital.
  The Government's reforms have the stated objectives of putting the patients first. I suggest that the basic principle behind the proposals is that we push the patients to the bottom of the pile.
  I should like to raise two issues briefly with the Minister. First, the proposals reflect broken trust. When the Havering hospital trust was first established, those responsible for so doing gave an undertaking that they would not proceed with the closure of the A and E department at Oldchurch. Within weeks of attaining trust status, the trust started consulting on the proposals.
  Secondly, the trust has stated that the closure of the A and E department will not lead to the closure of the Oldchurch hospital. I do not believe that. If the A and E department of any hospital is closed, that hospital is condemned to a slow and painful death. I should like an assurance from the Minister that, if he accepts the proposals, we shall still have Oldchurch hospital as a district general hospital to serve the needs of the locality.
  The closure is predicated on false assumptions. It is predicated on the assumption that GP facilities have improved. They have not. They are among the worst in the country, and none achieve high status. It is predicated on

  155
  the assumption that we have a better ambulance service with more paramedics. We all know that the ambulance service is deteriorating. It is predicated on the assumption that we have minor injuries units. None is in place yet.
  It is predicated on the assumption that there is a better transport infrastructure for access to Harold Wood. There has not been even an application for planning permission. It is predicated on the assumption that there are sufficient beds in the remaining hospitals to take up the closure of Oldchurch A and E. We know that Harold Wood does not even have enough beds simply to cope with the demands from the A and E department.
  No other health authority is attempting to serve the needs of a community of 400,000 people from one site only. That is what North Thames regional health authority proposes to do. It is our view that if the proposals were accepted by the Secretary of State, up to 40,000 accident and emergency patients would have nowhere to go and that those patients would be at the bottom of the pile.
  11.59 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on raising this matter, which is clearly of great interest to his constituents and is clearly causing them a great deal of concern. He and the hon. Members for Barking (Ms Hodge) and for Dagenham (Ms Church) have pointed out that these are proposals and that they have been made by the local trust.
  I am able to say only a limited amount at this stage. I have listened carefully to what has been said. I am aware that reviews have been undertaken into services in the two hospitals and that the trust has undertaken an evaluation. The conclusion of the trust's review was that both Harold Wood and Oldchurch hospitals would be required for the foreseeable future, but that action and emergency services should be located at Harold Wood. The health authority has arrived at a broadly similar conclusion.
  I should like to make some general observations about the provision of accident and emergency services. Obviously, it is vital that all people living in the area should have access to the best A and E services available. We should be looking for first-class services, supported by the necessary back-up. They should deal with the full range of injuries and illnesses at any time, day or night, and should be flexible enough to deal with the characteristic peaks and troughs.
  To perform to that high standard, major accident and emergency departments need direct access to a wide range of acute specialty and support services on the same hospital site. Many health service districts have concentrated their A and E services on one site to achieve that. That is in line with the National Audit Office report on A and E which was highly critical of "split site" arrangements and said that they
  "jeopardised the treatment of patients."
  The 1992 report of the national confidential inquiry into perioperative deaths concluded:
  "The problems caused by the requirement for consultants (and their teams) to work and be on call regularly on more than one NHS site are well known. The use of split sites should be historical."
  The message, therefore, is that the best accident and
  156
  emergency services come from larger departments. Research shows that the incidence of preventable deaths is reduced by concentrating highly experienced medical and nursing staff on one location.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford said, the community health council has apparently accepted the argument for one site and there seems to be—I hesitate to say this, but I think that it is right—a measure of agreement that accident and emergency facilities in the area should be rationalised at one site. Evidently, considerable disagreement exists about which site that should be.
  A number of arguments exist for rationalising at the Oldchurch site and a number for rationalising at the Harold Wood site. Among the arguments for Oldchurch would be better access for Dagenham and Barking residents, who are the major users of emergency services. It might be said that the accident and emergency service should be located nearer those residents because of the relative deprivation and the problems of the somewhat underdeveloped primary care services in the area.
  Reference has been made to ambulance journey times. I agree that the performance of the London ambulance service has been disappointing compared with other parts of the country, but we have considerable confidence that it will improve. In an age of paramedics—we are aiming soon to have a paramedic on every front-line vehicle—the location of accident and emergency departments, in terms of trauma, is perhaps becoming subsidiary to the location of ambulances and the ability to get an ambulance to the scene.
  Again, it has been said that closing Oldchurch A and E would put too much pressure on neighbouring hospitals, including King George and the Newham general. Likewise, the population of Dagenham and Barking seems likely to increase as housing developments in the east Thames corridor get off the ground, not forgetting that cancer and neuroscience specialties are already located at Oldchurch.
  The arguments for Harold Wood include, importantly, the fact that changes could be achieved much more quickly on the Harold Wood site because there are far fewer constraints and because the layout of existing buildings at Oldchurch mitigates against development.
  There is undoubtedly, for the same reason, the question of difference of cost. There is no doubt that existing facilities at Harold Wood are of a higher standard, and the backlog of maintenance costs is high at Oldchurch.
  The specialty reviews considered Oldchurch to be unsuitable for retention of cancer and neuroscience work, and clearly the local health authorities support development of these specialties at Harold Wood. It has been suggested to me that the London ambulance service favours Harold Wood if there is to be a single-site option.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford knows, the health authority met formally on 7 April to consider the outcome of its consultation. I understand that the local community health council has asked for further appraisal of the proposed location. At its meeting on 5 May, the health authority decided to stick with the proposals and, as the CHC maintained its opposition, the matter was referred to the regional health authority.
  I am told that there was considerable debate at the regional health authority meeting on 13 June, when a decision was taken to support the strategy of centralising services at Harold Wood, but with three qualifications: that appropriate alternative arrangements should be in place

  157
  before any closure of A and E facilities; that adequate arrangements should be made and implemented for road access to Harold Wood; and that adequate and appropriate interim arrangements should be in place for the redevelopment phase.
  I understand the strength of feeling about this matter and I confirm that if the matter comes to Ministers, what has been said this evening will be taken into account. I have no doubt that I can include my hon. Friends the
  158
  Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) in the concern that has been expressed about the matter.
  I cannot say more than that at present, as all hon. Members who have spoken will understand, but I recognise that this is a matter of deep concern.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve midnight.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans his Department has to place some of the legal work it currently performs out to competitive tendering; and in what areas.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has no plans at present to place the legal work which it currently performs out to competitive tendering.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to make an announcement on the provision of grants of probate in a bilingual format in Wales.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The necessary changes to the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987, which will allow bilingual forms, will be made before the end of this year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to be able to reply to the letter of 21 June from the hon. Member for South Hams and the letter from Brooke Blain Russell and Quinn, reference LB/DH/COAT40011, concerning the case of Mrs. Coates.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The hon. Member's letter was received in the Parliamentary Secretary's office on 23 June. A reply will be sent to the hon. Member on or before 21 July.

  Finance
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 393, what plans he has to order (a) increases in the fees for civil business and (b) cuts in his Department's spending to make up for the £52 million shortfall in predicted income from civil business for the current financial year;

  (2) what is the total sum that he is seeking to recover from individual circuits in the current financial year;

  (3) how much, by way of running costs, he is seeking to recover from each individual circuit in the current financial year;

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 11 July, Official Report, column 393, what effect the £52 million shortfall in projected income from civil business in the current financial year will have on (a) the circuit court building programme, (b) the magistrates courts building programme, (c) the number of hours sat by recorders and assistant recorders and (d) the number and the length of time for which courtrooms are not in use.
  2
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  We plan to meet the forecast shortfall by a combination of fee increases and expenditure cuts. A package of county court fee increases, worth an estimated £11 million this year, is in hand. We are monitoring changes in income and expenditure closely, and drawing up detailed plans to cover the remaining gap. It is too early to say what the extent of the expenditure cuts will be, where they will fall, or what the effects of them will be.

  Divorce Law
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to publish a White Paper on divorce law reform.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No decisions have been made about the proposals in the consultation paper. It is therefore too early to make plans for publication of a White Paper.

PRIME MINISTER

  Electricity and Water Companies
  Mr Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of ministerial exhortation on the pay and other benefits of directors of electricity and water companies in 1994.

  The Prime Minister
  I have made it clear on many occasions that directors should follow the lead that the Government have set for pay in the public sector.

  However, remuneration of directors is a matter for the judgment of companies and their shareholders, within the framework of established company law, and reflecting affordability and individual and corporate performance.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Chingford of 11 July,Official Report, column 674, which are the other countries involved in nuclear proliferation to which he referred in his answer.

  The Prime Minist
  Both Iraq and North Korea are countries of nuclear proliferation concern. Both states have breached their obligations under the International Atomic Energy Authority full scope safeguards agreements. We are also concerned by reports that Iran may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and we continue to emphasise the importance we attach to all states party abiding by their obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We also take very seriously reports that India, Israel and Pakistan may possess nuclear weapons. We urge these countries to allay suspicions about their nuclear programmes by acceding to the NPT as non-nuclear weapons states.

  G7 Summit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to the Exchequer of the G7 summit in Naples.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not possible to give the cost of this meeting at present. A figure will, however, be available in due course.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) of 11 July,Official Report, column 376, if he will set out the reasons why he will not make it his policy that all Government Departments provide substantive replies to questions rather than referring them to the Library.

  The Prime Minister
  It has long been the practice that right hon. and hon. Members should be directed to the original source of information which is detailed or long.

  Gordon McNally
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has held with Gordon McNally relating to Government procurement.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

TREASURY

  Staff Surveys
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what surveys of the views, opinions and attitudes of the staff of his Departments have been carried out in the last three years; and if he will place copies of the findings in the Library.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury, Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Central Statistical Office and the Royal Mint have conducted separate staff attitude surveys in the last three years; copies of the summaries of the findings have been placed in the Library.

  Tourism
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many visits to the United Kingdom were made by foreign tourists, and how many tourism trips abroad were made by United Kingdom residents, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information on this topic is published each month in "CSO First Release" titled "Overseas Travel and Tourism".

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the balance of trade in manufactured goods.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is available from the CSO database, which may be accessed by the House of Commons Library.

  Personal Investment
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses have applied to register with the Personal Investment Authority; and whether individual registration will be permitted.

  Mr. Nelson
  As at 18 July the Personal Investment Authority has received 3,666 applications for membership. The PIA has announced that it will maintain a register of 4
  member firms, appointed representatives of member firms and individuals appointed by member firms as financial advisers or company representatives. The PIA is considering whether it should enter into a direct contractual relationship with relevant individuals working for member firms.

  Home Income Schemes
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Securities and Investments Board concerning restitution proceedings under section 61 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to obtain compensation for investors who suffered from unsuitable advice on home income schemes.

  Mr. Nelson
  None.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times the former right hon. Member for Blaby, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, informed Parliament and its Committees that he was shadowing the deutschmark; and on what dates.

  Mr. Nelson
  While sterling has not been participating in formal exchange rate systems it has been the practice of successive Governments not to make public any targets for sterling's exchange rate.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Securities and Investments Board and the Personal Investment Authority concerning the impact of regulatory costs on the competitive edge of retail financial services and on the creation, continuity and expansion of small firms which offer independent financial advice.

  Mr. Nelson
  In order to give the Securities and Investments Board leave to recognise the Personal Investment Authority as a self-regulatory organisation, the Financial Services Act required the Treasury to consider whether the PIA's rules, regulations, statements of principle and codes of practice had, or were intended or likely to have, the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition to any significant extent. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 22 June at columns 208–9 on that point.

  In addition, the Securities and Investments Board is required by the Act to have satisfactory arrangements for taking account of the cost of complying with statements of principle, rules regulations and codes of practice which it proposes to make. The review of the role and functions of the board, "Making the Two Tier System Work", published in May 1993, extends this commitment to oversight of the cost effectiveness of the whole system of financial regulation under the Act. SIB intends shortly to set up a cost of compliance unit.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor meets the chairman of SIB from time to time to discuss these and other matters. I have no hesitation in confirming the Government's appreciation of the value of independent financial advice.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what commitments were made at the Naples economic summit of 8 to 10 July on the sale of part of the International Monetary Fund's gold reserves to assist debt relief for developing countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Decisions on the sale of the IMF's gold reserves require an 85 per cent. majority of the board of governors of the IMF. No commitments were therefore made at the Naples G7 economic summit.

  The G7 did agree to explore ways of mobilising more effectively the existing resources of the International Financial Institutions to respond to, among others, the needs of the poorest most indebted countries. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House on the Naples summit, sales of IMF gold could be one way of helping such countries.

  Travel to Work Expenses
  Mr. Denis MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider(a) taxing free employee car parking or (b) granting tax relief to users of public transport travelling to work.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestions.

  Financial Advisers
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the comparative fee scales chargeable for independent financial advisers as required by FIMBRA, IMRO, SIB and PIA; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  For a typical firm of independent financial advisers which has two registered individuals, a gross income of £75,000 does not act as a fund manager and does not handle clients' money or investments, the figures would be as in the table.

  £

  FIMBRA1

  1,260

  IMRO2

  2,633

  SIB2

  3,025

  1 1994–95 figures.

  2 1993–94 figures.

  The large majority of independent financial advisers are currently regulated by FIMBRA. The PIA has yet to settle its fees for 1994–95. Existing fee structures will be retained for that year. The PIA proposes to increase aggregate fees by 18 per cent. compared with the fees that would otherwise have been incurred by members in 1994–95.

  Public Transport (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Denis MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce tax relief on the purchase of new public transport vehicles.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Expenditure on the purchase of new public transport vehicles is already entitled to tax writing down allowances of 25 per cent. per annum on a reducing balance basis. This allows almost 70 per cent. of the cost to be written off over the first three to four years of the vehicle's life.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring; and if he will set out his targets to help small businesses in the next year.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's overall economic objective is to promote sustained economic growth, by establishing a stable microeconomic environment. Small businesses stand to benefit from such conditions.

  Particular Budget measures aimed at helping small businesses to become established and grow include:

  implementing a simpler and more efficient regime for assessing personal tax;

  proposals for aligning income tax and national insurance contributions;

  simplifying the audit requirement for most small companies; relief on capital gains where proceeds are reinvested in qualifying unquoted trading companies;

  extension of CGT retirement relief;

  reduction in employers' NICS;

  protection from costs of changes to statutory sick pay;

  halving of real increases in business rates for businesses in transition to higher rates;

  increasing the limits for small companies rate of corporation tax by 20 per cent;

  consultation on a new type of investment, a venture capital trust, which will channel savings specifically into unquoted trading companies;

  the introduction of a new scheme to replace the business expansion scheme, the enterprise investment scheme, to encourage direct equity investment in unquoted trading companies.

  In the recent competitiveness White Paper, the Government also announced a number of measures to combat late payment, a problem which has particularly affected small businesses in recent years.

  The Chancellor is also currently conducting, with the help of the Financial Secretary and myself, an examination of external finance to business to identify whether there are any market imperfections which may distort the flows of finance, and if there are, to consider how present arrangements can be improved.

  European Union
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government now intend to introduce legislation to implement the own resources decision agreed at the Edinburgh summit of December 1992 and announced in the last Gracious Speech.

  Sir John Cope
  I am not able to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on 4 May at column 242.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to publish the next Finance Bill before the Christmas recess.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government will publish the next Finance Bill as soon as possible after the Budget, but I cannot give a firm date at this stage.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the public sector borrowing requirement was accounted for by payments of unemployment benefit and redundancy payments in each of the years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Portillo
  The table sets out the latest data for payments of unemployment benefit and the PSBR in each of the years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94. No data are collected centrally on public sector redundancy payments.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Payments of unemployment benefit £ million

  1,642

  1,801

  1,786

  Public sector borrowing requirement

  13,879

  36,578

  45,937

  It is not meaningful to express total general Government expenditure or any of its components as a percentage of the PSBR since the PSBR is the difference between expenditure and receipts.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Channel 4 (Exhibition)
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to "Twelve Years of Channel 4" to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 14 November to Friday 18 November.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if the Commission will publish the results of the survey into child care in the parliamentary estate.

  Mr. Beith
  Copies of the report of the survey of potential demand for child care facilities are now available from the Vote Office. The report was prepared by RSL in February 1994 in consultation with the Department of Finance and Administration and the Administration Committee. The House of Commons Commission has agreed that it should be made available to assist the House in considering a child care policy.

  Gracious Speech
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list those occasions since 1979 when a Bill that has been announced in the Gracious Speech has not subsequently been introduced in that Session.

  Mr. Newton
  The Queen's Speeches at the beginning of the 1979–80 and 1980–81 Sessions included references to Bills which were not subsequently introduced in the same Session.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Conservative Party Funds
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his oral answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 144, whether the Conservative party will return the donation received from the Palumbo family trust if it proves to have been misappropriated.

  Mr. Newton
  This is not a matter for the Government.

WALES

  Welsh Economic Council
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the current membership of the Welsh Economic Council together with the cost associated with servicing it and remuneration or expenses paid to its members in respect of their duties.

  Mr. Redwood
  Current members of the Welsh Economic Council are:Professor John Andrews, Ms Noreen Bray, Professor Tim Congdon, Mr. Richard Cuthbertson, Mr. Nigel Guy, Mr. Carl Hadley, OBE, Mr. David Jenkins, MBE, Mr. Tony Lewis, Councillor John Pembridge, Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe, Mr. John Troth, OBE and Councillor Tom Williams.

  Membership carries no remuneration but there are arrangements for reimbursement of travelling expenses and any necessary subsistence or additional child care costs incurred, in line with Welsh Office rates. To date, a total of £138.60 has been paid in expenses to members. Other people are invited to attend individual meetings to bring their expertise to bear on the chosen subject.

  The cost associated with servicing the council, including members' expenses, will be met from within a budget of £9,921 for the current financial year.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which management consultants have been employed by his Department to assist in the assessment of applications for trust status; how much each was paid; and how many assessments they undertook, in each wave.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 1 November 1993 at column 51.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  "Good government" Initiative
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he can report with the "Good government" initiative.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Good government is crucial to development. This is now very widely accepted by aid recipient countries.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the overseas aid budget goes to east African countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Twelve per cent. of bilateral aid to developing countries went to east African countries in 1992–93.

  Gaza and Jericho
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the assistance being given by Britain and the European Union to support the Palestinian authority in Gaza and Jericho.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In January 1994 my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced our intention to give, over the three years 1994–95 to 1996–97, £70 million in aid for the Palestinians and in support of the peace process. Most of it will be channelled through the programmes of the European Community, but a significant proportion, currently £6 million a year, will go through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. The rest will be bilateral technical cooperation.

  On 8 July my right hon. Friend announced a further £5 million of bilateral assistance for the new Palestinian administration this year. This is made up of £3 million for immediate running costs and £2 million for increased technical assistance.

  Part of these funds will go to the Palestinian police force to help in the maintenance of law and order. Priorities for British assistance are good government—for example, legal infrastructure, elections and the police, finance and private enterprise, health and water.

  During the period 1994–98, the EC will provide an assistance package worth 500 mecu or £388 million, half of which will be grant and half loans through the European Investment Bank. Over 50 mecu has been approved this year, including 10 mecu for housing, 10 mecu for education, 10 mecu for police, 10 mecu for the rehabilitation of detainees, 8 mecu for credit institutions, 5 mecu for technical assistance, 1.5 mecu for statistical support and 1.5 mecu to support the elections. The EC is also contributing the UNRWA over 30 mecu or £23.5 million per annum for the period 1993–94. In April EU Foreign Ministers adopted a joint action plan in support of the middle east peace process, focusing on support for the police, elections and election monitoring and an international presence in the occupied territories.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what administrative impediments there are in the way of the giving of assistance by Britain and the European Union to the Palestinian authority in Gaza and Jericho; and how they are being resolved.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Some key appointments still remain to be made by the new Administration, which itself lacks administrative experience. Assistance with institution-building is a priority for the international community. In particular, the World bank has helped the Palestinians draw up a priority investment programme, and is providing technical assistance and feasibility studies through a special fund to which Britain contributed $2 million. The World bank is also administering a separate fund set up as a channel for bilateral contributions to the running costs of the Palestinian central administration. Discussions are taking place among donors aimed at the rapid establishment of a similar mechanism for funding police running costs.

  Both Britain and the EC are providing direct help in the development of administrative capacity and are contributing towards the Palestinians' immediate budgetary needs.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid is currently being given to Rwanda by(a) the European Union and (b) the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since the start of the crisis the British Government have committed over £11 million bilaterally in emergency aid to Rwandans, both inside Rwanda and as refugees in neighbouring countries. The European Union has committed over £34 million. Details of the substantial amounts provided bilaterally by other member states are not immediately available.

  World Summit for Children
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the 1994 United Nations Children's Fund report, "The Progress of Nations"; and to what extent he considers the report to be an accurate assessment of the objectives set out in the 1990 summit for the world's children and the progress made in achieving those objectives.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  "The Progress of Nations" is an interesting and encouraging account of real achievements by developing countries. It also highlights, however, those areas, such as the elimination of neonatal tetanus and improvements in child rights, where more work remains to be done.

  An assessment of progress towards achievement of the summit's goals is expected to be made in the mid-decade review next year.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has(a) to increase contributions to UNICEF and (b) to press for a greater proportion of UNICEF's expenditure to be spent on meeting the objectives set out in the 1990 summit for the world's children.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our core contribution to UNICEF in 1994–95 will be £8.5 million. In addition, we will continue to consider each UNICEF appeal for supplementary and other funding on its merits.

  A mid-decade review of progress on the world summit for children will be made to the United Nations Secretary-General. Progress on the summit's goals is a matter not simply of asking UNICEF to devote more resources but of ensuring a concerted effort by donors, non-governmental organisations, the private sector and, above all, national Governments, to achieve the goals.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the procedures for monitoring the achieving of the objectives set out at the summit for the world's children in 1990.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Agencies of the United Nations take the lead in monitoring performance in respect of ale goals established at the 1990 world summit for children. These agencies produce regular reports which measure progress in such areas as child health, basic education and child protection.

  Aid (Allocation)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account he takes of military spending by recipient countries in deciding the allocation of aid resources.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom actively supports the increased emphasis placed by the donor community, including the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, in their relations with developing countries on the implications for economic and social development of an excessive level of military expenditure. We have made it clear that we consider the setting of an appropriate level of military expenditure to be an important part of good government. It is one of the factors we take into account when deciding our allocations of bilateral aid.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for analysing contributions to overseas aid in terms of allocation to(a) basic education, (b) primary health care, (c) safe drinking water, (d) adequate sanitation, (e) family planning aid and (f) fair distribution of resources between different groups.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The ODA has recently introduced a computerised policy information marker system which records both expenditure and future commitments against the seven priority objectives of the aid programme outlined in the ODA's 1994 departmental report. Spending commitments in the areas listed in the question will not be shown separately under the PIMS system but will score against some of ODA's seven objectives, such as human development, including better education and health and children by choice and direct poverty reduction. PIMS data will be drawn upon in the series of biennial monitors' reports which will assess performance, including spending performance, against each of the objectives, and consider what lessons this may have for future strategy and allocation of resources.

HEALTH

  Capitation Targets
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give a table showing those district health authorities that are(a) over and (b) under their capitation targets indicating for 1994–95 (i) the percentage by which they diverge from their capitation and (ii) the cash amount that this represents of current budgets.

  Mr. Sackville
  A table summarising district health authority capitation positions as supplied by regional health authorities to the Department will be placed in the Library.

  Maternity Care
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each of the 14 former NHS regions and for special health authorities for each financial year from 1992–93 onwards(a) the total number of maternities, (b) the total number of birth episodes in the maternity hospital episode system and (c) the total number of birth episodes in the maternity hospital episode system which had a maternity tail.
  12
  Mr. Sackville
  The data are contained in the tables, the latest available being those for the year 1992–93. Maternities occurring in hospitals are shown for calendar year 1992; financial year data are not available.

  Table 1 Maternities in hospitals, 1992 Regional health authority of occurrence

  Number

  Northern

  39,450

  Yorkshire

  49,051

  Trent

  57,461

  East Anglian

  27,572

  North West Thames

  41,282

  North East Thames

  59,574

  South East Thames

  49,738

  South West Thames

  37,994

  Wessex

  36,609

  Oxford

  35,328

  South Western

  38,720

  West Midlands

  72,370

  Mersey

  30,729

  North Western

  56,890

  Special Health Authorities

  5,130

  ENGLAND

  637,898

  Source: Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys.

  Table 2 Maternity hospital episode statistics, 1992–93 Estimated numbers of birth records and birth records with maternity tails containing data

  RHA of treatment

  Birth records

  Birth records with maternity tails containing data

  Northern

  39,168

  35,960

  Yorkshire

  49,768

  25,852

  Trent

  52,652

  52,552

  East Anglian

  27,680

  21,308

  North West Thames

  31,460

  25,252

  North East Thames

  51,736

  51,736

  South East Thames

  49,528

  17,084

  South West Thames

  34,920

  34,732

  Wessex

  36,620

  36,620

  Oxford

  34,624

  32,484

  South Western

  38,556

  24,872

  West Midlands

  57,956

  57,956

  Mersey

  19,264

  15,752

  North Western

  53,900

  53,900

  Special Health Authorities

  5,132

  5,132

  ENGLAND

  582,964

  491,192

  Source: DH 25 per cent. births file.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of active registrations of capitation patients for dental treatment in(a) Trafford family health services authority and (b) City and East London family health services authority in the age categories (i) nought to two years, (ii) three to five years, (iii) six to nine years, (iv) 10 to 14 years, (v) 15 to 17 years and (vi) under 18 years for the period January to March; and what was the take-up rate for each age group per 100 local population.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table. Figures are available on a quarterly basis. Patients are free to register with a dentist outside the family health services area where they live. The take-up rates
  13
  shown in the table therefore reflect registrations with dentists in each family health services area and not registrations of each area's residents. Our recent publications, "Improving NHS Dentistry" and "An Oral

  Number of capitation patients registered and take-up rate per 100 local population1 at 31 March 1994 Trafford and City and East London family health services authorities

  Trafford family health services authority

  City and East London family health services authority

  Age group

  Number registered

  2Take-up rate per 100 local population

  Number registered

  2Take-up rate per 100 local population

  0 to 2

  3,284

  37

  1,980

  6

  3 to 5

  7,107

  82

  9,059

  31

  6 to 9

  10,620

  95

  16,343

  45

  10 to 14

  12,550

  94

  17,224

  45

  15 to 17

  5,873

  80

  7,854

  39

  Under 18

  39,434

  80

  52,460

  34

  Source: Dental Practice Board.

  1 Take-up rate per 100 local population is calculated using Office of Population Censuses and Surveys estimated resident population at mid-1992. The take-up rate per 100 local population is the number of children registered with a dentist in the FHSA area expressed as a percentage of the population. This is not a measure of the population of children in an FHSA area registering with a dentist because there is no restriction on patients registered with a dentist outside their FHSA area.

  2 Of the relevant age group.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 7 July,Official Report, column 318, what research her Department intends to commission to discover the proportion of the population who visit a dentist every six months.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The 1993 General Household Survey included questions about attendance patterns at the dentist.

  NHS Staff (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service staff took early retirement in each of the last three years; and what was the total cost to the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of people taking early retirement age 50 and over, except those retiring because of ill health, in each of the last three years is:

  Early retirement

  Year

  Number

  1991–92

  3,108

  1992–93

  4,033

  1993–94

  6,318

  National health service employers meet the full cost of paying these retirement benefits early. The total costs in each of the last three years are:

  Early retirement

  Year

  £

  1991–92

  19,222,371

  1992–93

  27,065,579

  1993–94

  42,522,384

  The cost of ill health retirement is not charged to NHS employers. The number of people taking ill health retirement in each of the last three years is:

  Year

  Number

  1991–92

  7,387

  1992–93

  8,381

  1993–94

  6,613

  14
  Health Strategy for England" aim further to improve children's oral health and address regional variations. Copies of these documents are available in the Library.

  Property Theft
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the value of NHS property stolen in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The reported losses of property, including cash, due to theft, fraud, arson, neglect of duty or gross carelessness are shown in the table.

  The figure relates to regional, district and special health authorities and family health services authorities. Figures for national health service trusts are not collected on a comparable basis.

  Reported losses to RHA, DHA and FHSA property

  Year

  £ thousands

  1988–89

  2,482

  1989–90

  2,667

  1990–91

  3,138

  1991–92

  4,995

  1992–93

  2,111

  Source: Annual receipts and payments returns of regional, district and special health authorities and family health services authorities.

  Community Care
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients discharged from hospital in(a) England, (b) each regional health authority and (c) each hospital or trust between January and March had a community care plan for their continuing health and social care needs agreed with them prior to discharge.

  Mr. Bowis
  The patients charter states that before a patient is discharged from hospital a decision should be made about any continuing health or social care needed. Local authorities and health authorities should work together to assess and respond to the needs of people who may need long term care and should agree local arrangements for monitoring hospital discharge.

  Skin Cancer
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the registration of skin cancers other than melanomas; and what improvements she proposes.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am advised that there is under-registration of skin cancers other than melanomas. Registration varies widely depending on the registry's access to out-patient records and general practitioners. The steering committee on cancer registration has recommended that the implications of improving registration of these cancers should be examined in a cost-benefit analysis. This is under consideration.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department is doing into malignant skin cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  Research is being undertaken by or commissioned by this Department, the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the National Radiological Protection Board. Current and recent research has looked at the knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of the public in relation to the risks of over-exposure to sun, underlying mechanisms of ultraviolet-induced skin damage and the benefits of screening for skin cancer.

  World Health Organisation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has made to the World Health Organisation about the quality of its work in emergency situations in developing countries.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Afairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), gave him on 13 July at column 636.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has about the quality of the work of the World Health Organisation in emergency situations in sub-Saharan Africa; and what proposals she has to improve the quality of her monitoring of the activities of the World Health Organisation in developing countries.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), gave him on 4 July at column 77.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the instructions which are given to national health service trusts for calculating hospital charges to private patients; and what surpluses these are expected to achieve.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 29 June at col 587. No targets have been set for the amounts to be raised from treating private patients.
  16
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the extent to which national health service trusts can undertake private work;

  (2) what controls and reporting mechanisms there are within national health service trusts to ensure that the treatment of national health service patients is not adversely affected by the use of staff and resources for private patient treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service trusts may make accommodation and services available for private patients providing there is no significant interference with the performance of the trust of its obligations under NHS contracts. This statutory requirement prevents NHS patients from being disadvantaged by private practice within the health service. It is for local management to ensure that these statutory obligations are met.

  Mr. Graham Smith
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why Mr. Graham Smith was not recommended for reappointment as chairman of Doncaster health authority; and at what level the decision was taken.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Mr. Graham Smith's term of office expired on 31 March 1994. The decision not to offer a further term was made by Ministers, on advice.

  Breast Disease
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures the Government are taking to ensure that all patients with breast cancer are treated and cared for by expert and experienced staff with specific skills in the management of breast cancer;

  (2) what steps she is taking to define what constitutes a critical mass of patients to be seen and cared for in breast clinics;

  (3) what plans she has to ensure that patients suffering from breast cancer are seen only by specialist surgeons experienced in the management and treatment of breast cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  The expert advisory group on cancer consultative document entitled "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services", copies of which are available in the Library, recommends that professional bodies should urgently develop guidelines on the level of expertise and support required to manage the commoner cancers including breast cancer. Professional bodies are currently being consulted on the group's recommendations.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the current number of specialist breast care nurses to ensure that all patients have access to their skills and support in the physical and psychological effects of the disease and treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  The expert advisory group on cancer's consultative document entitled "A policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services", copies of which are available in the Library, recommends that the benefits of specialised care are available to all cancer patients. It is for individual health authorities to decide what staff to employ in the light of local needs and priorities.
  17
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she has planned to lessen variations in breast cancer deaths occurring within a single regional health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The expert advisory group on cancer's consultative document entitled "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services", copies of which are available in the Library, makes a number of proposals to improve cancer care. In particular it recommends that all patients should have access to a uniformly high quality of care wherever they may live to ensure the maximum possible cure rates and best quality of life. Decisions on the group's proposals will be made when the consultation exercise has been completed.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she is taking to expand services to care for the number of patients with breast disease in whom curative treatment is not appropriate and who require continuing care and support.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government are continuing to encourage the development of palliative care in all settings to ensure that patients receive sensitive care and relief from pain and other distressing symptoms. Regional health authorities have been asked to ensure that an appropriate level of palliative care services for terminally ill people is commissioned through service contracts.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to provide a confidential, appropriate and comprehensive prosthetic service for patients who have had breast surgery.

  Mr. Sackville
  The arrangements for the supply of breast prostheses to women who have suffered a mastectomy are through the hospital service. Where they are prescribed through the hospital consultant they are supplied and fitted free. The Department of Health is providing section 64 project funds for a survey, conducted by the charity Breast Cancer Care, into the experience of women fitted with a prosthesis. Their findings will be studied by the Department.

  Family Health Services Appeal Unit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the family health services appeal unit uses the information it receives through identifying practitioners who have persistently been found to be in breach of the terms of service to monitor and improve services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Decisions of the director of the family health services appeal unit are notified to family health services authorities who are responsible for monitoring and improving family health services in their localities. The director may also inform the relevant professional regulatory body of his decision in a particularly serious case.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time since 1 April 1992 taken by the family health services appeal unit(a) from the time of appeal to reach a decision concerning a breach of the terms of service, (b) from the time of the receipt of the request to reach a decision concerning waiving of time limits, (c)to arrange an appeal hearing from the time of receipt of appeal, when the appeal is made by the complainant, (d) to
  18
  arrange an appeal hearing, from the time of receipt of appeal, when a practitioner has appealed against a withholding and (e) to notify the result of an appeal hearing, after the date of the hearing.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what performance standards the family health services appeal unit has.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Officials are discussing the development of performance standards with the new director of the unit.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the family health services appeal unit's most recent annual report was made available to the public.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In March 1994.

  National Skin Bank
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to set up a national skin bank; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have recently asked the United Kingdom Transplant Support Services Authority to commission a review of the current arrangements for the retrieval, storage and use of tissue, including skin, in the United Kingdom. Once the findings are complete we will give careful consideration to what tissue banking arrangements will be needed for the future.

  Cancer Services
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the current number of non-surgical oncologists in line with the Expert Advisory Group on Cancer consultative document entitled "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services".

  Mr. Sackville
  We are currently consulting on the proposals contained within the consultation document; final decisions are still some months away. We will be looking at manpower issues, but any changes required will be phased gradually over a number of years to allow for the required training of any additional staff and necessary changes to the organisation of cancer provision.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that patients will receive a firm diagnosis within a minimun of four weeks of a referral by their general practitioner to a hospital providing on-site comprehensive histology, cytology and radiography services.

  Mr. Sackville
  We recognise the fears and anxiety of patients who are concerned that they may have cancer and we consider it unacceptable for patients to wait an undue period for their results. In many places patients are already seen promptly. The expert advisory group on cancer's consultative document entitled "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services", copies of which are available in the Library, identifies the need to ensure appropriate referral from general practitioners and for patients to be seen by appropriately trained multidisciplinary teams which should ensure patients are seen
  19
  more quickly. Commissioning authorities, hospitals and general practitioners are being consulted on the group's recommendations.

  Sight Tests
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population was eligible for free NHS eye examinations in each of the last five financial years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Such estimates are not available.

  Revenue Resource Allocation
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the share of the revenue resource allocation 1994–95, based on population adjusted for age and standardised mortality ratio and the weighted capitation target, (b) the actual allocation of the revenue resource allocation 1994–95 made, in pound sterling, as of April 1994, (c) the amounts in pound sterling, for London weighting market forces factors and Thames factor and other sums specivically allocated, (d) the amounts for additional moneys included in the actual allocations to region and the district health authorities, which are not weighted capitation target funded and (e) the contigency sums held back by the region or other top-sliced amounts not included in the allocation budgets to district health authorities for (i) each of the four Thames regional health authorities, (ii) each district health authorities in Greater London and (iii) England; and what was the method of sub-regional allocation of the four Thames regional health authorities.

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

  Mental Health Act 1983
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce legislation to reform the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have been consulting on the need to amend section 18 of the Act relating to the return to hospital of detained patients who are absent without leave. We have also put forward proposals to amend the Act on extended leave and supervised discharge and will do so when parliamentary time permits.

  General Practitioner Fundholders
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to extend the scope of GP fund holding; and whether this requires primary legislation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Ministers will be reviewing the options for expanding and developing the fundholding scheme. Revisions to the scope of the list of goods and services for fundholding would not require primary legislation.

  Burns Unit, Billericay
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 20 June,Official Report, column 28, if she is now in a position to announce when she will make a decision on the proposal to move the burns unit from Billericay to Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford; and if she will make a statement.
  20
  Mr. Sackville
  The proposals have been referred to Ministers by the regional health authority, and a decision will be made in due course.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she now expects the task force on diabetes to report; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The St. Vincent joint task force for diabetes is expected to offer initial advice to the Department of Health and the British Diabetic Association later this year on the implementation of the St. Vincent declaration. Further discussions are then expected to take place to identify possible courses of action and priorities.

  Mr. John Sheppard
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will call for a report on the death of Mr. John Sheppard and the consequent actions of Brent council.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has been provided with information about the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. John Sheppard. I understand that Brent social services and housing departments have already taken steps to improve procedures to check on people who have social services discontinued or who accumulate large rent arrears.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of spending there has been on extra-contractual referrals in each region in each quarter for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Health Service Executive quarterly monitoring system collects information by region on their actual spend on extra contractual referrals compared with planned levels of spend. This information is not audited and is only suitable for management purposes.

  Homoeopathy, Liverpool
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about the proposed closure of the homoeopathic service at Mossley Hill hospital in Liverpool.

  Mr. Sackville
  The hon. Member tabled an early day motion on 13 July, and the Department has received one letter from the North West Friends of Homoeopathy. North Mersey Community national health service trust is temporarily closing its homoeopathy in-patient unit; the hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. R. James, chairman of the trust, for further details.

  Departmental Staff (Travel Costs)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 12 July,Official Report, column 527, what is the annual cost of travel for Department of Health and NHS Executive staff between Leeds and London.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 12 July at column 527.

  Steroids
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she has taken to control the prescribing of prednisolone steroids; what information she has on the possible harmful side-effects of this drug; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The side-effects of prednisolone and other corticosteroids are well recognised. Information on the side-effects are widely available in the published literature including the product data sheets, which are authorised by the licensing authority and the British National Formulary which the Department sends free to all prescribers. Information on suspected adverse reactions is also provided to the Medicines Control Agency through the yellow card scheme for spontaneous reporting. Steroid treatment cards are routinely issued to patients which give clear guidance on the precautions to be taken and details of the prescribed drug, including dosage and duration of treatment.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Disposable Products
  Dame Angela Rumbold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy in respect of pre-stamping disposable products.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have it in mind to make use of the powers proposed by clauses 1–4 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, once enacted, to amend the Weights and Measures Act 1985 so as to make pre-stamping lawful in defined circumstances and subject to prescribed conditions.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what role will be played by his Department in any consultation on disability; and what plans he has to publish a consultation paper on countering unfair discrimination against disabled people in trade and industry matters.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People announced the publication of a consultation document on 15 July. My Department contributed to its preparation. I welcome the publication of this document and would encourage everyone with an interest in these issues, especially disabled people themselves, to let us have their views.

  Gas
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he still intends to introduce legislation to introduce competition to the domestic gas supply market as stated in paragraph 6 of the joint DTI/Ofgas consultative document, "Competition and Choice in the Gas Market"; and what form that legislation will take.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government's policy, and the form of the legislation proposed, continue to be as described in the text referred to by the hon. Member.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which sections of the Gas Act 1986 require modification to establish competition in the domestic gas supply market.
  22
  Mr. Eggar
  In the light of responses to the recent consultation on competition and choice in the gas market, my Department is preparing instructions on the legislative changes which will provide the basis for the new regulatory system. Several provisions of the Gas Act 1986 are likely to require modification. The precise sections will be identified in the process of the preparation of the instructions, and the subsequent consideration of them by Parliamentary Counsel.

  ECGD
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much of the debt relief given to Jordan by the United Kingdom has been granted on past Export Credits Guarantee Department credits for defence equipment; and under which departmental budget such costs were carried.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom along with other official creditors in the Paris Club has agreed to reschedule Jordan's debts on three occasions. These agreements include debts of £255 million in respect of defence sales covered by ECGD. They provide for the debts to be repaid in full by Jordan, with interests being charged at a commercial rate.

  The claims paid by ECGD in respect of these rescheduled debts are met from the ECGD vote for the relevant year. They are also reflected in ECGD's published trading accounts.

  Coal Industry Act 1994
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the purpose of the reception to mark the Royal Assent to the Coal Industry Act 1994 on 19 July; who has been invited to this event; and what is its total cost.

  Mr. Eggar
  The reception on 19 July is to mark the Royal Assent to the Coal Industry Act 1994 and to thank many of those who have been involved in its passage. Those invited include hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee, including the hon. Gentleman, and others who worked on the Bill. The total cost is expected to be around £1,000.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which of the options contained in the Green Paper on the future of postal services would require paving legislation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Paving legislation would be required for option 2, a 100 per cent. share sale of Royal Mail, and for option 3, joint ownership by Government, the public and employees, but not for option 1, commercial freedom within the public sector.

  Gas Industry Regulation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he plans to introduce legislation in the next parliamentary Session to regulate the gas industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government intend, subject to the availability of parliamentary time, to introduce legislation to provide the basis for the new regulatory system to come into operation by April 1996. The legislative programme
  23
  for the next Session has not been finalised, so I cannot say at this stage whether time will be found for a Gas Bill in 1994–95.

  Cable Television
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how he regulates cable television companies to ensure that cable laying does not cause serious disruption to other local services and to local residents;

  (2) what monitoring his Department carries out of fracturing of gas, water or electricity mains and other serious damage by cabling companies; and if he will publish a list of such incidents.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Under the terms of their telecommunications licences, cable operators are required to carry out their street works in a responsible manner, to maintain effective liaison with other statutory undertakers, and to adhere to all relevant street works legislation. Street works are subject to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and its associated regulations. The Act imposes a duty on the cable operator to co-operate with the local highway authority in the interests of safety, to minimise the inconvenience to persons using the street and to protect the structure of the street and the integrity of apparatus in it. The Act makes an undertaker liable to pay compensation for damage caused to another undertaker's apparatus.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the procedure for reviewing the terms of a franchise awarded to companies laying cables for television.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Franchises are awarded to cable television companies by the Independent Television Commission, which also has responsibility for those franchises awarded by its predecessor, the Cable Authority. All franchisees are required to be licensed under both broadcasting and telecommunications legislation. Review of the terms of broadcasting licences for cable programme services is a matter for the ITC. Responsibility for review of the terms of a telecommunications licence governing the running of a telecommunications system rests with the Office of Telecommunications. Review of the terms governing the installation of that system are for DTI to consider.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out for each year from 1985–86 to 1993–94(a) the number of offers made for regional, selective assistance, (b) the value of the offers and (c) the number of requests for regional selective assistance refused.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: The number and value of offers made and the number of requests refused for regional selective assistance in England from 1985–1986 to 1992–93 is set out in the table. Information on regional selective assistance for 1993–94 is not yet available.

  Offers Made

  Number

  Value £ million

  Number of applications rejected

  1985–86

  720

  110.9

  146

  1986–87

  1,025

  122.2

  102

  1987–88

  1,553

  164.1

  125

  24

  Offers Made

  Number

  Value £ million

  Number of applications rejected

  1988–89

  1,261

  120.3

  134

  1989–90

  1,180

  101.5

  132

  1990–91

  906

  98.9

  92

  1991–92

  787

  89.4

  154

  1992–93

  834

  94.9

  146

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Film Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to be able to announce the results of his recent consultations about his policy with regard to the British film industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  During the consultation round, and subsequently, I have received numerous proposals aimed at increasing the level of private investment in British film production. Some of the issues raised are not straightforward, and affect the interests of other Departments. I shall make an announcement as soon as practicable.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what plans he has to extend the current concessions in television licence fees to partially blind people; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to give further concessions in the television licence fee for blind people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government have no plans to increase the current reduction in the television licence fee for registered blind people, or to introduce a similar concession for registered partially sighted people.

  Cross-media Ownership
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to introduce legislation in the next parliamentary Session to reform the rules covering cross-media ownership.

  Mr. Brooke
  Ministers will be considering a report reviewing the cross-media ownership rules shortly. An announcement about the outcome of the review, including any legislative implications, is likely in the autumn.

  Tourism
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much was earned by the tourism industry in the United Kingdom from foreign tourists; and how much was spent by United Kingdom residents on tourism abroad, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on this topic is published each month in "CSO First Release" titled "Overseas Travel and Tourism".

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Organisation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what response the Commissioners have made to the Archbishops Commission on the Organisation of the Church of England.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners have submitted a factual note to the Turnbull commission tracing the way in which the Commissioners' functions have developed through the years. Further evidence may be submitted in due course. The First Church Commissioner, Sir Michael Colman, is a member of the Turnbull commission and has submitted his own evidence.

  Official Accommodation
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is his estimate of the current annual cost of official accommodation for bishops and archbishops.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners have budgeted £2.1 million in 1994 for the upkeep of the 45 official residence of diocesan bishops and the two archbishops, with a further £0.7 million for possible capital works. The cost of maintaining the 69 houses occupied by suffragan bishops is estimated at £0.4 million, though these costs are shared equally with dioceses.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made on the outcome of the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development talks on the future of Sudan and on the desirability of a new international initiative.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We support the IGADD initiative which is still continuing. The third round of talks between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army factions is due on 18 July in Nairobi.

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the United Nations is taking in Burundi to stop(a) the operators of radio stations and (b) political parties promoting genocidal activity.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of reports of radio stations in Burundi inciting Burundians to inter-tribal violence. The United Nations has yet to confirm these reports, but if such activities were found to be taking place it would strongly condemn them and call for them to cease forthwith as it has done in the case of Rwanda.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about extrajudicial killings on a tribal basis in Bujumbura in Burundi; and what representations are being made and what actions are being taken by international organisations.
  26
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are concerned at reports that tribal killings may have taken place in Bujumbura and other areas of Burundi. The United Nations Secretary-General will advise on appropriate action if these reports are confirmed by the United Nations or the Organisation of African Unity presence in Burundi.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Australian and Canadian high commissions concerning their use of enforced subject access, in the manner described in the 10th report of the Data Protection Registrar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Procedures used by other Governments to satisfy themselves as to the suitability of prospective immigrants from the United Kingdom are a matter for them—provided, of course, that they are consistent with British law.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate measures to prevent the Government of Rwanda taking over the presidency of the United Nations Security Council in September.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Consultations are already in train over the question of Rwanda's presidency of the Council, which has to be considered in the light of the evolving situation in Rwanda.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase his logistical support to the United Nations operation in Rwanda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in discussion with the United Nations about UNAMIR's continuing requirement for logistic support.

  Operation Turquoise
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Nations is on schedule to take over responsibility from the French Government's Operation Turquoise at the end of this month; how many troops have been committed; and whether the necessary logistical support has been pledged.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The UN is continuing to strengthen UNAMIR pursuant to its mandate under SCR 918. UNIMAR currently consists of 328 troops, including an advance contingent of 206 Ghanaian troops who arrived in Kigali on 6 July, a Canadian signals unit and a Bangladeshi company as well as 250 military observers from a wide range of countries.

  Canada, Senegal, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia and Tunisia have pledged further troops. The UN has received offers of logistical support from a number of countries, including the United States, South Africa and the United Kingdom.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for naturalisation as British Dependent Territories citizens on
  27
  the basis of a connection with Hong Kong have been (a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused in 1993 and 1994 to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  1993

  11994

  Applications received

  12,280

  9,435

  Applications granted

  2,332

  1,954

  Applications refused

  137

  93

  Outstanding

  9,739

  7,388

  1 First six months.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British Dependent Territories citizens from Hong Kong have applied for and been granted the status of British national, overseas, in 1993 and 1994 to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  1993

  11994

  Applications received

  523,767

  496,613

  Applications granted

  471,379

  400,844

  Outstanding

  52,388

  95,769

  1 First six months.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the remit of the United Nations tribunal on war crimes in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under Security Council Resolution 827 which established the war crimes tribunal for former Yugoslavia, the tribunal has power to prosecute and try persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in former Yugoslavia since 1991.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who are the judges who have been appointed to the United Nations tribunal on war crimes in the former Yugoslavia; and what is the British contribution to the work of the tribunal.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 7 July at column 288 for the details of the judges of the tribunal. The United Kingdom has submitted four batches of evidence of alleged atrocities to the United Nations Commission of Experts, which has passed its findings to the tribunal. The United Kingdom will submit any further evidence direct to the tribunal. The United Kingdom will contribute funding to the tribunal through its share of the United Nations regular budget which amounts to 5.02 per cent. of the costs. We have also contributed £20,000 worth of computer and camera equipment to the prosecutor's office.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many explanatory statements, related to entry clearance appeals, were 28
  awaiting typing at each post in the Indian sub-continent, in Manila, Kingston, Bangkok, Lagos and Accra at the latest available date; how many staff are employed, both full time and part time, to type statements; and when he expects the backlogs to be cleared.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I am seeking the information requested.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long a person, applying for entry clearance for settlement at the British post in(a) Manila, (b) Accra, (c) Lagos, (d) Kingston, (e) Nicosia, (f) Cairo, (g) Bangkok, (h) Rabat and (i) each post in each country of the Indian sub-continent on 31 March or the latest convenient date, could expect to wait for (i) interview, (ii) referral of the case to the Home Office and the requested information being received by the post, (iii) decisions and (iv) an explanatory statement prepared by the post in the event of an appeal against a refusal to be despatched to the immigration appellate authorities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I am seeking the information requested.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for (1) single entry and (2) multiple entry visit visas were(a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused at each post in the Indian subcontinent, Ghana, Nigeria, the Philippines and Jamaica in each quarter of 1993 and the first quarter of 1994; and what was the delay between application and interview for those whose applications were felt to need a second or long interview at each of the above posts in (i) June 1993, (ii) January 1994 and (iii) June 1994 or the nearest available date.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The total number of single and multiple visa applications received, granted and refused in 1993 is as follows:

  Applications 1993

  Applied for

  Issued

  Refused

  Accra

  Single

  10,466

  6,364

  3,883

  Multiple

  4,710

  4,354

  46

  Bombay

  Single

  16,354

  13,366

  2,774

  Multiple

  17,268

  16,752

  390

  Islamabad

  Single

  25,937

  18,730

  6,561

  Multiple

  8,313

  6,568

  81

  Karachi

  Single

  15,673

  12,601

  1,955

  Multiple

  8,150

  7,697

  174

  Kaduna

  Single

  4,307

  2,649

  1,139

  Multiple

  1,936

  1,808

  35

  Manila

  Single

  9,980

  8,928

  812

  Multiple

  2,508

  2,329

  87

  Kingston

  Single

  2,272

  1,594

  688

  Multiple

  148

  147

  1

  29

  Applied for

  Issued

  Refused

  Lagos

  Single

  28,351

  15,721

  8,927

  Multiple

  14,266

  12,697

  481

  Madras

  Single

  4,754

  4,568

  182

  Multiple

  4,344

  4,312

  19

  New Delhi

  Single

  22,576

  18,097

  3,090

  Multiple

  12,558

  12,053

  102

  Dhaka

  Single

  10,406

  7,125

  3,187

  Multiple

  3,887

  3,887

  —

  Calcutta

  Single

  3,259

  3,048

  186

  Multiple

  3,264

  3,155

  38

  I am seeking the other information requested.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visa applications from residents of the republics of the former Soviet Union have been granted since April 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Entry clearances granted by British diplomatic and consular posts in the former Soviet Union were:

  1992-49,732

  1993-69,758

  Precise information on how many of these were granted to residents of the FSU is not available, but no doubt the great majority would have been.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for entry clearance as(a) wives, (b) husbands, (c) fiancés, (d) fiancées in each British post in all countries for which figures are available apart from those of the Indian subcontinent were (i) granted and (ii) refused in each quarter since January 1993; how many such applications in each category, at each post and in each quarter were refused (1) wholly and (2) partly because of the primary purpose rule; what was the refusal rate at each post; and what percentage of those refusals were (x) wholly and (y) partly on primary purpose grounds.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information could be provided in the form requested only at disproportionate cost. However, in 1993 a total of 15,228 entry clearances for settlement were issued and 2,759 refused by posts other than those in the Indian sub-continent.

  Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the discrepancies in eligibility of the United Kingdom's representatives to the Committee of the Regions from Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England, to claim re-imbursement of expenses incurred by themselves in pursuance of their duties; and what proposals he has to remove those discrepancies.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are not aware of any such discrepancies. All United Kingdom full members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions will be entitled to the same allowances for meetings they attend in Brussels on official Committee of the Regions business.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the name of the Malaysian Defence Minister who visited the United Kingdom during the period 4 to 11 July; and which United Kingdom officials or Ministers he met or communicated with.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During a private visit to the United Kingdom from 29 June to 3 July the Malaysian Defence Minister, Dato Sri Najib, called on my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Malaysian Prime Minister last visited the United Kingdom; and which United Kingdom officials or Ministers he communicated with.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Malaysian Prime Minister was last in the United Kingdom in October 1993 on a private visit. The Prime Minister sent a message to him during his stay.

  Tiger Conservation Schemes
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support is being provided by his Department for tiger conservation schemes.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of 18 April 1994 at column 376. In recognition of the fact that tigers are endangered, we would be prepared to consider providing support for tiger conservation. At the United Kingdom's instigation, European Environment Ministers issued a statement in June expressing concern about pressure on tiger populations, condemning the illegal trade in tiger products and undertaking to be particularly vigilant in enforcing CITES for this species.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what legal authority the Governor of St. Helena was acting in excluding a German national, Mr. Timmreck, from St. Helena; and what assessment he has made of the effect of United Kingdom obligations under the human rights convention.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The acting governor made an exclusion order against the German national, Mr. Timmreck, in exercise of the power vested in him by section 10(1) of the Immigration Ordinance 1972. We are satisfied that the action of the acting governor in this case is entirely consistent with the United Kingdom's international human rights obligations.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 427, what plans he has to arrange for a United Kingdom Member of the European Parliament to look after the interests of Gibraltar in the Parliament.
  31
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A number of United Kingdom MEPs have, without prompting from us, taken an active interest in Gibraltar's affairs and ensured that Gibraltarian concerns have been aired in the European Parliament.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Brian Charrington
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement regarding the case of Mr. Brian Charrington.

  The Attorney-General
  The case of Mr. Brian Charrington was at all stages conducted by HM Customs and Excise which is an independent prosecuting authority. The decision to withdraw the case was taken entirely by the Commissioners on the advice of prosecuting counsel. I refer the hon. Member to the detailed answers that I gave on 26 January at column 246 to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and on 7 February at column 13 to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to visit the Crown Prosecution Service offices in greater Manchester to discuss the work of that office.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General has no plans at present to visit the North West area of the Crown Prosecution Service, of which Greater Manchester is a part. However, I visited the Crown Prosecution Service offices in Manchester on 29 and 30 June 1994.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans his Department has to place some of the legal work it currently performs out to competitive tendering; and in what areas.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on 8 July 1994,Official Report, column 337, I have no present plans for competitive tendering of legal work in the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office but this is one of the possibilities to be considered in the prior options studies. The legal services provided by the Treasury Solicitor's Department are subject to market testing by client departments. In such cases the Treasury Solicitor may participate in competitive tendering for work that was previously placed with him.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mr. Charles McGhee
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what charges have been brought against Mr. Charles McGhee, prisoner 2170, Her Majesty's prison Parkhurst; with what result; and for what reasons he is still on the punishment wing.

  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.
  32
  Letter from Philippa Drew to Mr. Chris Mullin, dated 18 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about what charges have been brought against Mr. Charles McGhee at Parkhurst prison, their results and for what reasons he is still on the punishment wing.
  Mr. McGhee is a difficult prisoner who has been subject to forty reports, twelve of which are for assaults on staff. Given his behaviour, the governor at Parkhurst placed Mr. McGhee in the segregation unit, in the interests of continuing the smooth operation of the prison. The governor has discussed with Mr. McGhee the possibility of him being placed on normal location but Mr. McGhee is not prepared to improve his conduct.
  Since his arrival at Parkhurst, Mr. McGhee has not had any charges placed against him.

  Organised Crime, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of murders within the Greater London area that are related to organised crime or protection rackets in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  No such estimates have been made.

  EU Borders Centre
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will place in the Library reports received by the Department from the clearing house centre for information discussion and exchange on the crossing of borders and immigration.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Documents received by the Home Office from the centre for information, discussion and exchange on the crossing of borders and immigration will be made available for parliamentary scrutiny where they fall within the criteria for deposit in accordance with the Government's proposed scrutiny arrangements for title VI matters.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of staff work full time or part time for the centre for information, discussion and exchange on the crossing of borders and immigration.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The centre for information, discussion and exchange on the crossing of borders and immigration is an intergovernmental working group established under the third pillar of the treaty on European Union. It has no staff of its own but receives administrative support from the Council Secretariat.

  Prison Documents (Foreign Languages)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the official foreign language prison documents available to foreign prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales.

  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.
  33
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 18 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the official foreign language documents that are available to foreign prisoners being held in prisons in England and Wales.

  The foreign language documents issued centrally by the Prison Service are:

  The Prisoners' Information Pack

  The Foreign Prisoners' Resource Pack

  The Race Relations Policy Statement

  Custody, Care and Justice: The way ahead for the Prison Service in England and Wales

  How to make a request or a complaint

  Information on the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984.

  Other foreign language documents may also have been produced locally by establishments or by other agencies, but details are not kept centrally.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Data Protection Registrar about identity cards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There have been no discussions with the Data Protection Registrar on identity cards. The question of a national identity card scheme is kept under review. If a decision was made to introduce a scheme there would be a full consultation exercise.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with other Government Departments regarding the possible introduction of personal identifiers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a Question from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 15 July at column 778.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with private sector companies regarding the introduction of identity cards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Some of the technical issues concerning identity cards have arisen in discussions which officials have had with private sector companies in the context of a wider study of smartcard applications in Government. If we decided to pursue the idea of an identity card scheme there would be a full consultation exercise.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about the fraudulent use of identity cards in those EC countries where they are compulsory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office holds no information about the fraudulent use of identity cards in European Union countries. Information is compiled by the Immigration Service about the detected incidences of fraudulent use of identity cards at the point of entry to the United Kingdom.

  In 1993 there were 60 recorded instances of the attempted fraudulent use of an identity card of the six European Union countries which have a compulsory identity card scheme.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about the costs of introducing an identity card scheme; and if he will make a statement.
  34
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 16 May 1994 at column 338.

  Police Women
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of posts in each rank of the poiice are held by women.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  As at 30 April 1994

  Rank

  Number of female officers

  Percentage of female officers

  Deputy chief constable

  1

  2.0

  Assistant chief constable

  4

  3.5

  Chief superintendent

  11

  2.5

  Superintendent

  32

  2.5

  Chief inspector

  57

  2.7

  Inspector

  251

  3.7

  Sergeant

  1,090

  5.5

  Constables

  15,524

  16.0

  Total

  16,970

  13.3

  Research Department
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the titles together with dates of completion of all reports compiled since 1991, and the titles and projected completion dates of those currently being compiled, by the Home Office research department.

  Mr. Howard
  It is the policy of the Department to publish the results of research undertaken by the research and planning unit. Projects undertaken in 1993–94 are all in the programme for that year, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. The 1994–95 programme will be published shortly.

  The precise form and publication of future reports are not settled in advance.

  The next reports we expect to publish are:

  Intensive Probation in England and Wales:

  An evaluation Policing low-level disorder: Police use of Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

  Explaining Reconviction Rates.

  Various British Crime reports.

  Improving bail decisions.

  Public interest case assessment schemes.

  Case screening by the Crown Prosecution Service: How and why cases are terminated.

  Theft of firearms.

  A survey of satisfaction with Group 4's prisoner escort service.

  Practitioners' views of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act.

  The settlement of refugees.

  Study of Vietnamese refugees.

  Neighbourhood Watch.

  Probation Motor Projects.

  Survey of Prison Staff.

  Equal Opportunities and the Fire Service.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the independent review tribunal on miscarriages of justice to be introduced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Legislation will be necessary before the proposed criminal cases review authority can be
  35
  established. I cannot at present say when this legislation will be introduced, but my hope is that this will be at the earliest practicable date.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps are being taken to extend his powers to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal.

  Mr. Maclean
  After the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill has received Royal Assent, my right hon. and learned Friend intends to make an order extending the scope of the Attorney-General's power so as to include cases of serious fraud.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rights the spouse of a European economic area national exercising free movement rights in the United Kingdom may exercise before leaving the United Kingdom when he or she has been refused leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The spouse of a European economic area national who is exercising rights of residence in the United Kingdom under the EC treaty is entitled to reside here with the EEA national. However, we do not accept that a spouse who is party to a marriage of convenience has any right to benefit from Community law on free movement and residence.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been put in place or are being put in place to give effect to the right of businesses based in another member state of the European Union under article 59 of the EC treaty to send a work force to complete a contract in the United Kingdom when the work force includes third country nationals who are employees of the business.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None, but we keep the situation under review in the light of judgments of the European Court of Justice.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 May,Official

  EEA national

  Non-EEA national

  Outcome of application

  Danish

  1

  Croatian

  1

  Granted

  1

  Dutch

  1

  Malaysian

  1

  Granted

  1

  French

  4

  Algerian

  1

  Granted

  1

  Egyptian

  1

  Granted

  1

  Moroccan

  1

  Granted

  1

  Nigerian

  1

  Granted

  1

  German

  2

  Brazilian

  1

  Granted

  1

  Ghanaian

  1

  Granted

  1

  Irish

  22

  Algerian

  2

  Granted

  2

  Ghanaian

  2

  Granted

  2

  Iranian

  1

  Refused

  1

  Malaysian

  1

  Granted

  1

  Moroccan

  5

  Granted

  3

  Refused

  2

  Nigerian

  7

  Granted

  6

  Refused

  1

  Filipino

  1

  Granted

  1

  Turkish

  2

  Granted

  2

  Yugoslavian

  1

  Granted

  1

  Italian

  2

  Nigerian

  2

  Granted

  2

  36
  Report, column 253, in respect of the 29 entry clearance applications which have been made at British diplomatic posts abroad by persons who are not European economic area nationals and who have sought entry as family members of British citizens who have exercised treaty rights in another member state, what was the average processing time of these applications; how many were granted; and how many were refused.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Of these 29 entry clearance applications, 22 were granted and seven refused.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, in respect of the European economic area, non-European economic area national family members of European economic area nationals who were refused entry clearance or leave to remain in the United Kingdom since March 1993, and the grounds on which the refusals were based.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information is available only in respect of after entry applications for residence documents of limited validity. Between March 1993 and the end of June 1994, 56 applications were refused from non-European economic area nationals for a residence document of limited validity as the family member of an EEA national. Information is not available about the individual grounds on which these refusals were based.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 May,Official Report, column 254, in respect of the 39 applications involving marriage between a non-European economic area national and a European economic area national in respect of which an interview has been carried out since March 1993; what was the nationality of the non-European economic area national; and what was the outcome of the application after interview.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Of these 39 applications, 34 were granted and five refused, following the interview.

  The nationalities of the 39 EEA nationals, and their non-EEA spouses, and the outcome of their applications, are as follows:
  37

  EEA national

  Non-EEA national

  Outcome of application

  Portuguese

  4

  Algerian

  1

  Granted

  1

  Egyptian

  1

  Refused

  1

  Malaysian

  1

  Granted

  1

  Moroccan

  1

  Granted

  1

  Spanish

  3

  Algerian

  2

  Granted

  2

  Polish

  1

  Granted

  1

  Totals

  39

  39

  Granted

  34

  Refused

  5

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the number of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom since 1 January by(a) nationality and (b) immigration status at the time of application.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information covering the first six months of 1994 on applications for asylum by the location of the application and nationality is given in the table. Information on the immigration status of the applicant upon applying is not readily available.

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by nationality and location where made, 1 Janaury to 30 June 1994

  2Number of principal applicants

  3Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Europe

  Bulgaria

  65

  5

  60

  Romania

  115

  20

  90

  Turkey

  1,035

  295

  740

  Former USSR

  265

  25

  240

  Former Yugoslavia

  715

  155

  560

  Other

  240

  75

  160

  Total

  2,430

  575

  1,855

  Americas

  Colombia

  195

  125

  70

  Other

  295

  80

  215

  Total

  490

  205

  285

  Africa

  Angola

  245

  70

  175

  Ethiopia

  360

  105

  255

  Ghana

  1,030

  195

  835

  Kenya

  755

  520

  235

  Nigeria

  1,750

  165

  1,585

  Sierra Leone

  660

  225

  435

  Somalia

  705

  325

  380

  Sudan

  155

  35

  120

  Togo and Ivory Coast

  375

  210

  165

  Uganda

  170

  45

  120

  Zaire

  365

  165

  200

  Other

  835

  220

  615

  Total

  7,400

  2,280

  5,120

  Middle East

  Iran

  220

  55

  165

  Iraq

  225

  95

  130

  Lebanon

  105

  35

  70

  Other

  280

  115

  160

  Total

  825

  300

  525

  Asia

  China

  145

  70

  75

  India

  890

  90

  795

  38

  3Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Pakistan

  800

  75

  725

  Sri Lanka

  1,250

  695

  555

  Other

  400

  145

  255

  Total

  3,480

  1,075

  2,410

  Other, and nationality not known

  105

  105

  —

  Grand total

  14,730

  4,540

  10,190

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3 Figures do not include overseas applications.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new appointments have been made to the Police Complaints Authority.

  Mr. Howard
  Ms Molly Meacher and Mr. Navnit Dholakia OBE have accepted my invitation to serve as members of the Police Complaints Authority and will take up their appointments on 15 August.

  Ms Meacher was previously adviser to the chairman of the Russian Federal Employment Service, and formerly director of Action Trust, now the Employment Policy Institute.

  Mr. Dholakia will join the Police Complaints Authority after 18 years with the Commission for Racial Equality, where he has been responsible for administration of justice issues.

ENVIRONMENT

  Access to Personal Files
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning the costs of implementing the Access to Personal Files Act 1987.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has not collected information about the costs of implementing the Access to Personal Files Act 1987. Authorities are empowered to charge fees which should make the operation of the new requirements imposed by the Act self-financing.

  Environmental Schemes
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the cost in 1994 in each county in England, and in total, of payments made under(a) the countryside stewardship scheme, (b) the hedgerow incentive scheme, (c) the countryside premium scheme and (d) the wildlife enhancement scheme.
  39
  Mr. Atkins
  The Countryside Commission, which operates the countryside stewardship, hedgerow incentive and countryside premium schemes on behalf of the Secretary of State, does not keep the requested information on a county basis, but records expenditure by its regional offices. English Nature, which has operated the wildlife enhancement scheme as a three-year pilot since 1 April 1992, similarly does not record expenditure on a county basis, but by pilot area.

  Estimated grant expenditure for countryside stewardship for each of the commission's regional offices for the financial year 1994–95 is as follows:

  £

  Northern

  1,590,000

  North West

  1,105,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,385,000

  Midlands

  1,238,500

  Eastern

  1,448,500

  South East

  2,126,500

  South West

  2,456,500

  Total

  11,350,000

  These figures include expenditure on the hedgerow incentive scheme, which is now fully integrated into the countryside stewardship scheme.

  The estimated cost of payments under the countryside premium scheme for 1994–95 is £453,600. The scheme operates in the counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk, Northamptonshire and Suffolk. The commission does not have disaggregated data, and these could be provided only at disproportionate expense.

  The estimated cost of payments for 1994–95 under the wildlife enhancement scheme are as follows:

  £

  Pevensey levels (Sussex)

  152,500

  Culm grasslands (Devon)

  83,500

  Coversand heaths and peatlands (Yorkshire/Humberside)

  152,500

  Craven limestone grasslands

  310,200

  Dorset heaths (Dorset)

  141,000

  Thames basin and Wealden heaths (Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Surrey and Sussex)

  127,000

  Magnesian limestone grassland (Tyne and Wear, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and Derbyshire)

  56,000

  Hereford and Worcester grasslands (Hereford and Worcester)

  35,500

  Other1

  41,800

  Total

  1,100,000

  1 Includes administrative and publicity costs and a small amount of money yet to be allocated.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost in 1993 in each county in England, and in total, of payments made under(a) the countryside stewardship scheme, (b) the hedgerow incentive scheme, (c) the countryside premium scheme and (d) the wildlife enhancement scheme.

  Mr. Atkins
  These payments are not recorded on a county basis. Grant expenditure for countryside stewardship and the hedgerow incentives schemes for each of the Countryside Commission's regional offices for the financial year 1993–94 was as follows:40

  Countryside Stewardship £

  Hedgerow Incentive £

  Northern

  960,000

  123,000

  North West

  805,000

  96,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  938,000

  89,000

  Midlands

  617,000

  171,000

  Eastern

  1,104,000

  95,000

  South East

  1,499,000

  55,000

  South West

  1,649,000

  142,000

  TOTAL

  7,572,000

  771,000

  Expenditure on payments under the countryside premium scheme in the financial year 1993–94 in the seven counties in which the scheme operates was £599,861. The commission does not have disaggregated data, and these could be provided only at disproportionate expense.

  Payments for 1993–94 under the wildlife enhancement scheme for each of English Nature's pilot areas were as follows:

  £

  Pevensey levels (Sussex)

  150,000

  Culm grasslands (Devon)

  81,100

  Coversands heaths and peatlands (Yorkshire and Humberside)

  132,700

  Craven limeston grasslands (Yorkshire)

  164,600

  Dorset heaths (Dorset)

  0

  Thames basin and Wealden heaths (Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Surrey and Sussex)

  0

  Magnesian limestone grassland (Tyne and Wear, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and Derbyshire

  0

  Hereford and Worcester grasslands (Hereford and Worcestershire)

  0

  Other1

  16,600

  TOTAL

  545,000

  1 Includes administrative and publicity costs.

  Barn Conversions (Planning Policy)
  Mrs.Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment what recent changes there have been to the planning policy guidance with relation to barn conversion in green belt designated areas.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. National policy is set out in planning policy guidance note 2, "Green Belts". Paragraph 16 of that document states that the re-use of redundant buildings in green belts should not be refused unless there are specific and convincing reasons which cannot be overcome by attaching conditions to the planning permission.

  Paragraph 12 of PPG2 states that the general policies controlling development in the countryside apply with equal force in green belts. Thus conversion of redundant buildings in the green belt will be subject to the safeguards on re-use set out in paragraph 2.15 and annexe D of planning policy guidance note 7, "The Countryside and the Rural Economy".

  Our consultation draft revision of PPG2, issued earlier this year, proposes removing the redundancy limitation from the PPG2 advice and we are currently analysing the more than 600 responses received to that document.

  Building Industry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for the change in price levels of building materials.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on construction material price indices is published in the Department's "Monthly Statistics of Building Materials And Components", a copy of which is placed in the Library of the House. The "all work" index in table 1 indicates a rise of some 4½ per cent. between May 1993 and May 1994.

  Vehicle Emissions (London)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has received about the impact of vehicle emissions on air quality in London.

  Mr. Atkins
  The London energy study carried out by the London Research Centre was published on 15 September 1993. It was funded by the European Commission, London Electricity plc and the Department of the Environment. One of the principal outputs of the study was a very detailed inventory of energy use, and the resultant emissions of pollutants to the London atmosphere covering almost 2,000 sq km in and around London. The table illustrates the contribution from road transport for each pollutant in 1991.

  London road transport 1991

  Percentage of total emissions

  Carbon dioxide (as carbon)

  33

  Sulphur dioxide

  22

  Black smoke

  96

  Carbon monoxide

  99

  Nitrogen oxides

  76

  Volatile organic compounds

  97

  Zoo Licensing Act 1981
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of(a) zoological gardens, (b) wildlife parks, (c) circuses, (d) aquaria, (e) vivaria and (f) insectaria subject to the full requirements of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981; and how many of each category have been granted dispensations from the requirements of the Act in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  According to our latest information, 226 zoos are currently licensed in England under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. During the last five years, the total number of dispensations granted under section 14(2) of the Act have been:

  Number

  1990

  12

  1991

  13

  1992

  6

  1993

  7

  1994

  3

  These figures include dispensations given for aquaria, vivaria and insectaria although they do not differentiate
  42
  between collections according to species. Dispensations granted under the Act do not in any way weaken a zoo's requirement to meet the standards of modem zoo practice of animal welfare and public safety set out by the Secretary of State. The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 does not apply to circuses.

  High Street, Bedford
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to consider and adjudicate on an urgent application for a listed building consent covering premises 29 to 41 High Street, Bedford.

  Mr. Curry
  We have consulted English Heritage on the proposals. As soon as we have that organisation's advice we will consider whether the application should be called in for my right hon. Friend to determine.

  Environment Agencies
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he still intends to introduce the environment agencies paving Bill in the current session of Parliament.

  Mr. Atkins
  As my right hon. Friend the Lord President said last week, there is now no prospect of passing the environment agencies paving Bill before the summer recess. However, the Government remain committed to introducing legislation to establish the agencies as soon as parliamentary time allows and, as the Lord President also said, good progress is being made on a main Bill.

  MINIS 15 Documents
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish his Department's management information system for MINIS 15 documents.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am today publishing MINIS 15 and a set of documents has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Local Government
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Local Government Commission on its estimates of the financial implications of the options for reorganisation of local government in Somerset, North Yorkshire and North Humberside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have asked the Local Government Commission to provide the Department with a further analysis of its estimates of the costs and savings that might be expected from the options for reorganisation contained in its reports for Somerset and for North Yorkshire and North Humberside.

  In the case of Somerset, we have asked the Commission how the costs and savings of the three unitary options recommended in its report might vary under alternative three unitary options that did not involve splitting Mendip.

  In the case of North Yorkshire and North Humberside, the Commission's report gave estimates of costs and savings for a range of options for the whole review area north of the Humber. The Department has asked the Commission to give a breakdown of costs and savings between the North Yorkshire area, and the North

  43
  Humberside area for three of the options in its report: those for eight unitary authorities, four unitary authorities, and modified two-tier.

  The estimates of potential costs and savings are important considerations that will inform our decisions. In both these cases we feel that further information on how costs and savings might vary between alternative options will help all concerned to assess which option is likely to be most cost-effective. The additional information will be sent to the authorities concerned and placed in the Library of the House at the same time as it is sent to the Department. The Commission hopes that this will be within the next three to four weeks.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he makes and what studies have been undertaken or are available to him of the transitional costs including redundancy and serverance payments of the local government review, England, where(a) all employees are transferred to new unitary authorities, (b) 95 per cent. are transferred and (c) 90 per cent. are transferred.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 14 July 1994]: We have not attempted to estimate costs in this way. However, each report of the Local Government Commission gives the estimated range of total transitional costs for the proposed structural options, which includes staff redundancy and retirement costs, in line with the Ernst and Young financial methodology.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to equalise water charges at the lower level in areas where different water authorities overlap and one authority is obliged to act as a collecting agent on another's behalf.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 14 July 1994]: Each company incurs costs in providing water and sewerage services relative to its topographic and demographic situation, and its particular investment needs. It follows that customers' water and sewerage charges should reflect the costs incurred by the company which provides the particular service.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans exist to promote open government with specific regard to the publication of air quality levels in urban areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 14 July 1994]: Information from the Department of the Environment's national automatic monitoring sites is used to provide air quality bulletins to the public, giving daily information on air pollution in both urban and rural areas across the United Kingdom via a freephone helpline, Ceefax, Teletext and a variety of other news media. The bulletin includes information on levels of pollutants which are described as "very good", "good", "poor" or "very poor" together with a forecast and health advice on what to do should levels become high. The Ceefax and Teletext bulletin services have recently been upgraded and now provide hourly updates on nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulphur dioxide and benzene.
  44
  In addition, information from the Department's non-automatic and automatic monitoring sites is published regularly.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom by the year 2005.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 15 July 1994]: The United Kingdom's climate change programme is based on projections from energy paper 59. These show that in 2005 the underlying trend in emissions may be between about 6 and about 40 million tonnes of carbon—MtC—above the level in 1990. In January, the Government announced a programme of measures designed to fulfil its commitment, under the United Nations framework convention on climate change, of aiming to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. No targets have been set under the convention for emissions levels beyond 2000 and therefore no programme of measures is in place beyond that date. However, provisional estimates made by my Department indicate that the continuing effect of measures already in place could reduce emissions in 2005 by at least 10 MtC.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Union Flag
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Northern Ireland Airports Authority has been advised of the designated dates to fly the Union flag; why the Union flag was not flown on 12 July at Aldergrove airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The requirement to fly the Union flag on those prescribed days relevant to Northern Ireland applies to central Government offices only. There is no requirement, therefore, for Northern Ireland Airports Ltd to comply.

  Belfast Action Team
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals there are to change the role of the Belfast action team; what changes there will be in the funding of the Belfast action team; and if he will make a statement on the future roles of the Belfast action team in the council areas of Belfast and Castlereagh.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  There are no proposals to change the role of the Belfast action teams. Funding for the teams was provided for in the 1993 Public Expenditure Survey which covers the years 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Foyle Shopping Centre
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the budgeted contribution of public funds to the proposed Foyle shopping centre in the city of Londonderry; from which sources these public funds are being made available; and what is the estimated total cost of the Foyle centre.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The public sector contribution to the Foyleside shopping centre comprises an offer of urban
  45
  development grant of up to £7.5 million and the transfer of the site at a nominal value. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is the funding source. The total cost is estimated to be £65 million.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the minimum, maximum and average waiting times for(a) unfair dismissal, (b) redundancy rights, (c) maternity rights, (d) race discrimination and (e) other claims in Northern Ireland; and what were the waiting times in 1979, 1989 and 1993.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  No information is available for 1979 and information for 1989 and 1993 is not available in the form requested. Northern Ireland does not have race discrimination legislation.

  The following table gives the percentage of industrial tribunal cases which came to a first hearing within the time limits specified:

  Time limit (weeks)

  1989

  1993

  12

  1

  6

  26

  28

  50

  39

  72

  72

  50

  91

  82

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to increase the maximum awards which may be made to successful applicants by industrial tribunals.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Awards in cases of sex discrimination are not subject to an upper limit. Consideration is being given to the limits applicable in other cases.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now increase the financial resources available to industrial tribunals.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The financial resources allocated to industrial tribunals for 1994–95 have increased over those for last year.

  Abortion
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) whether he will make a statement on his response to the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the laws on abortion;

  (2) when he expects to publish the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights report on the law of abortion in Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The nineteenth annual report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which contains the commission's report and recommendations on abortion law in Northern Ireland, was published on 30 June 1994 along with my response. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library. The recommendations made by the commission are being carefully considered.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many certificates have been issued by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under section 42, in each year since the passing of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Since 1986 the following certificates have been issued by my right hon. and learned Friend and his predecessors under section 42 of Fair Employment Act 1976:

  Patrick Gilmore, 1986.

  John Tinnelly & Sons Ltd., 1987

  F. W. Devlin, 1993.

  Liam Devenney, 1993.

  Thomas McCullough, 1994.

  Information prior to 1986 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what legislation or extradition agreements cover persons accused of trafficking in illegal drugs between the jurisdictions of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and accused of, or sought in relation to, dealing in such drugs in one jurisdiction who flee to the other.

  Sir John Wheeler
  People accused of trafficking in illegal drugs in Northern Ireland are covered by the Criminal Justice (Confiscation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 as amended by the Criminal Justice (Confiscation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.

  People accused of, or sought in relation to, drug trafficking offences committed in either jurisdiction who have fled to the other are covered by the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 or part III of the Irish Extradition Act 1965.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Calves' Brains
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will ban the use in human food of brains and spinal cords of calves under the age of six months.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 13 July at column 644–45.

  Environmental Schemes
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost in 1993 for each county in England, and in total, of payments made under(a) the environmentally sensitive area scheme, (b) the nitrate-sensitive area scheme, (c) the farm and conservation grant scheme, (d) the pilot beef and sheep extensification schemes, (e) the woodland grant scheme, (f) the farm woodland premium scheme, (g) the orchard grubbing scheme, (h) the optional five-year set-aside scheme, (i) the habitat scheme, (j) the moorland scheme.(k) the countryside access scheme and (l) the organic aid scheme; and what is her estimate of the cost in 1994.
  47
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Details of payments by English County under the farm and conservation grant scheme, the farm woodland premium scheme and the nitrate-sensitive areas scheme are set out in table A.

  Information on the other schemes listed is not held in the format required to allow breakdown by county, which could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Total payments under each scheme in the 1993–94 financial year, and estimates for 1994–95, are given in table B.

  Table A

  County

  Farm and conservation grant scheme

  Farm Woodland premium scheme

  Nitrate-sensitive areas scheme

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  Avon

  304,204

  1,788

  —

  Bedford

  162,127

  6,050

  —

  Berkshire

  141,566

  9,263

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  215,992

  11,895

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  137,545

  10,475

  —

  Cheshire

  1,147,364

  1,225

  —

  Cleveland

  96,818

  5,995

  —

  Cornwall

  1,622,808

  24,796

  —

  Cumbria

  2,782,492

  2,795

  —

  Derbyshire

  746,486

  2,788

  —

  Devon

  2,609,138

  58,970

  —

  Dorset

  768,257

  13,563

  —

  Durham

  360,865

  4,116

  —

  Essex

  439,835

  35,245

  —

  Gloucestershire

  469,368

  30,503

  —

  Hampshire

  410,342

  14,393

  —

  Hereford and Worcester

  855,170

  64,953

  100,737

  Hertfordshire

  127,989

  2,335

  —

  Humberside

  353,272

  12,918

  15,107

  Isle of Wight

  17,706

  2,875

  —

  Kent

  508,772

  15,275

  —

  Lancashire

  1,971,018

  2,343

  —

  Leicestershire

  499,840

  15,158

  —

  Lincolnshire

  469,770

  29,713

  789,713

  London, Greater

  9,154

  —

  —

  Manchester, Greater

  97,432

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  45,586

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  477,287

  20,533

  —

  Northamptonshire

  240,792

  9,518

  —

  Northumberland

  575,490

  14,657

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  126,330

  2,675

  226,305

  Oxfordshire

  276,204

  35,491

  74,540

  Scilly Isles

  —

  —

  —

  Shropshire

  975,634

  12,660

  —

  Somerset

  1,006,530

  3,275

  55,858

  Staffordshire

  825,239

  4,956

  66,703

  Suffolk

  476,255

  24,665

  —

  Surrey

  174,298

  3,588

  —

  Sussex, East

  183,739

  14,775

  —

  Sussex, West

  342,831

  19,668

  —

  Tyne and Wear

  6,876

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  220,667

  10,480

  —

  Wiltshire

  604,968

  44,495

  76,375

  West Midlands

  36,259

  —

  —

  Yorkshire, South

  203,282

  3,358

  —

  Yorkshire, North

  2,012,547

  28,589

  —

  Yorkshire, West

  312,772

  2,526

  —

  England Total

  26,449,137

  635,359

  1,405,338

  Table B

  Total expenditure (£'000s)

  Scheme

  1993–94

  1994–95

  ESA scheme

  16,550

  31,030

  NSA scheme

  11,410

  21,500

  F and CG scheme

  126,450

  27,140

  Pilot beef and sheep extensification

  401

  391

  Woodland grant scheme

  13,900

  215,000

  Farm woodland premium scheme

  635

  21,500

  48

  Total expenditure (£'000s)

  Scheme

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Orchard grubbing scheme

  510

  2nil

  Optional five year set-aside scheme

  20,685

  14,100

  Habitat scheme

  —

  3—

  Moorland scheme

  —

  4—

  Countryside access scheme

  —

  3—

  Organic aid scheme

  5—

  800

  1 All figures are given by financial year except here which indicates calendar year.

  2 Estimate.

  3 First payment due in 1995–96.

  4 Not yet operational.

  5 Not operational.

  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total cost of the Farm Animal Welfare Council in each year since it was established.

  Mr. Soames
  Since the Farm Animal Welfare Council was established in July 1979, total costs in each financial year for which published figures are available are as follows:

  £

  1979–80

  45,000

  1980–81

  74,000

  1981–82

  112,000

  1982–83

  137,000

  1983–84

  145,000

  1984–85

  157,000

  1985–86

  178,000

  1986–87

  184,000

  1987–88

  172,000

  1988–89

  188,000

  1989–90

  235,000

  1990–91

  282,000

  1991–92

  289,000

  1992–93

  269,000

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what support the Government are giving for research into DNA identification of stolen birds of prey;

  (2) what support the Government are giving to research and development in respect of registering birds of prey by feather samples as part of a DNA registration data base.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1987, my Department has been funding research at the University of Nottingham into the use of DNA fingerprinting techniques to establish the genetic variation in birds of prey. The Department expects to publish the report shortly.

  In each of the bird of prey species that have so far been examined, DNA fingerprinting has proved capable of identifying individuals and their parentage. This has enabled captive breeding claims to be verified. The technique has already been used in criminal proceedings to identify individual birds that have been illegally taken from the wild or stolen from another keeper. There have been several convictions in cases where evidence from DNA tests was presented. The Government's priority is to

  49
  encourage the wider use of DNA tests to assist the police and others involved in enforcing the law on wildlife. The potential for other applications of DNA techniques will be kept under review, taking account of scientific progress and the availability of resources.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Voluntary Work
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to redraft the Social Security (Sickness and Invalidity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations to give effect to disregard of voluntary work undertaken for under 16 hours per week when assessing incapacity for work;

  (2) what steps are being taken to implement the decision that people now on invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance who undertake voluntary work of less than 16 hours per week will not have their incapacity for work questioned.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to redraft the regulations.

  It is not our intention that people should lose benefit solely because they do voluntary work of less than 16 hours, and this has been made clear in revised guidance which has been issued to staff dealing with claims.

  Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated costs to his Department of the provisions in the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill for the training linking rule; and how many people he estimates will use this rule to requalify(a) for incapacity benefit, (b) severe disablement allowance and (c) disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  There is no reliable information on which to base an assessment of costs or the number of people who will take advantage of the training linking rule.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the Government's policy on the use of interest received on moneys held by the Child Support Agency; and whether this interest will be paid to parents caring for children.

  Mr. Burt
  As indicated in Mr. Hughes' letter to the hon. Member of 8 July, on behalf of Mrs. Hepplewhite, the Child Support Agency does not receive interest from the bank in respect of clients' funds temporarily held by the agency. Instead the agency's bank charges are abated. The administrative costs of attributing amounts of interest to individuals would be disproportionate to the typically small amounts of money involved. Clients of the agency benefit from the lower bank charges and the economy of effort through the consequent reduction in the agency's administrative costs, which is reflected in the level of the fees charged.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish comprehensive Child Support Agency literature incorporating the provisions in the February review.
  50
  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 15 July 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency literature incorporating details of the effects on maintenance of the changes to legislation that were introduced in February.
  The Child Support Agency published a new edition of its main leaflet for the general public called for parents who live apart at the end of June. This leaflet incorporates the legislative changes that were made to the Child Support system in February 1994.
  In addition, whenever a maintenance assessment is completed by the Agency, the clients involved receive a leaflet called your child maintenance assessment which also incorporates details of the changes. A revised version of the comprehensive leaflet called a guide to child support maintenance will be published in due course.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether members of his Department have discussed legislation covering the Child Support Agency with Parliamentary Counsel in the last three months.

  Mr. Burt
  No.

  Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was his estimate of the numbers of claimants expected to receive industrial injuries disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema from (i) 13 September 1993 to March 1994 (ii) in 1994–95 and (iii) in 1995–96.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. The original broad estimate was that there could be around 9,000 benefit awards for claims received during the initial 12-month take-on period ending in August 1994. The number of new awards in subsequent years was expected to be small.

  National Insurance Records
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy on encouraging enforced subject access to national insurance records; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department cannot be said to "encourage" enforced subject access requests. The number of subject access requests to the national insurance recording system of the type that have become known as enforced subject access requests is reported in the 10th report of the Data Protection Registrar, section 3(k). The Department shares the concern of the Data Protection Registrar about the nature of this type of request, but is legally obliged to process all subject access requests.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from the National Housing and Town Planning Council concerning student financial support; and what consideration he has given to allowing students to claim year-round housing benefit.
  51
  Mr. Hague
  I received a copy of the report, "Making a difference: Housing Benefit for students", published by the National Housing and Town Planning council on 23 June 1993. Following publication, the NHTPC wrote to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), on two further occasions about the reinstatement of housing benefit to full-time students. In general, it is the educational maintenance system which is designed to provide for full-time students, and we have no plans to change this.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount paid in housing benefit for the last three years for which figures are available; what was the total Government spending on the housing benefit direct benefit subsidy during these years; and what is the implied percentage of total housing benefit paid by local authorities which is reimbursed by the central Government direct benefit subsidy.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table:

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Total housing benefit

  4,942

  5,997

  7,604

  Total direct subsidy

  4,378

  5,337

  6,613

  Percentage of total housing benefit expenditure met by direct subsidy

  89

  89

  87

  Source: Social Security Departmental Report—March 1994.

  Note: Since 1990–91, the bulk of rent rebate subsidy in England and Wales has been paid by the Department of the Environment as part of the housing revenue account arrangements. These figures include elements of DoE rent rebate subsidy net of any housing revenue account surpluses that are used to offset these amounts.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for the last three years for which figures are available, what was the total amount of subsidy paid in benefit in respect of vulnerable groups under regulation 11 of the housing benefit regulations; and, for the same period, what was the total amount paid as a subsidy to local authorities.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Table 1

  Subsidy paid to local authorities for housing benefit expenditure on claimants protected by regulation 11 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations

  Year

  £ million

  1990–91

  11.5

  1991–92

  14.5

  1992–93

  18.5

  Source: Housing benefit final subsidy claim forms.

  Notes:

  1. The figures quoted represent subsidy paid to local authorities of rent allowance spending above the rent officer's reasonable market rent figure where benefit could not be restricted under the provisions of regulation 11. Local authorities are not required to record their total benefit expenditure on claimants protected by regulation 11.
  52
  2. Groups protected by regulation 11 include not only "vulnerable groups"—people aged over 60, incapable of work or with responsibility for children—but also those who were able to afford the accommodation when they first took it on and those who have recently been bereaved.

  Table 2

  Total housing benefit subsidy paid to local authorities

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Rent allowances

  1,530

  2,154

  2,894

  Rent rebates

  2,848

  3,183

  3,719

  Grand total

  4,378

  5,337

  6,613

  Source: Social Security departmental Report 1994.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by region for(a) February 1992–93, (b) February 1993–94 and (c) February 1994 to date, the total number of claimants for invalidity benefit who have been examined by a doctor from the Benefits Agency medical service in each region; how many of these claimants were subsequently found fit for work and their benefit disallowed; how many of those claimants whose benefit was disallowed appealed against the decision; and how many were successful.

  Mr. Scott
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 18 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking, for February 1992–93, February 1993–94 and February 1994 to date, about the total number of claimants for Invalidity Benefit who have been examined by a doctor from the Benefits Agency Medical Services in each region; how many were found fit for work and their benefit disallowed; how many subsequently appealed against the decision; and how many were successful.
  The information regarding numbers of recipients of Invalidity Benefit (IVB) examined by a doctor from the Benefits Agency Medical Service (BAMS), (formerly the Regional Medical Service), in the periods requested and the outcomes of such medical examinations, is not available in the format requested. This is because the information relating to IVB is aggregated with other incapacity benefits. Similarly, statistics are not available relating to the numbers of cases found fit for work following examination by a BAMS doctor and who have their benefit disallowed by an Adjudication Officer (AO); and have appealed against the decision; and how many were successful. This information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  BAMS provide an opinion on a customer's capacity for work. However, the decision on this question lies with the AO, the independent adjudication authority. The AO considers the BAMS report along with all other available evidence.
  The information which is available relating to examination by doctors from BAMS is provided at Appendix 1.
  This information is collated quarterly and therefore does not correspond exactly with the periods requested. Additionally, the statistics have only been maintained since 1 January 1993 and therefore no earlier information is available.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  53

  BA Medical services reference work

  SB/IVB/SDA cases examined and where the opinion was capable of work

  Reference office

  1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993

  1 April 1993 to 30 June 1993

  1 July 1993 to 30 September 1993

  1 October 1993 to 31 December 1993

  1 January 1994 to 31 March 1994

  Examined

  Found capable of work1

  Examined

  Found capable of work1

  Examined

  Found capable of work1

  Examined

  Found capable of work1

  Examined

  Found capable of work1

  Inverness

  243

  66

  253

  86

  318

  109

  296

  113

  232

  50

  Aberdeen

  174

  38

  318

  102

  267

  62

  266

  63

  219

  65

  Dundee

  1,021

  257

  1,070

  281

  1,160

  332

  914

  258

  1,182

  212

  Glasgow

  8,227

  2,847

  6,514

  2,182

  5,151

  2,130

  9,681

  2,072

  6,508

  2,497

  Edinburgh

  1,038

  470

  1,209

  617

  2,777

  1,124

  2,170

  810

  1,597

  664

  Newcastle

  6,632

  2,650

  6,484

  2,841

  7,943

  3,409

  6,392

  2,815

  6,497

  2,702

  Leeds

  11,030

  4,826

  11,361

  4,726

  14,230

  6,047

  13,939

  5,809

  13,896

  5,951

  Bottle

  6,288

  2,335

  2—

  2—

  7,702

  2,750

  20,372

  2,463

  7,645

  2,761

  Manchester

  6,819

  2,213

  6,716

  2,379

  8,501

  3,440

  6,166

  2,244

  7,146

  2,425

  Nottingham

  3,700

  1,474

  3,569

  1,465

  4,642

  1,804

  4,537

  1,884

  4,331

  1,898

  Birmingham

  7,361

  2,077

  6,763

  2,100

  7,944

  2,365

  7,685

  2,613

  9,970

  3,233

  Wembley

  6,493

  2,577

  5,264

  1,869

  6,429

  2,831

  6,043

  2,827

  8,527

  3,725

  Sutton

  4,778

  2,039

  4,698

  1,888

  5,612

  2,263

  5,843

  2,328

  6,811

  2,473

  Bristol

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5,844

  2,501

  3,473

  1,401

  4,139

  1,699

  Cardiff

  8,147

  2,861

  9,016

  3,375

  6,373

  2,468

  8,005

  2,322

  8,352

  2,523

  1 This column includes recipients who were considered either capable of following their own occupation or of undertaking suitable alternative work.

  2 Statistics not available.

  3 Bristol office not yet open. Statistics for Bristol are aggregated with Birmingham.

  Pensions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to introduce legislation to implement the proposals contained in the White Paper entitled "Security, Equality, Choice: The Future for Pensions".

  Mr. Hague
  We intend to introduce legislation at the first available opportunity.

  Job Seekers Allowance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to publish his proposals for a job seekers allowance to coincide with the Budget statement on 29 November.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 21 June at column 87.

  Disabled People (Rights)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation in the next parliamentary Session to improve the rights of people with disabilities.

  Mr. Scott
  On 15 July, I issued a consultation document inviting comments by 7 October on a variety of proposals in five areas to combat discrimination against disabled people. A number of the proposals being considered would require legislation. Final decisions on the way forward will be taken in the light of the responses to the consultation document.

  Bosnian Refugees (Benefit Assistance)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what level of benefit assistance is given to Bosnian refugees on arrival in the United Kingdom.
  54
  Mr. Burt
  Bosnian refugees admitted to the United Kingdom who are not being looked after in reception centres are entitled to the full rate of income support subject to the normal rules of entitlement. People who seek asylum at a port of entry to the United Kingdom can receive income support at a reduced rate—90 per cent. of their appropriate personal allowance—while their application for refugee status is being processed by the relevant authorities. Both groups can receive housing benefit, which can meet up to 100 per cent. of reasonable housing costs, if they are liable to pay rent for their home.

SCOTLAND

  Abortions
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many abortions were performed in Britain on women residents in each health board area in Scotland in each year since 1990; and how many of these were performed in NHS hospitals.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information on the number of abortions performed in England and Wales on Scottish residents does not differentiate between those carried out in NHS hospitals and those carried out in the private sector, and is not yet available for 1993. The information available is as follows:

  1990

  Scottish hospitals

  Hospitals in England and Wales

  Health board of residence

  Total

  NHS

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  723

  711

  122

  Ayrshire and Arran

  616

  612

  84

  Borders

  132

  131

  6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  238

  217

  34

  Fife

  771

  767

  16

  Forth Valley

  495

  488

  35

  Grampian

  1,195

  1,140

  14

  Greater Glasgow

  1,686

  1,641

  284

  Highland

  454

  451

  13

  Lanarkshire

  822

  804

  127

  Lothian

  1,862

  1,836

  32

  55

  Scottish hospitals

  Hospital in England and Wales

  Health board of residence

  Total

  NHS

  Total

  Orkney

  27

  27

  —

  Shetland

  31

  31

  1

  Tayside

  1,121

  1,113

  11

  Western Isles

  25

  25

  5

  Scotland

  10,198

  9,994

  784

  1991

  Scottish hospitals

  Hospitals in England and Wales

  Health board of residence

  Total

  NHS

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  739

  734

  101

  Ayrshire and Arran

  663

  657

  65

  Borders

  179

  178

  5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  244

  238

  26

  Fife

  816

  811

  11

  Forth Valley

  507

  502

  32

  Grampian

  1,327

  1,270

  19

  Greater Glasgow

  1,892

  1,837

  258

  Highland

  431

  425

  12

  Lanarkshire

  895

  880

  134

  Lothian

  2,112

  2,093

  32

  Orkney

  24

  24

  —

  Shetland

  23

  22

  1

  Tayside

  1,168

  1,163

  13

  Western Isles

  26

  25

  3

  Scotland

  11,046

  10,859

  712

  1992

  Scottish hospitals

  Hospitals in England and Wales

  Health board of residence

  Total

  NHS

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  645

  639

  67

  Ayrshire and Arran

  677

  673

  51

  Borders

  181

  181

  5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  251

  246

  28

  Fife

  755

  753

  13

  Forth Valley

  530

  521

  23

  Grampian

  1,282

  1,235

  18

  Greater Glasgow

  1,953

  1,918

  193

  Highland

  433

  429

  15

  Lanarkshire

  903

  887

  116

  Lothian

  2,007

  2,000

  30

  Orkney

  39

  39

  0

  Shetland

  33

  32

  0

  Tayside

  1,071

  1,067

  13

  Western Isles

  31

  31

  1

  Scotland

  10,791

  10,651

  573

  19931

  Scottish hospitals

  Health board of residence

  Total

  NHS

  Argyll and Clyde

  600

  593

  Ayrshire and Arran

  671

  668

  Borders

  164

  164

  Dumfries and Galloway

  216

  214

  Fife

  759

  757

  Forth Valley

  491

  484

  Grampian

  1,349

  1,303

  Greater Glasgow

  2,126

  2,100

  Highland

  452

  450

  Lanarkshire

  905

  895

  Lothian

  2,084

  2,075

  56

  Scottish hospitals

  Health board of residence

  Total

  NHS

  Orkney

  28

  28

  Shetland

  48

  48

  Tayside

  1,089

  1,080

  Western Isles

  19

  19

  Scotland

  11,001

  10,878

  1 Provisional

  Skin Cancer
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what has been the change in the rate of incidence of melanomas from 1984 to 1994;

  (2) what survey of skin cancer has been conducted through general practitioners; and what consultation he has had about the results with the Association of Dermatologists.

  Mr. Stewart
  Registrations of malignant melanomas in Scotland for the years 1993 and 1994 are not yet complete. The most recent 10-year period for which information is available is 1982–92. The incidence rate for men rose from 3.17 per 100,000 in 1982 to 6.2 per 100,000 in 1992. The comparable figures for women were 5.11 per 100,000 and 8.29 per 100,000.

  I am not aware of any survey of skin cancer conducted through general practitioners. This is, however, an area of increasing concern which has been brought to GPs' attention by the Chief Medical Officer of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department. There has been considerable research into the subject by individuals and groups, often with GPs' co-operation, and the Scottish Dermatological Society and the British Association of Dermatologists (UK) are no doubt aware of the results.

  Secure Hospital Places
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many persons are currently in prison because there is no place available in a secure hospital; and what steps he is taking to resolve this problem;

  (2) if he will publish the result of his inquiry into the imprisonment of persons for whom no place could be found in a secure hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested by the hon. Member cannot be compiled in time before the House rises. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library of the House for the benefit of other hon. Members.

  Dangerous Plants
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the conclusions of the latest research available to him on the potential dangers of humans coming into contact with Heracleum Mantegazzianum or Giant Hogweed; if he intends to fund further research; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will place a specific duty on river purification boards and water authorities to eradicate Heracleum Mantegazzianum or Giant Hogweed from the banks and verges of rivers, reservoirs and lochs;

  (3) what powers he has to ensure that Heracleum Mantegazzianum or Giant Hogweed is eradicated from

  57
  places to which the public have access or are likely to have access; what powers and duties local authorities have in this regard; what are the duties and responsibilities of landowners in relation to its eradication; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will bring forward legislation to give local authorities and/or landowners a duty to eradicate Heracleum Mantegazzianum or Giant Hogweed from places to which the public have access; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) how many cases were recorded in each of the past five years of people requiring medical treatment after coming into contact with Heracleum Mantegazzianum or Giant Hogweed; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: The effect of Humans coming into contact with the sap of Heracleum Mantegazzianum or Giant Hogweed may require medical treatment from a GP or hospital but data are not available on the numbers of people requiring such treatment. Nor has my right hon. Friend been informed of research into any potential dangers from contact with this plant.

  There is no specific statutory duty placed on any individual or body to eradicate Giant Hogweed from public places. Private landowners are free to do so and district councils have adequate powers under the nuisance provision of the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897 where they consider that a public nuisance exists from Giant Hogweed. There are no plans to bring forward legislation imposing new duties of this kind on local authorities or landowners.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wrigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in Scotland in each year from 1990 to 1993; what was the total number of maternities in Scotland in each year; and how many multiple births of each type in each year were conceived as a result of (i) in-vitro fertilisation, (ii) gamete intra-fallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conception.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 July 1994]:information available is set out in the table:

  Type of birth

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Twins:

  2 live

  711

  682

  790

  751

  1 live, 1 stillbirth

  15

  22

  11

  25

  2 stillbirth

  5

  5

  6

  4

  Triplets:

  3 live

  14

  18

  15

  10

  2 live, 1 stillbirth

  2

  4

  —

  —

  1 live, 2 stillbirth

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3 stillbirth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Quadruplets:

  4 live

  1

  1

  —

  —

  3 live, 1 stillbirth

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Quintuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maternities

  65,556

  66,630

  65,307

  62,946

  58
  Information on the number of multiple births in Scotland attributed to assisted conception is not available. Some information on these matters is published in the first annual report of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and in earlier annual reports of the interim licensing authority, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at what date Her Majesty's Government decided to set up separate inquiries in Scotland and Northern Ireland into the proposed electricity interconnector; and how this decision was reached.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 July 1994]: My right hon. Friend appointed a reporter to take a public inquiry to consider Scottish Power's application for the Scottish part of the proposed interconnector with Northern Ireland, and the objections to it, and to report to him. He understands that the reporter subsequently arranged that the public inquiry should start in Ayr on 4 October. Consideration of the application from Northern Ireland Electricity for that part of the interconnector which is proposed in Northern Ireland is not a matter for my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the Ove Arup report on the proposed Scotland-to-Northern Ireland electricity inter-connector; and if he will consider postponing the public inquiry into the matter of the interconnector until copies of this report have been made available to the objectors and the reporter.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 July 1994]: My right hon. Friend has not seen the Ove Arup report on the proposed electricity interconnector with Northern Ireland.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions employees of Scottish Natural Heritage, Forestry Enterprise or the Forestry Authority have declared that there might be a potential conflict of interest between their work for their agency and any outside private interest or business.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 15 July 1994]: This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Glasgow-Barrow Air Service
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the performance criteria on which the subsidy payable to Loganair/British Airways Express for the Glasgow-Barra service is dependent; what weight is given to the number of advertised scheduled flights actually completed between Glasgow and Barra; and what steps he is taking to monitor performance in this service.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 July 1994]: Subsidy is payable in arrears for the lifeline air service operated between Glasgow and Tiree and Barra based on the deficit incurred in providing the service designated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In addition, the service must be operated in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Aviation Authority regulatory regime.
  59
  Under the terms of the contract, the operator is required to submit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State details of each occasion on which the company fails to operate the air service with an explanation for each failure. The performance of the service is continuously monitored and reviewed with the company concerned.

  Children Bill
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will present a children's Bill for Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: We are making preparations for children's legislation and will introduce it when parliamentary time permits. The Government's decisions on future legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration has been given to the implications of the forest fires in south-west Scotland for the dispersal of radioactive waste in the area; and if he will now. commission a further report on the subject.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: There is no evidence to suggest that radionuclides are concentrated within the forest biomass and hence it is not believed that forest fires will affect the dispersal of radionuclides within south-west Scotland. There is no intention to commission further work on this topic.

  Number

  Description

  Value £

  Recipient

  3

  Bell, Nameboard, Honours Board ex-HMS Ariadne

  375.00

  Scunthorpe Borough Council

  1

  Bell—ex HMS Minerva

  200.00

  City of Salford

  1

  Bell—ex RMAS Invergordon

  60.00

  Town of Invergordon

  1

  Bell—ex HMS Osiris

  60.00

  Ilkley Parish Council

  1

  Bell—ex HMS Charybdis

  300.00

  Island of Guernsey

  2

  Nameboards—ex HMS Jupiter

  100.00

  TS Jupiter

  1

  TON Class MCM Instructional Equipment

  725.00

  The Bronington Trust

  1

  Deck Plate—ex HMS Minerva

  30.00

  1st Battalion Scots Guards

  1

  MK 28 Mine Shell

  12.00

  New Tavern Fort Project

  67

  Ship's Crests, Badges and Associated Items

  335.00

  The Sea Cadet Corps

  4

  Mines/Sinkers

  100.00

  Royal Naval Museum—(for display on HMS Minerva)

  1

  Unmarked Ship's Bell

  150.00

  Parishes of East Meon and Langrish

  1

  Bell—ex HMS Sinus

  300.00

  City of Portsmouth

  1

  All-Purpose Firestreak Missile and Cradle Trolley

  9.00

  Yorkshire Air Museum

  1

  WESSEX

  250.00

  State of Guernsey

  1

  Land Rover

  360.00

  RHKR(V) Museum

DEFENCE

  Aldershot Hospitals
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans regarding the Louise Margaret and the Cambridge hospitals in Aldershot.

  Mr. Hanley
  As part of "Front Line First", we propose to reorganise the service hospital base in the United Kingdom around one hospital at Haslar in Gosport. This would involve the closure of the Cambridge military hospital, including the Louise Margaret maternity wing, in Aldershot. Our proposals for the defence medical services are outlined in a consultative document, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Training
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will(a) list the foreign Governments assisted with training and (b) the amount forgone as listed in "Other Notes" on page 19 of the Appropriation Accounts of 1992–93, class 1, vote 1.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not our practice to disclose this information as details of military assistance are in confidence between the coutries involved.

  Gifts
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the recipients of gifts and their amounts listed in "Special Payments" on page 28 of the Appropriation Accounts 1992–93, class 1, vote 2.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of gifts made in 1992–93 by my Department, their value, and the identity of recipients are as follows:
  61

  Number

  Description

  Value £

  Recipient

  1

  Armoured Vehicles

  1,600.00

  Canadians

  1

  Heavy Ferry

  20,000.00

  RE Museum

  1

  TACR 11

  4,500.00

  Imperial War Museum

  1

  Jet Provost Aircraft

  8,750.00

  RAF Museum

  1

  Vulcan Cannon Pod

  180.00

  RAF Museum

  1

  Quantity 70 x L39A1 Rifles

  700.00

  Army Rifle Association

  1

  Searchlights

  300.00

  RE and Army Museum

  1

  Aircraft Components

  250.00

  Bedford College

  1

  Admiral's Barge

  12,000.00

  Portsmouth Property Base

  1

  Quantity 2 x Cat 5 Viking Gliders

  1,500.00

  RAFGSA

  1

  Ship's Bells

  5,060.00

  Local Authorities

  1

  Quantity 70 x LMG's Machine Guns

  7,000.00

  Nepal

  1

  1992 NRA BISLEY Meeting Civilian Usage of 7.62mm Ammunition

  78,620.00

  National Rifle Association Bisley

  101

  143,826.00

  Contractors
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the contractor paid the extra-contractual amount listed under "Special Payments" on page 19 of the Appropriation Accounts 1992–93, class 1, vote 1.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not MOD policy to identify individual contractors where matters of commercial confidentiality are concerned.

  Car Purchases
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many other Departments use the car purchase running contract drawn up by his Department; and how many vehicles were purchased through this scheme in the last year.

  Mr. Aitken
  A total of 25 other Departments and public bodies use the Ministry of Defence enabling contract arrangements. The total number of vehicles procured against the contracts in financial year 1993–94 was approximately 2,900.

  Civilian Employees
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances conviction for a violent offence for which a prison sentence has been served debars an applicant from civilian employment with the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Aitken
  A person who has been found guilty of an offence against the law is not necessarily debarred from employment with my Department. Each case is considered on its merits, taking into account the nature and date of the offence, the candidate's age at the time, and the type of work for which he or she is applying.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which countries anti-personnel mines with self-destruct or self-neutralising mechanisms have been exported from the United Kingdom since 1982.

  Mr. Aitken
  It has been the established practice of successive administrations not to release information about individual defence exports. Nevertheless, in this case and in the context of the recent UN resolution on anti-personnel mines, I can confirm that no AP mines have been exported from the United Kingdom for well over a decade.

  Official Service Residences
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 July,Official Report, columns 341–42, if he will provide a breakdown of (a) the maintenance, furniture and equipment costs for each residence, (b) the subject matter of each contract of more than £5,000 for each residence and (c) the annual cost for domestic and household staff for each residence.

  Mr. Hanley
  For security reasons it is not our practice to reveal the location of individual residences for senior officers. The maintenance, furniture and equipment, and domestic and household staff costs for the 77 official service residences are shown in the table, with residences being identified numerically. Information on the nature of each contract of more than £5,000 for each residence is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  63

  £ thousand

  Combined figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 except where indicated

  Based on 1994–95 rates of pay

  Residence

  Maiintenance

  Furniture and equipment

  Annual domestic and household staff costs

  1

  7.0

  2.0

  84.3

  2

  5.0

  1.2

  9.4

  3

  2.0

  1.2

  32.2

  4

  2.5

  3.0

  36.3

  5

  63.0

  16.0

  157.7

  6

  37.5

  8.0

  61.6

  7

  56.5

  11.0

  84.3

  8

  10.0

  3.0

  0

  9

  63.0

  2.5

  173.2

  10

  30.0

  6.5

  42.8

  11

  86.0

  24.0

  117.7

  12

  27.0

  2.9

  87.2

  13

  200.0

  12.0

  78.0

  14

  3.6

  1.0

  42.8

  15

  41.7

  2.3

  42.8

  16

  9.0

  0

  51.8

  17

  7.0

  3.0

  99.8

  18

  57.0

  9.7

  84.3

  19

  80.7

  24.0

  142.2

  20

  18.0

  3.0

  44.7

  21

  14.4

  4.8

  142.2

  22

  49.0

  55.0

  81.3

  23

  25.0

  4.0

  61.8

  24

  35.0

  8.5

  173.2

  25

  14.6

  5.0

  39.5

  26

  69.0

  8.0

  65.8

  27

  37.5

  10.1

  139.3

  28

  166.6

  8.5

  52.0

  29

  15.0

  15.3

  76.0

  30

  25.5

  10.1

  66.8

  31

  22.3

  14.1

  83.0

  32

  61.5

  8.0

  30.2

  33

  13.0

  3.6

  23.4

  34

  13.7

  7.7

  37.6

  35

  22.5

  9.0

  9.6

  36

  50.4

  3.4

  55.7

  37

  23.4

  0

  72.6

  38

  29.3

  3.2

  58.4

  39

  39.2

  3.1

  50.9

  40

  23.6

  0.2

  50.9

  41

  38.3

  8.2

  35.0

  42

  83.3

  18.8

  83.9

  43

  61.7

  27.3

  95.3

  44

  26.1

  14.7

  50.9

  45

  25.0

  2.2

  69.5

  46

  49.2

  14.0

  71.3

  47

  80.7

  29.9

  84.3

  48

  19.9

  9.3

  49.1

  49

  35.9

  5.0

  42.2

  50

  21.4

  27.3

  53.6

  51

  24.6

  11.6

  41.5

  52

  82.0

  5.0

  71.2

  53

  213.9

  1.1

  36.6

  54

  229.0

  0

  99.9

  55

  563.0

  140.0

  102.4

  56

  0

  2.3

  52.3

  57

  87.4

  4.6

  121.1

  58

  19.9

  4.4

  62.5

  59

  108.8

  19.7

  80.9

  60

  0

  0

  88.6

  61

  10.6

  4.6

  63.5

  62

  0

  0

  18.0

  63

  315.1

  34.3

  4.0

  64

  3267.4

  1.2

  37.6

  65

  48.8

  2.6

  51.6

  66

  90.1

  3.2

  55.8

  67

  88.1

  4.4

  72.5

  68

  38.1

  3.1

  45.3

  69

  11.3

  4.1

  22.7

  70

  23.2

  9.5

  26.5

  71

  396.0

  1.5

  72.5

  64

  Combined figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 except where indicated

  Based on 1994–95 rates of pay

  Residence

  Maiintenance

  Furniture and equipment

  Annual domestic and household staff costs

  72

  0

  0

  26.5

  73

  34.8

  3.6

  51.6

  74

  102.9

  1.5

  37.6

  75

  11.2

  4.8

  49.3

  76

  93.7

  2.0

  45.3

  77

  96.4

  5.9

  74.6

  Total

  4,324.7

  719.6

  4,990.3

  1 Charges over a five-year period.

  2 FYs 1990–94.

  3 FY 1993–94.

  Mr. Gordon McNally
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 1990 Ministers, officials or serving officers at the rank of major or above have met Mr. Gordon McNally and discussed military equipment.

  Mr. Aitken
  I am not aware of any meetings which may have taken place between Ministers, officials or serving officers and Mr. McNally.

  Arms Sales (Abu Dhabi)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to sell a type 23 frigate to Abu Dhabi.

  Mr. Aitken
  The purchase of a type 23 frigate from a United Kingdom yard is one of a number of possibilities being considered by the United Arab Emirates.

  MOD Police
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the report of the Blelloch inquiry into the Ministry of Defence police is to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on 14 July,Official Report, columns 760–61.

EMPLOYMENT

  Race Relations Employment Advisory Service
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans the Government have to market test the race relations employment advisory service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The race relations employment advisory service is included in the Employment Department's market testing programme for 1994–95.

  Actively Seeking Work Test
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many decisions, disallowances and warning letters have been issued to unemployment benefit
  65
  and income support claimants by adjudication officers, in respect of the definition of actively seeking work, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on the number of decisions and disallowances issued to unemployment benefit claimants in respect of the definition of actively seeking work is contained in the quarterly summary entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions", copies of which are held in the Library. This information is available from 1 October 1989, when the actively seeking work condition was introduced, to the year ending March 1994. My Department does not hold information about the number of decisions and disallowances issued to income support claimants on those grounds.

  The number of warning letters which have been issued to unemployment benefit and income support claimants, in respect of the definition of actively seeking work, in each full year since 1 October 1989 is shown in the following table:

  Annex A

  Number of actively seeking employment warning letters issued

  1 October 1989 to December 1989

  7,577

  January to December 1990

  44,793

  January to December 1991

  24,896

  January to December 1992

  24,636

  January to December 1993

  10,869

  January to March 1994

  2,230

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of(a) men and (b) women over the age of 50 years who are living within the Greater London area and are registered as unemployed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In April 1994, the latest month for which figures are available, unadjusted claimant unemployment amongst people aged 50 and over in the greater London region stood at 49,664 men and 16,087 women.

  Breast Feeding
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice he gives to employers about arrangements for encouraging mothers to continue breast feeding on their return to work after maternity leave; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  None. Arrangements for women who wish to continue breast feeding on their return to work are best agreed between the individual women themselves and their employers.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of summer-term school leavers had(a) obtained employment, (b) started vocational training and (c) started courses of further or higher education by the following October in 1978 and in each year since then.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information in the table has been taken from the youth cohort study of England and 66
  Wales. The youth cohort study started in 1985 and has surveyed young people reaching minimum school leaving age approximately every two years since then.

  Main activity status1 of 16-year-olds2 in the October after leaving school3

  Per cent.

  In a full time job (over 30 hours a week)

  On a training scheme e.g. youth training

  College of further education (or tertiary college) full time4

  October 1984

  24.0

  39.0

  20.0

  October 1985

  23.0

  37.0

  20.0

  October 1986

  26.0

  39.0

  21.0

  October 1988

  31.0

  36.0

  25.0

  October 1990

  28.0

  23.0

  34.0

  October 1991

  22.0

  19.0

  42.0

  Source: Youth Cohoht Study.

  1 Main activity status identifies whether young people are out of work, in a full time job (over 30 hours a week), on a training scheme, full time at school or sixth form college, at a college of further education (or tertiary college) full time or doing something else.

  2 Aged 16 at preceding 31 August.

  3 Figures for October 1984 and October 1985 covered pupils in state schools only; independent schools were included from 1987 onwards.

  4 Excluding those young people who remain in school or sixth form college.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to increase the maximum awards which may be made to successful applicants by industrial tribunals.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Awards in cases of sex or race discrimination are not subject to an upper limit. We are considering the outcome of the annual review of the limits on other awards and will announce the decision as soon as possible.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now increase the financial resources available to industrial tribunals.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have already done so. The financial resources allocated to industrial tribunals for 1994–95 have been increased over those for last year.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the minimum, maximum and average waiting times for(a) unfair dismissal, (b) redundancy rights, (c) maternity rights, (d) race discrimination and (e) other claims in (i) England, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Wales; and what were the waiting times in 1979, 1989 and 1993.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No information is available for 1979 and information for 1989 and 1993 is not available in the form requested. The figures for 1989 and 1993, all jurisdiction, are shown in the following table:

  Length of time for registered applications to come to first hearing

  Percentage under (weeks)

  12

  20

  26

  30

  36

  England and Wales1

  1989–90

  44

  75

  85

  n/a

  n/a

  1993–94

  14

  38

  54

  63

  75

  67

  12

  20

  26

  30

  36

  Scotland

  1989–90

  43

  85

  91

  n/a

  n/a

  1993–94

  5

  65

  80

  86

  91

  1 Separate figures are not available for Wales.

  Regional Expenditure
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been his Department's expenditure in each region in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information in the form requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Unemployment, Germany
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 406, if he will now provide figures giving the percentage rate of unemployment in the united Germany.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 July 1994]: Internationally comparable ILO based unemployment figures are not available for unified Germany. However, in June 1994, unadjusted registered unemployment in unified Germany stood at 3,594,590. No equivalent rate of unemployment is available.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what monitoring his Department is doing of the railway privatisation fees being paid to consultants.

  Mr. Freeman
  Officials closely monitor the government's rail privatisation consultancy expenditure to ensure value for money in accordance with government accounting and financial procedures. The consultancy expenditure of BR and Railtrack is a matter for them.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the west coast main line reinvestment project under the private finance initiative.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the west coast main line reinvestment project under the private finance initiative.

  Mr. Freeman
  In March, Railtrack appointed a private sector consortium—West Coast Main Line Development Company Ltd.—to work with it to produce design standards for the line and to recommend funding options for the project. The joint study is expected to be completed by the end of the year. A further competition will then be held for the contract to undertake the upgrading work. That contract is expected to be let in mid-1995 and the works will start as soon as possible thereafter.

  East Coast Main Line
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with local authorities in the north-east of Scotland relating to proposals for involving them in the completion of the electrification of the east coast main line beyond Edinburgh.

  Mr. Freeman
  A local group—CREATE, campaign for rail electrification Aberdeen to Edinburgh—comprising local and district councils, trades councils and chambers of commerce, is due to release a report by the end of July in conjunction with Scotrail, on the feasibility of the electrification of the line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen.

  European Union
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what actions he has taken to date to follow-up the recommendations in Lord Donaldson's report in relation to the European Union.

  Mr. Norris
  We have identified a number of recommendations, particularly those on improving port state control, transponders, provision of salvage tugs and funding, which we wish to pursue with our European partners. Copies of the report were circulated to EU Transport and Environment Ministers in May and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raised those issues at the European Transport Council meeting in Luxembourg last month. We are greatly encouraged by the initial response from our European colleagues and we shall be taking these matters forward with them.

  Road Signs
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the conclusion of his review of road signing for commerce and tourism.

  Mr. Key
  On tourism, I had hoped to introduce a new regime this summer. We have been working with the Department of National Heritage on the introduction of a more flexible system for tourist signing. We have also consulted the local authority associations. I hope that the industry will be able to agree to the introduction of my proposals in good time for next year's season. I have already consulted the industry on the introduction of more flexible commercial signing and expect to issue guidelines later this year.

  Staff Annual Reports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the 1992–93 annual staff report markings broken down by grade 6 to AA, including typist and support grades, by gender.

  Mr. Norris
  According to the Department's computerised staff record, annual staff report markings for grade 6 to AA administrative staff in the Department of Transport, including its agencies, were as attached. Figures for typist and support grades are not broken down so as to ensure that individual members of staff cannot be identified.
  69

  Grade

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Total

  G6 Male

  2

  16

  3

  0

  0

  21

  G6 Female

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  G7 Male

  10

  103

  81

  1

  0

  195

  G7 Female

  7

  27

  10

  0

  0

  44

  SEO Male

  4

  111

  82

  2

  0

  199

  SEO Female

  1

  29

  20

  0

  0

  50

  HEO Male

  9

  223

  207

  8

  0

  447

  HEO Female

  9

  116

  92

  1

  1

  219

  EO Female

  8

  258

  307

  7

  1

  581

  EO Female

  9

  307

  295

  3

  0

  614

  AO Female

  10

  377

  509

  11

  3

  910

  AO Female

  25

  851

  1,049

  16

  1

  1,942

  AA Female

  16

  215

  311

  10

  3

  555

  AA Female

  44

  804

  955

  16

  2

  1,821

  Typist Grades Male

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Typist Grades Female

  30

  270

  211

  3

  0

  514

  Support Grades Male

  3

  47

  98

  2

  0

  150

  Support Grades Female

  0

  37

  79

  0

  0

  116

  Total Male

  62

  1,350

  1,600

  41

  7

  3,060

  Total Female

  125

  2,441

  2,711

  39

  4

  5,320

  Runway Capacity
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to make a statement on the recommendations of the RUCATSE report on runway capacity in the south-east.

  Mr. Norris
  We expect to make a statement giving the Government's response to RUCATSE some time before the end of the year.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding the building of a second runway at Gatwick airport.

  Mr. Norris
  The RUCATSE working group considered a number of possible locations for additional runway capacity to serve the south-east. After the group published its report in July 1993, a period of public consultation was announced. That consultation period ended on 31 May this year. In response to that consultation, my Department has received some 350 responses from organisations and some 4,100 letters from the public, of which some 2,860 referred specifically to the option of runway development at Gatwick.

  Low Cost Public Transport
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase facilities for low cost public transport within the south-east of England over the next five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's policies of deregulation, privatisation and competition will ensure greater efficiency and better value for money in the provision of public transport services. The package approach will make it easier for local authorities to fund improvements in public transport facilities.

  Heavy Vehicles
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the comparative effects on the environment of 44 and 38-tonne lorries.

  Mr. Key
  As my right hon. Friend replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) on 70
  21 March Official Report, column 10, we see a positive advantage in the use of 44-tonne lorries for combined road-rail transport. That means fewer lorries and it transfers freight from road to rail and so benefits the environment.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the elimination of competition in bus services following bus company mergers/takeovers since the Transport Act 1985.

  Mr. Freeman
  The bus industry is dynamic and changing. The spur competition and privatisation has reduced it costs and made it more responsive to the market. Recent developments may well lead to efficiency gains; it is important to maintain a healthy level of competition, which is why all qualifying mergers are considered for reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Freight
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage freight to be moved by rail rather than by road in and around Surrey.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are encouraging rail freight in a number of ways. We have liberalised access to the rail network, facilitated the restructuring of BR's freight businesses before sale, improved the freight facilities grants scheme, introduced a new track access grant for marginal freight flows and raised the maximum gross vehicle weight limit to 44 tonnes for combined road/rail transport.

  Commuter Rail Services
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what obligations exist upon Network SouthEast and InterCity to co-ordinate passenger services in the event of the failure of a particular train to run on the lines serving commuters in Essex.

  Mr. Freeman
  We expect operators of services to co-operate in the event of breakdowns to ensure that passengers are not left stranded. It is not, however, always practicable to stop the first InterCity train which follows a breakdown on a commuter service.

  Cycling
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to encourage bicyling.

  Mr. Key
  We are continuing our work to make roads safer for cyclists and to give guidance to local authorities and others in making good provision for cycling. The package approach which we have introduced for local transport expenditure gives local authorities greater flexibility to allocate funds for cycling. We are also seeking co-operative initiatives with outside bodies to improve understanding of the value of cycling and to promote changes in conditions that will allow it to flourish. Copies of the Government's recent statement are in the Library.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with his colleagues at the Departments of Health, for Education and of the Environment about encouraging children to bicycle to school, in order to reduce pollution and congestion, while encouraging health.

  Mr. Key
  We recognise the potential to reduce pollution and congestion, if more people were to choose to cycle. Our recent statement on cycling policy emphasises the importance of changing perceptions of cycling and improving conditions for it. I have not discussed with colleagues encouraging children to cycle to school. It is primarily a matter for parents to judge whether cycling to school is a safe and reasonable option, given local circumstances, and to press for improved facilities should those be necessary. Ways of improving health, including through cycling, have been discussed by Ministers of the Departments mentioned as part of the "Health of the Nation" initiative.

  London Buses
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress on the privatisation of London Buses.

  Mr. Norris
  The privatisation of London Buses Ltd. is now well under way. There is strong competition among bidders for the 10 operating companies and London Transport is on track to complete the sales by the end of the year.

  Motorways
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of wire rope central reservation barrier have now been provided(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) on the M4; and how many additional miles have been planned.

  Mr. Key
  Some 196.5 miles of wire rope safety fencing has been installed in the central reserve of dual carriageways at 74 different locations throughout the United Kingdom's road network. Included in this total is the 16.5 miles of wire rope safety fencing on the M4 motorway. Because the wire rope and the traditional tensioned corrugated beam safety fences are normally included in highway contracts as equivalent alternative vehicle restraint systems, and are therefore subject to competitive tendering procedures, I am unable to say how many additional miles of wire rope safety fencing have been planned.
  72
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 772, what estimate he has made of the likely increase in motorway capacity that the use of variable speed limits, electronic sensors and message signs might produce.

  Mr. Key
  None; additional throughput is one of the potential benefits that will be assessed during the 12-month period of operation of the pilot scheme. Reports have been received of additional capacity of 5 to 10 per cent. on similar systems already in use on the continent, but evidence to support those reports has yet to be produced.

  Channel Tunnel
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to an alternative route for the channel tunnel rail link through Barking under Barking Reach.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since the rail link's easterly approach to London was selected in 1991, Union Railways has considered various alignments through Barking, both on the surface and in tunnel, crossing Barking Reach and following the existing railway corridor. In consecutive reports to the Government, of March and October 1993, Union Railways presented a surface routeing along the existing London, Tilbury and Southend line, with the alternative of a tunnel following the same alignment. After careful consideration, my right hon. Friend concluded that the surface routeing should be chosen.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what year he expects both direct freight and direct passenger services through the channel tunnel from starting points in West Yorkshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  The timing and routes for services through the channel tunnel are a matter for European Passenger Services and British Rail, who are responsible for providing them.

  A259
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about improvements to the A259 between Hastings and Dymchurch.

  Mr. Key
  There are a number of schemes in the road programme for comprehensively improving the whole of the south coast trunk route including the section of the A259 between Hastings and Dymchurch. The schemes are at various stages of development.

  A public consultation was held last year for the A259 Guestling Thorn and Icklesham bypass but this proved inconclusive. No clear view emerged on the best scheme to take forward in this unique landscape. However, the Government remain committed to improving the A27/A259 route and we must look for a solution for this length. We have therefore decided to hold a scheme planning conference. Although we are still looking in some detail at the lessons from the recent trials at Hereford and Bodmin, we are sufficiently confident in the outcome there to believe that a conference will help at Guestling Thorn and Icklesham. To avoid limiting options, the conference will cover the area from Guestling Thorn and Winchelsea to east of Rye. The necessary arrangements will now be put in hand and a detailed announcement will be made in due course.
  73
  Draft proposals have been published for three schemes for the improvement of the A259 between New Romney and Dymchurch and a public inquiry will be held to consider the proposals and objections to them later this year. We also have plans for bypasses of Bexhill and Hastings. Following public consultation, a preferred route for the Bexhill and Hastings western bypass was announced in December 1990 and for the Hastings eastern bypass in June 1991. Detailed design work is under way, with a view to publishing draft statutory orders for these schemes later this year.

  The Minch (Tankers)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 28 April,Official Report, column 268, what appropriate action has been taken with the owners of tankers transiting the Minch against the recommendations agreed internationally since November 1993.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has written to the owners of the seven contravening tankers. Their responses have been positive, with the result that the owners of six of the vessels involved have issued an instruction to avoid the Minch and none of the seven has since transited the Minch.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the cost-benefit analysis 9 framework statement for each road scheme costing over £1 million that has been approved by his Department and that is(a) currently under construction or (b) scheduled for construction.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Detective Firms
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give a breakdown of the bill for services supplied by Bray's Detective Agency for gathering information on protestors at Twyford Down.

  Mr. Key
  This question relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 18 July 1994:
  I have been asked to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question requesting a breakdown of the cost of employing Bray's Detective Agency (Southampton) to gather evidence of trespass on the M3 construction site near Winchester.

  The information is as follows:

  £

  Collection and processing of evidence

  204,490.70

  Travel and subsistence expenses

  4,536.30

  Equipment and other expenses

  5,229.10

  VAT

  37,400.27

  Total

  251,656.37

  Benzene (Environmental Effects)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the natural occurrence of benzene in the atmosphere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  Most benzene emissions are man made and it is widely distributed as a trace atmospheric constituent over urban and industrial regions of north-west Europe. Concentrations of benzene in the atmosphere show daily and seasonal cycles resulting from emission activities and chemistry occurring in the atmosphere.

  Rural benzene measurements have been made in Oxfordshire at the Harwell laboratory since about 1986. Average concentrations at this rural site are about 0.8 ppb. Measurements made by the university of East Anglia at a rural site in Norfolk show a similar mean concentration to that observed at the Harwell site, whereas measurements at a remote rural site in Cumbria exhibited mean benzene concentrations of 0.4 ppb.

  Measurements have been made in the remote northern hemisphere troposphere and in the southern hemisphere troposphere. Benzene concentrations were found to be 0.07 ppb in the northern hemisphere and less than 0.02 ppb in the southern hemisphere. Those figures, collected in the remote background atmosphere, give a sign of what may be described at the level of natural occurrence of benzene.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evaluation he has made of the genotoxic nature of benzene in the atmosphere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Efficiency Cuts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the basis on which he has proposed efficiency cuts to(a) the Coastguard Agency and (b) the Marine Safety Agency.

  Mr. Norris
  No decisions have yet been taken about the basis for efficiency gains in either agency.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information was provided to his Department by British Nuclear Fuels in connection with the recent air shipment of plutonium-based mixed oxide nuclear fuel assemblies to Switzerland; and what information he has received on future plans to fly plutonium from United Kingdom airports to foreign customers.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department was given advance notification of the shipment. No details of any future similar shipments have been received.

  Marine Safety Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional work arising out of the Donaldson inquiry he expects to be undertaken by the Marine Safety Agency.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government are examining all the recommendations of the Donaldson report. Many of those
  75
  will require further analysis or development, some of which will have to be undertaken by the Marine Safety Agency. The extent and nature of that work will be announced in the Government's detailed response to the report later this year.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by grade for each of the last five years the number of substantive staff employed by the Marine Safety Agency and its predecessors.

  Mr. Norris
  It is not possible to give a breakdown of the numbers of staff by grades employed for each of the last five years by the predecessor of the Marine Safety Agency, the surveyor general's office. The total staff complement of the SGO for each of the last five years was as follows:

  Numbers

  1 April 1989

  398

  1 April 1990

  361

  1 April 1991

  361

  1 April 1992

  347

  1 April 1993

  356

  Vehicle Excise Discs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 521, (1) what estimates have been made by the DVLA of the total number and value of vehicle excise discs that will have to be stored on car dealers' premises in any one year if the AFRL scheme is fully implemented across the country;

  (2) what constitutes a secure environment for vehicle excise discs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The hon. Member can be assured that the position of the Exchequer has been safeguarded in the security arrangements made, which include storage in appropriate safes. It would compromise the measures taken if I were to provide full details, just as it would to draw attention to the number and value of the discs to be held.

  Pay Awards
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when staff in his Department are due to receive their 1994 pay awards; when staff employed in the Driving Standards Agency and the Vehicle Inspectorate are due to receive their 1994 pay awards; and if he will make a statement.

  Numbers of coastguard grades

  Grade

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Coastguard Officer

  385

  390

  385

  377

  381

  Station Officer

  57

  50

  49

  56

  48

  District Officer

  26

  24

  24

  25

  26

  Inspector

  7

  7

  7

  10

  10

  Principal Inspector

  8

  8

  8

  8

  7

  Chief Coastguard

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Totals

  1484

  1480

  1474

  1477

  2473

  1 As at 31 December.

  2 As at 14 July 1994.

  76
  Mr. Key
  The pay of staff in most parts of the Department of Transport is negotiated centrally. The 1994 pay award to staff in grades represented by the Civil and Public Services Association has been agreed and will be paid at the end of August. The settlement for staff in grades represented by the National Union of Civil and Public Servants is expected shortly. The two other main groups of staff have a later settlement date. Performance pay increases are handled separately.

  Three of the Department's agencies—the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Driving Standards Agency and the Vehicle Inspectorate—bargain on pay directly with staff representatives. Pay negotiations between the DVLA and the unions are at an advanced stage. DSA and VI intend commencing negotiations shortly. Once settlement is reached all three agencies will implement their pay awards without delay.

  Trains
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of trains travelling between London and Plymouth have arrived(a) on time, (b) within five minutes and (c) within 15 minutes of the scheduled arrival time in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The following figures are for the London to the west of England service group as a whole. Figures for London to Plymouth alone are not available. Services arriving within 15 minutes are not measured. Services arriving within 10 minutes of the scheduled time have been included instead.

  Per cent.

  Year

  On time

  Within 5 minutes

  Within 10 minutes

  1991

  62.6

  75.6

  83.1

  1992

  61.2

  75.3

  83.8

  1993

  61.9

  75.1

  83.9

  Coastguards
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last five years the number of substantive coastguard grades employed by his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  The attached table gives a breakdown for the last five years of the number of substantive coastguard grades.

  Staff (Assaults)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list by grade and location the number of staff in his Department who have been disciplined for assault on either another member of staff or a member of the public over each of the last 10 years;

  (2) if he will list for the last 10 years, by grade, the number of staff in his Department disciplined for assault and the disciplinary penalty imposed for each case;

  (3) if he will list for the last 10 years by grade the number of staff of his Department or its agencies dismissed for assault.

  Mr. Norris
  Information held centrally by the Department relates only to the past five years. There have been two cases in that period, both occurring in 1991. To give further details of grade and location might enable the individuals to be identified. The penalties imposed in those cases were respectively dismissal and a severe reprimand. In the former case, the officer decided to resign before being dismissed. Information relating to earlier years is held on individual personnel files and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what factors have led to the Driving Standards Agency considering reintroducing the nine test day;

  (2) under what authority the Driving Standards Agency undertakes pay negotiations;

  (3) if he will list for each of the last five years the number of substantive driving examiners employed by the Driving Standards Agency;

  (4) if he will list the reasons for the cancellation of the block booking facility for LGV/PCV and motor cycle driving tests;

  (5) when the Vehicle Inspectorate intends to enter into negotiations with trade unions regarding their 1994 pay claim;

  (6) what considerations underlay the exclusion of the Driving Standards Agency from the national civil service pay settlement.

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

  Letter front G. Lobo to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 13 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked the Chief Executive to reply to the questions you have raised about DSA's operations. I am replying as Dr. Ford is on annual leave.

  PQ 2919/93/94
  You asked what factors led to the Driving Standards Agency considering re-introducing the nine test day.
  At the recent Scottish Driving Examiners' Conference, some driving examiners suggested that the 3.35 pm test, the last one, should not be programmed in winter in some areas as it was often conducted in artificial (street) lighting. This in effect would reduce the current 8-day test day to a 7-test one during winter. In discussion, the Chief Executive made the point that there might be a case for considering this—subject to extra tests lost during winter being added to the summer programme. This could have the advantage of switching staff resources to be more in line with the seasonal pattern of test demand.
  78
  PQ 2924/93/94
  You asked under what authority the Driving Standards Agency undertakes pay negotiations.
  Authority for the Agency to undertake pay bargaining was given, with effect from 1 April 1994, under a delegated instrument issued by the Treasury in accordance with the Civil Service (Managemment Functions) Act 1992. The Civil Service Unions were consulted, in draft, on the delegation instrument.

  PQ 2931/93/94
  You asked for the number of substantive driving examiners employed by the Driving Standards Agency in the last five years.
  The figures, as requested, at at 31 March for each year are as follows:

  Number

  1990

  1,245

  1991

  1,196

  1992

  1,109

  1993

  1,036

  1994

  969

  PQ 2936/93/94
  You asked the reasons for ending the block-booking arrangement for LGV/PCV and motorcycle tests.
  Please refer to the answer which the Chief Executive gave to you in his letter of 8 June.

  PQ 2940/93/94
  You asked when the Agency intends to enter into negotiations with trade unions about their 1994 pay claim.
  We intend to commence negotiations soon.

  PQ 2924/93/94
  You asked why the Agency had been excluded from the national Civil Service pay settlement.
  The Citizen's Charter White Paper and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on Civil Service pay (July 1991) set out the Government's view that wherever possible and within essential public expenditure controls, responsibility for pay and related conditions fo service should be delegated to agencies. The Government's view is that management decisions are best taken by those responsible for the delivery of the service, within robust strategic controls. Delegation of pay bargaining enables decisions to be taken by the Agency managers, rather than the officials in Whitehall. Those decisions better reflect an agency's particular circumstances. As one of the larger Agencies, delegation on pay bargaining was given to this Agency with effect from 1 April 1994.

  Sick Absences
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each agency in his Department what sick absence regime is operated.

  Mr. Norris
  In the Central Transport Group and in the Highways Agency, Transport Research Laboratory, Vehicle Certification Agency, Driving Standards Agency, Marine Safety Agency and Coastguard Agency, responsibility for managing sickness absence is delegated to line managers, who take action in respect of any unjustified absence. Where staff have reached a high level of sick absence, defined as more than 14 days in 12 months, managers are expected to implement measures to control absence which parallel those for dealing with poor work performance.

  In the Vehicle Inspectorate, line managers are expected to register concern informally when a total of eight days is reached and to give an oral warning if 14 day's absence is reached. The Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency allows line managers discretion in determining which cases require formal action but it uses a trigger point of 10 days' absence for considering initial action.

  Rail Dispute
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will invite the Confederation of British Industry and Trades Union Congress to nominate one representative each to serve on a three-man board as mediators, that he will nominate one independent 80
  chairman, and that such a board shall begin work immediately to try and solve the dispute between Railtrack and the RMT trade union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for the parties to the dispute to take action to resolve it. The conciliation service of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service remain at their disposal.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Voluntary Housing Associations
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to change the role and objectives of voluntary housing associations by imposing on them a policy of right to buy.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Government have no plans for legislation to extend the right to buy.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, although I am extremely grateful for the noble Viscount's Answer, he must be aware that there are repeated press reports that the Government are actually considering that policy; but I take it from his Answer that they have no intention of doing any such thing. Is the noble Viscount aware that if the Government embark upon such a policy they will be reneging on undertakings given by successive Secretaries of State in regard to houses to let built by charitable or voluntary organisations? If that situation is tampered with in any way, the provision of new houses to let would almost certainly dry up completely.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, there are all manner of issues upon which the press will speculate. I made it clear in my Answer that there are no plans to legislate in the area. But, at the same time, the Government are indeed keen to encourage voluntary sales and they will continue to encourage housing associations to reap the benefits of such a policy.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister's clear Answer is indeed most welcome.
2
However, is he aware that 40 per cent. of housing association new finance is now raised from the private sector? Therefore, do the Government appreciate that, even apart from the threat of the right to buy, upon which the Minister has now given assurances, the other threats to housing associations—namely, the threat of lower grant rates and, therefore, rising rents and the threat of tampering with housing benefit—make the asset basis of housing associations vulnerable? Consequently, private lenders have made it clear that they are increasingly reluctant to lend to housing associations. Is the Minister aware that, if that happens, their building programme will close?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, we have no evidence to suggest that lenders are standing in the way of associations developing voluntary schemes. However, it is the case that private loans will contain covenants that require the association, if it disposes of a property that is part of the security for a loan, to replace the sold asset with a security of the same value. Many associations find it quite workable to operate sales under those terms. Where associations would have a problem is if there were to be a statutory obligation to sell, as that could leave an association unable to meet the security covenants required by lenders.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that in the case of charitable housing associations the members not only give the capital but they also provide the time and expertise? Therefore, it would be quite unreasonable to impose upon them the right to buy and so deplete their stock. Is the Minister also aware that where there has been a government grant and, thereafter, the Government wish unilaterally to change the contract that was made, they would be doing something which none of us can do? That, too, would be quite unreasonable.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the matter has twice been before your Lordships' House in proposed legislation and was rejected on both occasions. I can only remind noble Lords that my right honourable friend

3
the Secretary of State for the Environment made a categorical statement on 29th June that there were no immediate plans further to extend the right to buy.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I quite openly welcome the Minister's first statement. However, on my supplementary question, I am a little suspicions of his reply that the Government will not discourage people in the voluntary sector from selling houses if they wish to do so. Where a charitable housing association wants to sell some of its houses, can the Minister say whether it will be allowed to keep the total receipts from such sales in order to build other houses, or will the Government renege on the matter as they did on the sale of council houses when all the promises given in this and the other place were broken?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, encouraging associations means, for example, having arrangements in the bidding process for new allocations of public funding which take account of the financial contribution that associations propose to make from their sales of property to tenants. Such arrangements already operate in England.

Litigation: Conditional Fee Scheme
2.42 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the draft conditional fee order and regulations will, in their published form, adequately safeguard lay clients from paying their lawyers a disproportionate amount of any sums which may be recovered from litigation or threatened litigation under the conditional fee scheme they propose to approve.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the conditional fee scheme outlined in the draft order and regulations will provide a valuable means of access to justice for many people who might otherwise be unable to afford to proceed with their cases. There has been extensive consultation on the draft order and regulations and, in the light of the responses I have received, I believe that the safeguards provided in the order and regulations are generally sufficient and satisfactory. I do, however, remain open to specific suggestions for improving the terms of the order and regulations, although I would now like to make early progress towards bringing the scheme into effect.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, while thanking my noble and learned friend for his detailed Answer perhaps I may, before putting any further question, in two sentences refer to the context. Conditional fee agreements are a species of contingency fee which permit lawyers to take cases on a no win, no pay basis with a charge—an uplift or a mark up—on top of their normal fees in the event of success. Initially it was to be 20 per cent. It has now been put at a maximum of 100 per cent. The second point is that before the Courts
4
and Legal Services Act 1990 made such speculative agreements lawful, they were unenforceable being contrary to public policy.
My questions are these: first, does my noble and learned friend agree with the advice of his own advisory committee mat unless his regulations prohibit the uplift exceeding a set proportion, it could absorb the greater proportion or even the whole of the sums recovered thereby equalling, if not exceeding, the greater excesses of the American system which have been so often condemned? Secondly, does he not further agree with his own advisory committee that his regulations should prohibit lawyers bringing wholly unmeritorious actions in the hope that defendants will settle them to avoid the trouble and expense of going to court?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I propose to address myself to the two questions. First, I agree with the advice of the advisory committee that it is possible, under the draft regulations, for a lawyer to make an arrangement of the kind to which my noble and learned friend has referred. But the purpose of these regulations is to provide a maximum uplift, the principle behind it being that the uplift is related to the work done and not to the amount of damages. I can well see that, depending on the circumstances, it may well be right for the parties to make an arrangement to limit the uplift by reference to the amount of damages.
On the second point, obviously the system is one which is quite different from the system that prevails in the United States in mat it is related to the work done rather than to the amount of damages recovered. Secondly, in this country there exists a very different regime for costs from that which prevails in the United States because in this country the loser will be liable for costs. Therefore in the kind of action to which my noble and learned friend referred in his second question, there will be a liability of costs on the plaintiff which the lawyer will be bound to tell him about and which should be an important safeguard against the kind of difficulty to which my noble and learned friend referred in the second branch of his question.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee was anxious that a client should have the safeguard of being told in advance what his case was likely to cost him under this scheme. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could help us. Although the regulations provide that the client will be told in advance what he will have to pay if his claim is partially unsuccessful, or what he has to pay in any event, or if the agreement is terminated, the regulations as presently drafted seem to be silent on a requirement to tell him what he is likely to have to pay up if he wins, and how it is to be calculated. I ask the noble and learned Lord why that is so and whether it can be rectified in redrafting.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the intention is that the matter to which the noble Baroness referred is the central part of the agreement. The other matters that are specifically referred to are supplementary. I do, however, see that it is wise for the lawyer and client to discuss at the outset the likely proceeds from the enterprise. In view of that, having had discussions with

5
the president of the Law Society just last week, I think it may be possible to meet the point by putting in some requirement about the situation that should obtain with regard to the net amount that the client could expect to recover as a measure of success in terms of the agreement.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, quite apart from the danger to plaintiffs outlined in the original Question, what protection have meritorious defendants against unmeritorious claims brought against them in the knowledge that the plaintiffs will not be able to pay if they lose?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend knows, the law affects the lawyers concerned in those circumstances. The most important safeguard is the one to which I referred; namely, that in taking action along these lines plaintiffs who have assets will have a serious concern with regard to the risk to those assets.
I should also say that I understand that the Law Society is in the final stages of organising a form of insurance policy to protect clients against a costs order under a conditional fee agreement. That will be a valuable supplement to the conditional fee scheme. If that is implemented it will be a complete answer to the anxiety to which my noble and learned friend has just referred.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor able to assure the House that lawyers will not be able to take a disproportionate share of damages in cases which they win? Can he also give an assurance that there are speedy, accessible and effective remedies for members of the public complaining about too large a share of the success being taken by the lawyers?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the weapon that Parliament gave to me was to determine the maximum uplift that could be taken in any case. I have been persuaded by the representations that have been made to me that that maximum ought to take account of the most unlikely case that can properly be taken, which would be one in which there was something like a 50 per cent. chance of success. Obviously the client and the solicitor or other lawyer will require to agree on these matters. The Law Society proposes a draft form of agreement. I believe that that information is the best protection that a client who wishes to proceed in this way can reasonably have.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as a non-lawyer I was among those who welcomed the provision relating to conditional fees when the 1990 Courts and Legal Services Bill was going through Parliament as a means of improving access to justice. As I recall, I suggested, without success, an amendment extending the relevant clause. Is it not disappointing that four years later we are still arguing about the implementation of the powers conferred by the 1990 Act, notwithstanding that, as I understand it, a comparable arrangement has been operative in Scotland
6
for some considerable time? Can the noble and learned Lord say a little more about when he hopes to be able to introduce the new scheme?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that many of your Lordships are persuaded that evolution rather than revolution is the way to progress when making changes to the legal system. Care has been taken to try to take account of all the various anxieties that have been expressed and in relation to how far the scheme should extend at its first implementation.
I hope that having been through the process for some time we are close to the position where I can invite this House and the other place to approve the regulations. I certainly hope to be able to do so before the end of the year, all being well.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is not the difficulty that the conditional fee scheme, even at its best, will drive litigation further into the realm of speculation? Will my noble and learned friend therefore take careful note of the cautious advice already given to him by his advisory committee?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, everyone who embarks on litigation knows that the outcome is not certain. It is important that the risks should lie with those who take them. That is one of the advantages of this particular type of proposal. I agree that it is wise to proceed cautiously. The four-year period to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred is an indication of the time that I have taken. However, it is not wise to wait too long.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble and learned friend suggested that there should be discussion as to the likely proceeds from the enterprise. Does he not think, on reflection, that that conjures up a rather alarming picture and that many clients would not stand much of a chance?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is important that the client and the lawyer should be aware of what: is likely to be the outcome and the range of outcomes which has to be considered. That is what I had in mind. The client is embarking on an important transaction and it is very important that the client should be informed of the range of outcomes which the lawyer thinks possible.

The Elderly: Residential and Nursing Home Costs
2.55 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered Age Concern's report Preserved and Protected? which makes recommendations concerning the community care reforms and people with retained rights to income support; and, if so, with what result.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, Ministers from the Departments of Social Security and Health have considered the report and have met with representatives of Age Concern. Those

7
representations will be taken into account when income support limits are reviewed as part of the general uprating exercise.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Would the noble Viscount care to comment on the report's findings about the shortfall between income support rates and care home fees in certain areas, including the London area even allowing for the Greater London allowance? Will he further comment on the recommendation that the Government should implement Section 135 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act, especially immediately to identify those areas where income support limits are clearly inadequate to meet care home fees, and to revise those income support limits accordingly?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Age Concern report accepts that limits are adequate in many areas. We are not convinced that costs vary over the country beyond the Greater London area which, as the noble Lord pointed out, has an increased rate. Of course we welcome all such representations, and they are taken into account together with all other evidence available when we review income support rates. As I said, there is no evidence at present that there are significant variations in the costs for residential care in different parts of the country. However, the Secretary of State has the power to vary the limits if necessary.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the shortfall to which my noble friend referred is often £20 a week or more? If an elderly person is in a private residential home and that person and the family cannot afford to meet the shortfall the local authority has the power to do so. If that same elderly person is in a private nursing home the local authority has no such power. There are reports of these people, the most frail of the elderly, being evicted. Will the Government tell us what they are going to do about that?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not aware and the department is not aware of any evictions. If the noble Baroness is aware of any evictions I should be grateful if she would bring them to our attention. Nor am I aware that any local authority has had to transfer residents to alternative accommodation because of evictions.
The noble Baroness is right in respect of the difference between residential care and nursing home care. However, in nursing home care those evicted would be the responsibility of the National Health Service.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can we then look forward to the Minister consulting his right honourable friend in the Department of Health to ensure that health authorities have the same power, responsibility and authority to top up nursing home fees as local authorities have in relation to private residential home fees?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said in answer to the original Question, Ministers from the Departments of
8
Social Security and Health met representatives of Age Concern. Ministers from the two departments are in regular contact.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the Minister really saying that it is possible for elderly people in homes to be evicted? If that is the situation, are the Government not totally ashamed and are they not prepared to take action to prevent it? Are they aware of the horrific anxiety caused to people who have that threat of eviction hanging over their heads even if it is not implemented? I beg the Government for an answer.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot accept what the noble Lord says. I should point out to him that 267,000 people in residential care and nursing home care now receive help through income support. That figure compares with only 12,000 in 1979. We spend £2.6 billion in income support for those people compared with £10 million in 1979.
Since its recent introduction, we believe that community care is working well.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Government answer the question?
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in the Minister's original reply, he referred to the problem of the London area. Is it not a fact that this year's increases are linked to the RPI, but that the London area in general will receive no increase? The increase is linked to RPI only outside London. London receives no increase on its allowance.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, increases for nursing home limits are greater than residential care limits because the costs are greater. The sum of £10 a week was added to all nursing home limits in the recent uprating.
Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that there is quite a substantial difference between the London limits and the limits in the remainder of the country.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Viscount appreciate that a great many charities now help with the shortfall on nursing and residential care homes? But the charities are increasingly becoming unable to meet that shortfall because they lack funds. Will the Minister please ensure that there is enough money either from social services or the National Health Service to ensure that the charities are not bled dry?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand that the level of fees for which local authorities are contracting tend to follow closely the limits available for people with preserved rights; that is, those who were already in residential or nursing home care on 1st April 1993.

Large Hadron Collider
3.2 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why at the June meeting of the CERN Council approval for the large hadron collider was withheld.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the process of approval for the large hadron collider was opened at the 100th session of the CERN Council last month. However, Germany and the United Kingdom were not ready formally to approve the project pending satisfactory resolution of certain financial aspects, in particular the question of an additional special contribution from CERN's host states. The United Kingdom remains firmly committed to the project—a position reaffirmed in the council meeting. We are optimistic that a satisfactory solution can be found to the outstanding issues enabling the voting procedure to be completed by all member states in the near future.
Lord Redesdale: My Lord, I thank the Minister for her reply. Can she give any indication when she expects the approval to be given?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the approval, but we are hopeful. There are certainly signs that the host nations, France and Switzerland, are prepared to consider the possibility of making a premium contribution over and above their normal contribution. The matter of voting for increases in expenditure is sensitive. The figure of 55 per cent. is all that is required to vote an increase in expenditure. It is worth looking at the list. Only four nations together contribute 70 per cent. of the funds; and yet 10 nations contributing between them 8 per cent. of the funds could vote for an increase in expenditure. Such factors need to be resolved, but we understand that they are very close to being resolved.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what a large hadron collider is, and whether a smaller one might not do?
Baroness Blatch: Well, my Lords, the noble Lord did ask the question! It is a particle accelerator or atom smasher used to investigate the building blocks of the universe by creating conditions akin to those existing shortly after the Big Bang. The machine will bring protons into head-on collision, and at higher energy levels than ever achieved before. The impact results in the creation of fundamental particles which will bring into range study of the top quark and potentially the discovery of the Higgs boson. The top quark is a sub-atomic particle that is the last undiscovered quark of the six quarks predicted by current scientific theory. Scientists worldwide have sought experimental evidence for the top quark since the discovery of the bottom quark at Fermilab in the United States in 1977.
10
Briefly, the Higgs boson is a hypothesised particle which, if it exists, would give the mechanism by which particles acquire mass and could help to explain why the universe is made up of matter and not anti-matter.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, on behalf of the entire House, perhaps I may express our gratitude to the Minister for that splendid account of the large hadron collider which I am happy to say coincides exactly with the information that I have been given. However, does she agree with me that if the United Kingdom were to withhold funds from the large hadron collider at CERN, it would be stating publicly for the first time that as regards sub-atomic particle physics Britain is no longer in the World Cup league but is relegated to the Vauxhall Conference league in pure science? With that possibility in mind, will she tell the House what the Government are doing to ensure that British companies benefit from this large physics project, whether or not we are funding it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is an important point. If I may take the noble Lord's latter point first, we want to make absolutely certain that British companies do indeed benefit on many fronts from the breakthrough in science.
As for the commitment—or the possibility that if we do not come to an agreement it would somehow lessen that commitment—I can say absolutely that there will be resolution and that the United Kingdom will continue to be committed wholeheartedly to this project.
This project is important to the world as a whole. We believe that it is important to consider the widening of the base of those countries who contribute. We know that there is already interest from the United States, Canada and other countries—for example, India. Therefore we expect some widening of the base and widening of the contribution to this very expensive science.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is there a possibility that the quark may turn out to be a "Boojum"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am getting into very deep water. I think there is every possibility that it will turn out not to be there at all.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while I agree with the noble Baroness about the project's importance, would it not be possible for the CERN Council to make an approach to the American authorities for some contribution towards the costs on the basis that American scientists would be able to use the facilities when they are ready?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the important factor about America is, if I remember, that America abandoned its own superconducting supercollider. That was an £11 billion project. It has strengthened the case for collaboration with the CERN project. I believe that that is the basis for our hope that they will regard becoming involved in this project as a very profitable activity.

Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
3.8 p.m.
Considered on Report.

Drug Trafficking Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (80) as first printed by the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 19, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 7 to 12, 14, 15, 19, 35, 36, 46, 47, 63, 65 and 127.
The main amendment in this group is Amendment No. 8. The remaining amendments are very small. Amendments Nos. 1, 10, 11 and 12 are directly and wholly consequential on Amendment No. 8. Amendment No. 127 repeals Section 24 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, which was a stopgap provision needed to deal with changes to police areas in Wales if this Bill were not to be passed. All the remaining amendments in the group are to take account of the fact that some principal councils in Wales from 1st April 1996 will be called county boroughs.
Amendment No. 8 is necessary in order to enable us, after Royal Assent, to settle outstanding questions relating to the police boundaries in Wales. As your Lordships will know, this Bill has been proceeding through Parliament in parallel with the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. By convention, each Bill was drafted as if the other did not exist so as not to anticipate Parliament's decisions on either Bill. The Welsh Bill has received Royal Assent now. It was therefore necessary to make amendments to this Bill in order to take account of the new local government boundaries which will be created in Wales with effect from 1st April 1996.
For North Wales and Dyfed-Powys police areas this would be entirely straightforward, with only minor boundary changes. But the shape of the new boundaries in South Wales will require significant changes to the
12
boundaries of the South Wales and Gwent police areas, because the new Caerphilly district straddles the existing boundary between those two police areas.
The boundaries of the new Caerphilly district were not finally settled until a late stage during proceedings on the Local Government (Wales) Act some three weeks ago. Although we have been discussing with the two police authorities and the two police forces the options which are available for settling the boundaries, obviously those discussions could not be brought to a conclusion until the boundaries of the new local government areas were settled.
The changes which will affect the South Wales and Gwent police areas are quite large, and it is obviously right that we should give sufficient time for all concerned to consider the available options. It is important that there should be adequate discussions between all the interested parties in order to try to come to a solution which is acceptable to all sides. The powers which are provided by this amendment will require the Secretary of State, before 1st April 1996, when the Welsh local government changes take effect, to make an order settling the police boundaries in Wales.
I can confirm that, in respect of North Wales and Dyfed-Powys, the order will merely redefine the existing boundaries in terms of the new Welsh local government areas, including some small changes in the north-east of Dyfed-Powys police area. But I cannot say what will need to be done in South Wales and Gwent. The position today is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has not reached any decision on how to resolve the boundary problem which affects the South Wales and Gwent police areas. Discussions have been going on with the police authorities on the basis of the available options. There are three options, any of which could be put into effect by means of the powers which are set out in this amendment. The first is to put the whole of the new Caerphilly district into the Gwent police area, thereby making the Gwent force a little larger than it is at present. The second is to put the whole of the Caerphilly district into the South Wales police area, which would make the South Wales force a little larger and the Gwent force somewhat smaller than at present. The third option is for the two police areas to be combined.
The discussions which have already been held with those concerned mean that we have committed ourselves to a process of consultation on the basis of those three options. Although it is in no one's interest to have any prolonged uncertainty, my right honourable friend certainly will not wish to make up his own mind too quickly.
If those concerned in the area can reach agreement on a way forward, on a basis which provides a solution which my right honourable friend regards as satisfactory in policing terms, this would be an excellent outcome which we all hope will be able to be achieved. My right honourable friend would then use this new power to give effect to that agreement. We certainly want to proceed on the basis of agreement if we possibly can.
But the point which I must emphasise to the House is this. The new boundaries of Welsh local government areas will necessitate changes to the present South

13
Wales and Gwent police areas. We would have liked to amend the Bill to give effect to such changes, but we do not yet know what those change!) will be. As a result, this Bill will be passed into law with Schedule 1A in it, which defines Welsh police areas by reference to Welsh counties. Those will cease to exist and they will therefore need to be replaced in mat schedule by reference to the other new police areas. The present amendment therefore imposes a requirement—and it is a requirement—on my right honourable friend to make an order settling the new Welsh police areas and making consequential amendments to the way in which they are defined in Schedule 1A.
As I have explained, my right honourable friend would hope to use that power to give effect to a satisfactory agreement which could be reached between all the parties concerned. But we must cater for the possibility that satisfactory agreement might not be reached and, in that unhappy event, this amendment gives my right honourable friend the power, if necessary, to give effect to his decision where no satisfactory agreement is reached. Without that power to impose a solution, we could not be certain that suitable arrangements for the policing of the present South Wales and Gwent police areas could be in effect from 1st April 1996.
As I have explained, consultation is going on between all the parties concerned and we very much hope that these will reach a satisfactory conclusion for everyone. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining in such detail this tricky problem. I am grateful to him for giving me notice, as soon as he knew it could arise, that there was the possibility of the Government and the Minister in particular going back on their indication that there were unlikely to be any amalgamations for 10 or even 20 or 30 years. I understand his reluctance to explain in detail the problem that might have arisen in North Wales as between North Wales and Dyfed-Powys authority. It concerns the village of Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant and I am sure he would not have wished to spell that out to the House.
The situation in South Wales, as between South Wales and Gwent, is not quite as unsettled as the Minister seems to think. As I understand it—and my honourable friend Alun Michael has been taking a lead in trying to reach agreement on this—the Gwent police authority, both Islwyn and Rhymney councils and all the other councils concerned and the —Members of Parliament have agreed that the correct solution is for Rhymney to move into the big Gwent police authority area.
The only fly in the ointment, as I understand it now, is the South Wales police authority. At its meeting last week it decided first that it was against the merger proposals which were supported by its own chief constable; and then it decided only on the casting vote of the chairman that it wanted Rhymney to move into the South Wales police authority. The possibility of a
14
change in the view of the South Wales police authority still exists. What I wish to hear from the Minister in terms is that the possibility of a merger, which would be thoroughly undesirable and which is not wanted by any except about half the South Wales police authority, is the last possible resort. We would like to hear that the Government will seek, so far as it is within their power, to secure agreement to the rational solution to the problem. That is the inclusion of the whole of the new Caerphilly county borough into the Gwent police authority area.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Yes, my Lords, I agree with that. The situation is as described by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The fact is that it is only half the members of the South Wales police authority who want, despite the views of its own chief constable, to transfer the district into its police force area.
It would seem to me to be an extraordinary proposition were we to be faced later next year with any proposal basically to wipe out the existence of the Gwent police force. If that district is transferred to the area of the South Wales police authority, Gwent will cease to be a viable force, as I understand it. No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will confirm whether that is true. Virtually everybody who has looked at this situation, including the local Members of Parliament and the local district council, is of one mind. I therefore very much hope that the Government will certainly try to bring half the members of the South Wales police authority round to a sensible conclusion in this matter, and will enable Gwent under no circumstances to agree to an amalgamation of those two forces which has virtually no public support in South Wales.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I have received no representations on this matter; nor has my noble friend Lord Cledwyn. That is some indication of the degree of public anxiety about this issue, which really does not extend beyond a relatively few people. If I may express a personal opinion, I would have no hesitation at all in saying that it seems to me that the logical outcome is the one that has; been proposed; namely, Caerphilly and the borough concerned should be included in Gwent. If that were the solution I would heartily support it.
Baroness White: My Lords, as I am Lady White, of Rhymney—after the comma—I fully support what was said by my noble friend. It would be very unsatisfactory if the two police authorities were to be joined into one. It is essential to maintain a Gwent police force. I hope that that will be the result.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Callaghan and Lady White. I agree with what they say about the need for a strong force in the area. Although I am not familiar with the details on this matter, I know that that is the view of the people living in the area.
The noble Lord referred to the strength of the Gwent police force. I think that the House would be interested to know what is the strength of the police force and what its strength would be without an amalgamation with Caerphilly, and what the addition of Caerphilly to

15
Gwent would mean in terms of numbers. My view coincides with that of noble Lords who have spoken; namely, that the amalgamation is desirable.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the understanding way in which they have accepted this problem. I entirely agree with everything that has been said. It is highly desirable that there should be an agreement over what should take place in the future. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that his honourable friend Mr. Michael had been taking an interest in this matter. Indeed he has, and he has played a very considerable part in helping to try to bring all the parties together.
It is always difficult to get an agreement on matters of what might be called a territorial distinction such as this. But the fact is that Schedule 1 lists the names of all the police areas. When one comes to Wales, the schedule refers to Dyfed Powys being the counties of Dyfed and Powys; Gwent being the county of Gwent; North Wales being the counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd; and South Wales being the counties of Mid-Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and West Glamorgan. Those are to be the police areas. Those areas will have to be changed because of the alteration of the boundaries. Therefore there has to be an order to change them.
What the areas are to change to entirely depends on what arrangements can be arrived at. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who asked: will we do all that we can to ensure that that comes about by agreement? I can assure him that we in the Home Office are, have been, and will be continuing to do exactly that. But in the end there has to be adequate policing. In the rare event of there being no agreement, my right honourable friend would have to take a decision. I think that that is highly unlikely—I hope that it is highly unlikely. For those reasons, I hope that I can assure noble Lords that we shall do all we can to try to bring about a satisfactory solution to this matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2Clause 3, page 2, line 31, at end insert:
'Reductions in size of police authorities.
3B.—(1) This section applies to any order under subsection (2) of section 3A of this Act which varies or revokes an earlier order so as to reduce the number of a police authority's members.
(2) Before making an order to which this section applies, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the authority,

(b) the councils which are relevant councils in relation to the authority for the purposes of Schedule 1B to this Act, and

(c) any panel (or magistrates' courts committee) which is responsible, or is represented on a joint committee which is responsible, for the appointment of members of the authority.

(3) An order to which this section applies may include provision as to the termination of the appointment of the existing members of the authority and the making of new appointments or re-appointments."'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. Perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 64.
The Bill already includes a power for the Secretary of State, by order, to increase the size of a police authority above the standard size of 17. The power includes the power to vary or to revoke such an order. We do not expect frequent changes in the size of police authorities, but it would be wrong if the size of a police authority could only be increased but could never be decreased if circumstances were to change.
Amendment No. 2 is needed in order to cater for the practical consequences of reductions in the size of a police authority. The main purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, when varying or revoking the enlargement order, the Secretary of State may make provision concerning the appointments of existing members. That might in practice be done in a variety of ways, depending on the circumstances. Where the change in size was quite small, the Secretary of State might consult the police authority and might reach agreement with it over which members' appointments were to be terminated. There might, for example, be people who would would be due to retire from the authority shortly anyway, or maybe some would volunteer to do so. In these cases the order would give effect to what the Home Secretary had agreed with the authority.
Alternatively, especially in cases where more complex changes in the structure of the authority might be required, the better course might be to terminate the appointments of all existing members so that the appointing authorities could look at the matter afresh. The amendment includes an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult before taking such action on this. There is no statutory provision for consultation before making an order to enlarge a police authority because, in practice, the initiative for enlargement is likely to come from the authorities concerned in the police area, and local discussion will therefore arise naturally.
It is much more likely that the initiative to reduce the size of a police authority would come from the Home Secretary of the day, if it appeared to him that the reasons for an earlier enlargement had changed. In practice I have no doubt that he would consult—he would not leave the police authority to learn of a reduction just be the laying of the relevant order before Parliament. But we thought that consultation on the question of reducing the size of an authority should be mandatory, and the amendment achieves that purpose.
Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 also concern police authority membership. They put right an anomaly which affects local government areas which are partly within the Metropolitan Police district. At present parts of the counties of Surrey, Essex and Hertfordshire are within the Metropolitan Police district. We have no plans to

17
change the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police district, so this will continue in its present state for the foreseeable future.
Under the Bill as originally drafted, it would theoretically have been possible for local councillors who represent those areas that are policed by the Metropolitan Police to be appointed as councillor members of the police authority for Surrey, Essex or Hertfordshire—which would, of course, be the policing authority for the other part of their area. That would obviously not make sense. Their electoral divisions would be in the Metropolitan Police district and not in the police area on which police authority they wish to sit. Their local electors would be contributing to the funding of the Metropolitan Police, not to the funding of the force on which police authority they sought to sit.
I understand that, at present, the county councils whose areas include parts of the Metropolitan Police district do not choose county councillors representing electoral divisions within that district to sit on the relevant county police authority. The amendment will put that commonsense practice on a statutory footing by ensuring that councillors who are elected for electoral divisions which are wholly within the Metropolitan Police district are disqualified for membership of a police authority for an area which is outside the Metropolitan Police district.
The amendments will also ensure that, for the purposes of determining the political balance among the councillor members of a police authority, a council or a joint committee which is making appointments should take no account of councillors who are disqualified for membership because they were elected for areas within the Metropolitan Police district. It would be absurd if political balance were to be determined by the political affiliations of people who were ineligible for appointment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, before I ask my noble friend a simple question about this group of amendments, perhaps I may ask him a more general question. I hope that it will be in order for me to do so. I feel that it may save time. Can he assure us that the Commons amendments to Parts I and II of the Bill, which deal with police affairs, have not changed in principle the amendments made by your Lordships to the Bill that was originally presented to us? They do not seem to have done so, but if my noble friend can give an assurance that that is so, I am sure that it will help in the further discussion of the Commons amendments. There are a number of amendments but they seem to be mainly consequential on what your Lordships did to the Bill. Indeed, many of them appear largely to be matters of administrative detail.
Having asked the question, perhaps I may now turn to the effects of this group of amendments. In considering the group, which includes reference to the first schedule, we find what the police areas for the future in England, except London, are to be. In this context we have to bear in mind that there is a local government commission which has already made many
18
recommendations about the future of local government in England. In doing so, it referred to various specialist tasks, such as policing, for which local authorities in England are at present responsible.
In the case of Cambridgeshire, where I happen to live, the police area is to be the county of Cambridgeshire. Perhaps I may say that I am glad about that. Although I personally hope that a number of unitary authorities will be created within Cambridgeshire, I hope also that the police authority will cover the whole area in the future as it has done up to now.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that I can satisfy my noble friend, certainly over the first part of his question. Although there are a number of amendments, they are mostly matters of detail and are, as he described it, largely of administrative detail. There is only one case in which the Commons amendment reverses; a Lord's amendment, and that concerns Amendment No. 18.
With regard to my noble friend's concern about his county of Cambridgeshire, so far as I know the position is likely to remain as it is at the moment unless or until the local government commission suggests any alterations to the boundaries.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 7, page 5, line 33, at beginning insert 'In'.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. At the same time, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 21, 30, 79, 80, 88 and 118.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 give effect to the Government's decision that the rank of chief inspector should be retained. They do so by amending Section 7 of the Police Act 1964 to add the rank of chief inspector to the ranks which are already listed in that section. The rank does not appear in the existing list but is instead prescribed in police regulations. The list of ranks in Section 7 of the 1964 Act will, as a result of this amendment, no longer include the rank of deputy chief constable.
Amendments Nos. 21, 30 and 118 make similar provision for Scotland. Police ranks should be the same either side of the Border. I understand that the Scottish police associations accept that. The rank structure will now include two ranks between inspector and assistant chief constable, which is what your Lordships resolved when the Bill was before the House at Third Reading.
Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 are technical amendments. Amendment No. 88 makes a small adjustment to the arrangements proposed in the Bill for authorising chief inspectors to fulfil the duties of a superintendent in exercising certain powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. 1984. The amendment provides that, where a superintendent anticipates that he will be absent, he may give prior authorisation to a chief inspector to exercise his powers during his absence. In all other circumstances,

19
authorisation will continue to be required at the level of the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Association of Chief Police Officers has been consulted on the amendment and is content with it.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his opening remarks the Minister said that it was a government decision to retain the rank of chief inspector. I feel that he ought to recognise that it was the decision of your Lordships' House that an extra rank should be retained. It was against the wishes of the Government. The fact that it is the rank of chief inspector which is to be retained owes much to the well informed and powerful advocacy of my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would not wish the opportunity to be missed. The noble Lord is quite right; it was the decision of your Lordships' House to which I referred. The Government cogitated about that decision and wondered whether it would be as well to accept it or suggest to another place that it may like to take another view. But in their magnanimity the Government considered that your Lordships were right. That decision was the Government's decision and it was a very creditable one too.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 7, page 5, line 33, leave out from 'forces)' to end of line 42 and insert ', in subsection (1)—

(a) for the words "section 1" there shall be substituted the words "section 2",

(b) the words ", deputy chief constable" shall be omitted, and

(c) after the word "superintendent" there shall be inserted the words ",chief inspector".'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. The amendment has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. —(Earl Ferrers. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
5 After Clause 10, insert the following clause:
Appointment of officers
'After section 10 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—
"Appointment of clerk.
10A. A police authority established under section 3 of this Act shall appoint a person to be the clerk to the authority.
Appointment of persons not employed by police authorities.
10B. Where a police authority established under section 3 of this Act is required or authorised by any Act—

(a) to appoint a person to a specified office under the authority, or

(b) to designate a person as having specified duties or responsibilities,

20

then, notwithstanding any provision of that Act to the contrary, the authority may appoint or designate either a person employed by the authority under section 10 of this Act, or a person not holding any office or employment under the authority." .'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. With the leave of the House perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 76.
The new clause would have two main effects. First, it would require each police authority to appoint a clerk. That would be in place of the obligation which the Bill previously placed on a police authority to designate one of its officers as the "head of their paid service" under Section 4 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
In the light of discussions with police authorities and in view of the concerns raised by your Lordships at an earlier stage, we looked again at the relevance of Section 4 of the 1989 Act. The duties of the head of paid service under that Act, although relevant to the future role of the police authority, are more a reflection of the responsibilities of the chief executive in a multi-service local authority. Some of the duties under Section 4 of that Act are not entirely appropriate in the police authority context where the number of staff will be very small and most management responsibilities will rest with the chief constable.
Instead, we propose that each police authority should be required to appoint a person to be its clerk. That will ensure that there is a clearly identifiable person who is responsible for the administration of the authority.
The new clause will also allow police authorities to appoint people other than their own employees as their statutory officers. Those statutory officers will be their clerk, their chief finance officer and the monitoring officer under Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Those are unlikely to be full-time posts and police authorities may well want to use the services of outsiders on a part-time basis by either buying in the services of local authority chief officers, as most police authorities do now, or contracting with the private sector to provide such services. Without the amendment, police authorities would be required to appoint their own employees to those posts. The new clause will allow police authorities to choose whatever arrangements are best suited to their purposes.
Amendment No. 76 makes technical changes to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which are consequential upon the new clause.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right. The matter was raised in this House. This amendment provides an improvement to the Bill as originally drafted and I welcome it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 After Clause 11, insert the following clause:
Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations
'.After section 15 of the 1964 Act there shall be insetted—
"Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc.
15A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a police authority may provide advice and assistance—

(a) to an international organisation or institution, or

(b) to any other person or body which is engaged outside the United Kingdom in the carrying on of activities similar to any carried on by the authority or the chief officer of police for its area.

(2) The power conferred on a police authority by subsection (1) of this section includes a power to make arrangements under which a member of the police force maintained by the authority is engaged for a period of temporary service with a person or body within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercised except with the consent of the Secretary of State or in accordance with a general authorisation given by him.
(4) A consent or authorisation under subsection (3) of this section may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(5) Nothing in this section authorises a police authority to provide any financial assistance by—

(a) making a grant or loan,

(b) giving a guarantee or indemnity, or

(c) investing by acquiring share or loan capital.

(6) A police authority may make charges for advice or assistance provided by it under this section.
(7) In its application in relation to the metropolitan police this section shall apply—

(a) as if the power conferred by subsection (1) were conferred on the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (and accordingly as if the references in subsections (1) (b) and (2) to a police authority were omitted), and

(b) as if in subsection (6) the reference to a police authority were a reference to the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.

(8) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 and section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 16, 23, 29, 31, 32, 81, 84, 85, 115 to 117, 119 to 122, 124 and 125.
These amendments deal with service overseas by British police officers. Their principal effect is to permit UK police officers to serve abroad, not only with foreign governments (which is already possible under existing legislation), but also with international organisations such as the United Nations. The new provisions will allow us to accede, for example, to a recent request from the United Nations to provide a number of British police officers to serve with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 16 relate to England and Wales, and Amendments Nos. 23 and 29 apply the same provisions in Scotland. Under the present law—the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 and the Overseas Development and Cooperation Act 1980—British police officers may serve abroad with the approval of the
22
Secretary of State and their existing police authority, at the request of a foreign government, but not at the request of international organisations. The relevant legislation makes provision for the terms of service, discipline and pensions of those who are seconded abroad. Such attachments may be to assist with the investigation of specific crimes occurring within the jurisdiction of the foreign government, or more generally to advise on policing matters, or even (as recently in South Africa) in connection with the observance of civil rights at times of elections.
Because of the high regard in which the British police service is held around the world, requests are sometimes made for police officers to serve abroad, not with foreign governments but with international organisations such as the United Nations. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is in the interests of the reputation of the British police service, and this country's relations with foreign governments and international organisations, that British police officers should be available for such purposes. But the present law gives no powers for attachments to international organisations, with the result that, even if in other respects informal arrangements could be made, there would be no basis for paying the officer's pension if he were killed or injured during his period of overseas service, and there could also be problems over any disciplinary matters or his pension position on his return to the UK if his absence abroad amounted to a break in service.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is very much in the interest of the police service, and in the interests of this country's reputation among the international community, that that deficiency should be remedied.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the noble Earl referred to "foreign governments". Our help is requested by Commonwealth countries. Do they come under different legislation or are they referred to in this case as "foreign governments"?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl was good enough to write to me in regard to these amendments, which are clearly right. It is highly desirable that British police officers should be able to provide service to international organisations. The only point of detail about which I should like to ask is this. He referred to the various amendments to which he spoke and the position in England, Wales and Scotland. Can I take it that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is included in the provision? If not, why not?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I can say that the expression "foreign governments" refers mainly to governments of countries outside the United Kingdom where, at the moment, we are able to send policemen at the request of a foreign government provided it has the approval of the Secretary of State and the police authority. Therefore the expression refers to governments outside the United Kingdom. Commonwealth Governments have their

23
secondments made under existing law. The amendment refers to organisations such as the United Nations or any other such international organisation.
With regard to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the amendments deal with secondment "to" the Royal Ulster Constabulary but not secondment of Royal Ulster Constabulary officers abroad.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, can the noble Earl say why not? If it is desirable that police officers from other parts of the United Kingdom should provide the service, why is the RUC excluded? It has a powerful reputation and in some areas a high level of expertise. I find it odd that it is excluded.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, makes a good point. I do not know the answer at the moment, but I shall certainly look into the reasons. It may be that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is already tied up with its present duties.
Curiously, I have had a blinding flash of memory—these things happen from time to time. The Police Act of 1964 does not extend to Northern Ireland. This Bill is amending the 1964 Act. That is the technical answer, but I shall look into the substantive point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
7 Clause 12, page 7, line 27, after 'county' insert:
'( ) a county borough in Wales,'.
8 Page 7, line 34, at end insert:
'Alteration of Welsh police areas on local government reorganisation.
21AA.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order made before 1st April 1996 make such alterations to police areas in Wales as he considers necessary or expedient in connection with the reorganisation of local government in Wales taking place on that date.
(2) The alterations that may be made by an order under subsection (1) of this section include alterations that result in a reduction or an increase in the number of police areas, but not alterations that result in the division of any county or county borough between two or more police areas.
(3) The Secretary of State shall make an order under subsection (1) of this section only after he has consulted every body within the following paragraphs which is in existence when the order is made—

(a) the police authorities established under section 3 of this Act for the police areas altered by the order,

(b) the police authorities which are to be superseded by the police authorities mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection;

(c) the county councils which—

(i) are the councils of counties wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order, and

(ii) are to cease to exist on 1st April 19% by virtue of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994;

24

(d) the councils of the counties and county boroughs established by virtue of that Act which are wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order;

and such other persons as he considers appropriate.'
9 Page 7, line 42, after 'district' insert', county borough'.
10 Page 8, line 32, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'.
11 Page 8, line 44, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'.
12 Page 9, line 15, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendments Nos. 7 to 12 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 to 12 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 17, page 13, line 24, leave out 'procedures established by or' and insert 'proceedings'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 82, 83 and 87. These are technical amendments which ensure that the Bill is consistent both internally and with other legislation.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships will not wish to depart from these amendments because the first two each shorten the Bill by three words. It is sad that they were grouped with the other amendments which add, on balance, more than six words. But that must be viewed in light of the fact that your Lordships sent a Bill to the other place running to 92 pages and the amendments add approximately a quarter more to that mass.
Your Lordships are bound to ask why that sort of thing continues. It is not as though we can be sure that it is the end of the Bill. In the Children Act, government amendments were put down at every stage in your Lordships' House. But the Bill came back from the other place with government amendments running to more pages than the Bill contained when sent there. But that was not the end of it. It was found that further amendments were needed and there was a seven-page schedule to the Courts and Legal Services Bill which made further amendments to the Children Act.
Your Lordships will want to know why that happens. When the Renton Committee on Preparation of Legislation reported in 1975, it remarked on the verbosity of statutes—an undesirable wordiness. The statute book at that time ran to three volumes; 10 years later it ran to five volumes with fewer statutes in it. What the Renton Committee complained of had continued at an accelerated rate.
The most undesirable feature is that it frustrates the performance of your Lordships' constitutional role. Lengthy statute discussions continue into the small hours of the morning and we rely on the devotion of one or two noble Lords who are willing to come back

25
after dinner and match their stamina with the remarkable stamina of the noble Earl who has been in charge of the Bill. But it is quite wrong. It means that although they, at some self-sacrifice, manage to scrutinise the Bill, your Lordships cannot amend it because there is a government majority, largely of a payroll vote, waiting outside to shoot down any amendment. So this is perhaps an occasion to draw attention to the undesirability of the wordiness in statute.
Sir Robert Andrew, when he reported on the government legal services, recommended that the draftsman should come under the Law Officers rather than under the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has other things to do besides scrutinising the detail or even the general style of legislation. Of all Sir Robert Andrew's recommendations, that was the one that was not accepted. But sooner or later, unless some control is taken over the volume, the wordiness and the verbosity of legislation, your Lordships' constitutional role will no longer be capable of being performed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I welcome what the noble and learned Lord has just said. Your Lordships may wonder, as I was the chairman of the committee to which the noble and learned Lord referred, why I have not shown much more zeal in this matter and tried to eliminate more of the verbosity. The truth is that I used to try to do so, but if one were to do so now, with Bills becoming longer and longer and more and more verbose, one could keep the House up for many hours of the night. I do not say that I have surrendered. All I do is complain from time to time. I am glad to support the noble and learned Lord in his complaint today.
Perhaps I may touch on the specific point that he made about the responsibility for parliamentary counsel. I am sure he is quite right in saying that it is asking too much of any Prime Minister, whether legally qualified or not, to consider the contents of every Bill that comes along and that it would be far better done if responsibility for parliamentary counsel were to go to a Law Officer or the Law Officers jointly rather than remain with the Prime Minister, who quite frankly cannot be expected to do this arduous work.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, returns to the subject which is dear to his heart —trying to make statutes brief. I cannot think why he chose this amendment with which to set about the Government. This amendment removes four words and inserts one word.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I did remark on that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I noted that and that is why I was underlying the fact that this amendment reduces the number of words. If the noble and learned Lord complains about that, heaven help us when we come to Amendments Nos. 16 and 29, which are considerably longer.
Many of the changes which occur here are due to the changes which your Lordships decided to make when the Bill was first before the House. Others relate to the overseas service, which is a fairly technical matter and one to which we have just referred. I have every
26
sympathy with the noble and learned Lord. I think that short statutes are much better. Anything that is shorter is usually easier to comprehend. Therefore, I value that, but if your Lordships would be good enough not to keep altering the Government's Bills too much we would not have these consequential alterations.
The noble and learned Lord said that the Government are frustrating your Lordships' constitutional role and that there was the payroll vote waiting outside to shoot down any amendments. All I can say is that I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord has spoken to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary lately. If he has I think he may find that my right honourable friend takes a different view. The Government produced a certain Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill and your Lordships decided to alter it. I do not think that that was the combination of the payroll vote waiting outside to shoot down the amendments. The payroll vote, as the noble and learned Lord so graciously put it, was doing its best not to shoot down the amendments and to keep the Bill as it was. But your Lordships, in the peculiarly independent way which you have and irrespective of what side anyone sits on, decided to alter the Bill, Another place has considered the alterations and the result is more words, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, does not like. I can only say to the noble and learned Lord that if he had heeded my advice when the Bill first came through and had left the Bill alone he would not have so many alterations now.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
14 Clause 22, page 15, line 37, after 'district' insert ', county borough'.
15 Page 15, line 40, after 'district' insert', county borough'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords,' I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 and 15.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
16 After Clause 23, insert the following clause:
Police officers engaged on service outside their force
'. After section 53B of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—
"Police officers engaged on service outside their force.
53C.—(1) For the purposes of this section "relevant service" means—

(a) temporary service on which a person is engaged in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of this Act.

(b) central service (as defined in section 43(5) of this Act) on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,

(c) service the expenses of which are payable under section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,

27

(d) service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the Secretary of State and the appropriate authority, or

(e) service pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority.

(2) In subsection (1) of this section "appropriate authority" has the same meaning as in section 43 of this Act.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (7) of this section, a member of a police force engaged on relevant service shall be treated as if he were not a member of that force during that service; but, except where a pension, allowance or gratuity becomes payable to him out of money provided by Parliament by virtue of regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976—

(a) he shall be entitled at the end of the period of relevant service to revert to his police force in the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period began, and

(b) he shall be treated as if he had been serving in that force during the period of relevant service for the purposes of any scale prescribed by or under regulations made under section 33 of this Act fixing his rate of pay by reference to his length of service.

(4) In the case of relevant service to which subsection (1) (c) of this section refers, the reference in subsection (3) to regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976 shall be read as including a reference to regulations made under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.
(5) A person may, when engaged on relevant service, be promoted in his police force as if he were serving in that force; and in any such case—

(a) the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section to the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period of relevant service began shall be construed as a reference to the rank to which he is promoted, and

(b) for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection he shall be treated as having served in that rank from the time of his promotion.

(6) A member of a police force who—

(a) has completed a period of relevant service within paragraph (a), (b) or (e) of subsection (1) of this section, or

(b) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (c) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service by the disciplinary authority established by regulations made under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or is required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, or

(c) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (d) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service or is required to resign as an alternative to dismissal,

may be dealt with under regulations made in accordance with subsection (3) of section 33 of this Act for anything done or omitted while he was engaged on that service as if that service had been service in his police force; and section 37 of this Act shall apply accordingly.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) of this section a certificate certifying that a person has been dismissed, or required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, shall be evidence of the fact so certified, if—

(a) in a case within paragraph (b) of that subsection, it is given by the disciplinary authority referred to in that paragraph, or

(b) in a case within paragraph (c) of that subsection, it is given by or on behalf of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or such other person or authority as may be designated for the purposes of this subsection by order of the Secretary of State.'

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16. This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
17 Clause 29, page 17, line 37, after 'incurred' insert '(or to be incurred)'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. Clause 29 provides for the Secretary of State to make initial financing grants to new police authorities before they take over their full responsibilities. As previously drafted, Clause 29 allowed the Secretary of State to make initial financing grants to the new police authorities in respect of expenditure which was incurred by them. That means that the grant could not be made until after the expenditure had been incurred. We now think it would be wise to ensure that the grant could be paid, if necessary, before the expenditure had been incurred. That is particularly so in the case of grant being made for the police authority's own purposes, such as for running its early meetings, for accommodation costs, for members' allowances and expenses, and so forth. It will be necessary for the police authorities to have the money in hand before it can be spent.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
18 Clause 34, page 20, line 3, at end insert:
'( ) in section 104, subsections (1) and (2) (which prevent a police officer convicted or acquitted of a criminal offence being charged with an equivalent disciplinary offence).'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. The amendment will restore to the Bill the opposed repeal of Section 104(1) and (2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. When your Lordships voted on this at an earlier stage of the Bill it was associated with another and very different provision— that of the legal representation of the officer at disciplinary hearings. That matter is one on which the Government have felt able to meet your Lordships' wishes, and one of the amendments which we are to

29
consider today concerns the tidying up of that provision so as to make it compatible with the rest of the Bill. But the subject of this amendment is not one on which we feel able to accommodate your Lordships' views.
The precise effect of the amendment is to repeal those parts of Section 104 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which have the effect of preventing police disciplinary action being taken in any case where the officer has been acquitted by a criminal court of an offence which is in substance the same as the disciplinary offence. In doing so, it complies with one of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. The argument has been offered in the past that to deal with the officer for breaches of police discipline once he has been acquitted for the actions in question was to try him twice for the same offence. We take a different view. A police disciplinary hearing is not—and never has been—a court of law, and the issues before a police disciplinary hearing are quite different from those before a court of law. Whatever the officer did or did not do may not have been a criminal offence—and the court will have decided that—but that does not necessarily mean that he or she behaved in a way which was fitting for a police officer. An acquittal in a court of law may be made on technical grounds but the officer's actions may well have been shown in court to have been quite unfitting for a police officer.
This part of Section 104 has never been an easy provision to administer. It is often difficult to determine whether the substance of a disciplinary offence is the same as the substance of the crime and certainly the two issues are likely to involve quite different requirements for the mental element. For instance, a criminal charge under the Theft Act would require proof of an intention to deprive the owner of his property permanently. A disciplinary charge relating to the care of property would not. To take a more common example, the common law offence of assault is defined as any act
"by which a person intentionally—or recklessly—causes another to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence",
but the equivalent disciplinary charge of "abuse of authority" arising out of an assault focuses not on the officer's mental state but on whether he used "an oppressive manner" and "unnecessary force".
These problems will be greater in the future when the matters to be decided by police senior officers will be very different. In future police managers will, in discipline cases no longer be seeking to consider a series of particular changes, which could be regarded as equivalent to particular criminal charges, but they will be looking at the whole pattern of events and whether the officer lived up to proper police standards throughout.
This would not work properly if police managers had to exclude from their consideration that group of the officer's actions which had come under the scrutiny of the court when they decided to acquit him. As I have said, acquittal of a particular criminal accusation cannot be held to carry the inevitable implication that the officer behaved in all respects as befits a police officer.
My right honourable friend's conclusion therefore, as he said in another place, has been that failure to repeal these provisions would be detrimental to the more
30
relaxed and speedy handling of police misconduct which he wishes to introduce. That is the reason why I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.—(Earl Ferrers.)
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that, on reflection, the Government amendment is wise.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may just add that, just as we have the right to ask the Government and another place to think again, we do not ask them to think again and again. We should be grateful to my noble friend for the very full explanation which he has given of the amendment and of the Government's decision which underlies it. Speaking for myself, I suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has just done, that we should now accept the position as presented to us.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has; just said, but I should like some information. I have been told that there has been substantial tension within the negotiations which have been taking place between the: police staff associations and the Home Office on these matters. I do not know what is the current state of these —call them "discussions" or "negotiations". It would be helpful for us to be told what the current state of progress is on these discussions. Is there substantial difficulty in reaching common ground? It would be helpful if we were given that information.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for explaining the reasons so clearly in presenting the amendment to us, I feel extremely disappointed that the arguments which we put forward in this House have not been accepted. However, I note that those with more experience than I feel that we should accept the Government's interpretation as it stands and I go along with that. I should just like to record that we are doing wrong and that it will be seen to be wrong.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mountgarret is perfectly entitled to his view. When the Bill was before this House he expressed that view, as did other noble Lords. We considered very carefully what your Lordships had to say about this matter and what the position was for the reasons which I have given. I believe that they are valid reasons. We are trying to ensure that police officers conduct themselves in a way which is suitable and correct. If consideration of part of their behaviour is going to be removed simply because it has come under the scrutiny of the court and the officer has been acquitted, that means we do not get correct consideration of the officer's behaviour as a police officer. I understand my noble friend's regret over that matter but I hope that in due course he will see that this is the correct course to take.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about the position as regards the staff associations. There have been considerable negotiations and discussions with the staff. The Police Federation and the Superintendents'

31
Association currently find themselves unable to discuss the procedures further. I hope that they will soon feel able to return to these discussions so that we can go ahead together in trying to put together arrangements which will be satisfactory for the long term benefit of the police as well as the police officers.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
19 Clause 37, page 21, line 11, leave out from 'that' to 'is' in line 14 and insert 'no county or county borough'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
20 After Clause 41, insert the following clause:
Applications of certain provisions to police authorities established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964
'.—(1) Any relevant legislative provision which, immediately before the passing of this Act, applied to police authorities constituted in accordance with section 2 of the Police Act 1964 shall, except where the context otherwise requires, apply in the same way to police authorities established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964 (as substituted by section 2 of this Act).
(2) Subsection (1) above is subject to any provision to the contrary made by or under this Act.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a provision is a "relevant legislative provision" if it is a provision (other than a provision which applies only to specified police authorities) of an instrument which—

(a) was made before the passing of this Act under a public general Act, and

(b) is of a legislative character.'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 51 to 59 at the same time. These are largely technical amendments. The proposed new clause after Clause 41 concerns secondary legislation which currently applies to police authorities. The purpose of Amendment No. 51 is to allow certain additional provisions of the Bill to come into force immediately on Royal Assent.
Amendments Nos. 52 to 55 are necessary for transitional purposes. Amendment No. 56 substitutes a new form of words for Clause 86(6) (b) of the Bill. The amendment will permit sharing to be achieved.
Amendment No. 57 makes a small addition to allow a commencement order to include provision about the fees charged, or expenses incurred, by a person who is appointed to arbitrate in a dispute about the transfer of assets. Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 make identical provision to Amendments Nos. 56 and 57, only in relation to the magistrates' courts parts of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not want to make a fuss about it. I believe that this clause is quite unnecessary. What it proposes would be done anyway by the courts in interpreting the statutes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
21 Clause 43, page 22, line 22, leave out from '(i)' to end of line 28 and insert:
'the words ", deputy chief constable" and ", chief superintendent and" shall be omitted,
(ii) after the word "superintendent" there shall be inserted the words ", chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable."; and'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
22 Clause 45, page 23, line 39, leave out from 'force' to end of line 41.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33, 72, 73, 75 and 123.
These amendments will help to ensure that management responsibilities can be sensibly devolved from the police authority to the chief constable, and by the chief constable to police officers and other staff under his command. Amendment No. 72 is an addition to Schedule 4 to the Bill, which amends Section 107 of the Local Government Act 1972. Amendment No. 75 relates to the statutory responsibilities of the chief finance officer of the police authority. Amendments Nos. 22 and 33 make provision in Scotland comparable to that which is made in England and Wales. Amendments Nos. 73 and 123 are consequential amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
23 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:
Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc., Scotland
'. After section 12 of the 1967 Act there shall be inserted—
"Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc.
12A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a police authority may provide advice and assistance—

(a) to an international organisation or institution, or

(b) to any other person or body which is engaged outside the United Kingdom in the carrying on of activities similar to any carried on by the authority or the chief constable of a force maintained by it.

(2) The power conferred on a police authority by subsection (1) of this section includes a power to make arrangements under which a constable of the force maintained for the area of the authority is engaged for a period of temporary service with a person or body within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercised except with the consent of the Secretary of State or in accordance with a general authorisation given by him.
(4) A consent or authorisation under subsection (3) above may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(5) Nothing in this section authorises a police authority to provide any financial assistance by—

(a) making a grant or loan,

(b) giving a guarantee or indemnity, or

(c) investing by acquiring share or loan capital.

(6) A police authority may make charges for advice and assistance provided by it under this section.
(7) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 and section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-Operation Act 1980.".'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
24 Clause 46, page 24, line 8, after 'December' insert 'last preceding'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24. This is a purely technical amendment to clarify that the period for submission of a chief constable's annual report shall be four months after the end of the year concerned and not one year and four months as Clause 46, as drafted, would provide at present.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
25 Clause 49, page 25, line 30, after 'authority' insert 'or joint police committee'.
26 Page 25, line 35, after 'authority' insert 'a joint police committee'.
27 Page 25, line 38, after 'authority' insert 'or joint police committee'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 to 27. Clause 49 provides powers of direction by the Secretary of State for Scotland to instruct Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary to inspect a police force if it is suspected that in is not being run efficiently.
Where a police area consists of more than one local authority region, the force is maintained in Scotland by a joint police committee. These amendments ensure that a power of direction applies equally to such a committee as it would to a police authority.
Moved, the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 to 27.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
28 Clause 50, page 25, line 44, leave out 'procedures established by or' and insert 'proceedings'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 13.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
29 After Clause 54, insert the following clause:
Constables engaged on service outside their force
'. After section 38 of the 1967 Act there shall be inserted—
"Constables engaged on service outside their force.
38A.—(1) For the purposes of this section "relevant service" means—

(a) temporary service on which a person is engaged in accordance with arrangements made under section 12A(2) of this Act,

(b) central service (as defined by section 38(5) of this Act) on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,

(c) service the expenses of which are payable under section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,

(d) service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the Secretary of State and the appropriate authority, or

(e) service pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority.

(2) In subsection (1) of this section "appropriate authority" has the same meaning as in section 38 of this Act.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (7) of this section, a constable of a police force engaged on relevant service shall be treated as if he were not a constable of that force during that service; but except where a pension, allowance or gratuity becomes payable to him out of money provided by Parliament by virtue of regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976—

(a) he shall be entitled at the end of the period of relevant service to revert to his police force in the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period began, and

(b) he shall be treated as if he had been serving in that force during the period of relevant service for the purposes of any scale prescribed by or under regulations made under section 26 of this Act fixing his rate of pay by reference to his length of service.

(4) In the case of relevant service to which subsection (1) (c) of this section refers, the reference in subsection (3) of this section to regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976 shall be read as including a reference to regulations made under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.
(5) A person may, when engaged on relevant service, be promoted in his police force as if he were serving in that force; and in any such case—

(a) the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section to the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period of relevant service began shall be construed as a reference to the rank to which he is promoted, and

(b) for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection he shall be treated as having served in that rank from the time of his promotion.

(6) A constable who—

(a) has completed a period of relevant service within paragraph (a), (b) or (e) of subsection (1) of this section,

(b) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (c) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service by the disciplinary authority established by regulations under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or is required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, or

(c) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (d) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service or required to resign as an alternative to dismissal,

may be dealt with under regulations made in accordance with subsection (2A) of section 26 of this Act for anything done or omitted while he was engaged on that service as if that service had been service in his police force; and section 30 of this Act shall apply accordingly.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) of this section a certificate certifying that a person has been dismissed, or required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, shall be evidence of the fact so certified, if—

(a) in a case within paragraph (b) of that subsection, it is given by the disciplinary authority referred to in that paragraph, or

(b) in a case within paragraph (c) of that subsection it is given by or on behalf of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or such person or authority as may be designated for the purposes of this subsection by order of the Secretary of State.'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
30 Clause 57, page 29, line 14, leave out from 'In' to 'for' in line 17 and insert 'section 7(3) (assignment of lower rank)'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
31 Clause 57, page 29, line 19, at end insert:
'(3A) In section 24 (effect of amalgamation scheme on constables engaged in service other than with their own force)—
36

(a) in subsection (1) for the words from "either" to "transferred force" there shall be substituted the words "a person is engaged in relevant service within the meaning of section 38A of this Act";

(b) in subsection (2) for the word "overseas" in each of the three places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "relevant"; and

(c) in subsection (3), the words from "and the expression" onwards shall be omitted.'.

32 Page 29, line 31, leave out from '(a)' to '; and' in line 34 and insert 'in subsection (3A), for the words "subsection (1) above" there shall be substituted the words "section 38A(3)of this Act".'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 en bloc. These amendments were considered with Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
33 After Clause 57, insert the following clause:
Delegations of functions of Scottish police authority
'. In section 63 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (arrangements as to police authority functions etc.), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) The officers who may discharge functions of a police authority in pursuance of arrangements under section 56(1) or (2) of this Act shall include the chief constable of the police force.
(2B) Where, pursuant to arrangements made by virtue of subsection (2A) above, a chief constable may discharge functions of a police authority, he may himself arrange for the discharge of any of the functions in question by a constable of the police force or by a person who is employed by the authority but is not under their direction and control.".'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 22.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
34 Clause 62, page 32, line 43, at end insert:
'( ) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (3) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34.
This amendment makes orders made by the Lord Chancellor under the powers in Clause 62—the powers to amalgamate magistrates' courts committees—subject to the negative resolution procedure. The procedure applies whether the order has been initiated by the Lord Chancellor or by the magistrates' courts committees concerned. I consider it right, and part of the Lord Chancellor's accountability, that Parliament should have opportunity to scrutinise any proposals for the alteration of the boundaries of one or more magistrates' courts

37
committee areas, whether they have been initiated by the Lord Chancellor or by the magistrates' courts committees concerned.
Your Lordships will remember that I was anxious, while preserving the power, to offer any safeguards that were available. This appears a good additional safeguard to add to those that were in the Bill when it passed through your Lordships' House. I commend the amendment to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that further safeguard against a situation that may well arise. I welcome the amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
35 Clause 62, page 33, line 14, at end insert:
'(bb) a county borough council,'.
36 Page 33, line 21, at end insert:
'( ) Until 1st April 1996, the definition of "unitary authority" in subsection (10) above shall have effect with the omission of paragraph (bb).'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 en bloc. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
37 Clause 73, page 40, line 29, leave out 'that committee' and insert 'the magistrates' courts committee for the inner London area'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37. In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 48, 107 to 110, 113 and 131. These are drafting amendments consequent upon amendments made at earlier stages.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
38 Clause 73, page 40, line 37, after 'requires' insert 'in accordance with section 34B of that Act as a justices' clerk'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38. In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 to 45, 103, 106, 111, 112, 114 and 128 to 130. All of these amendments relate to the inner London magistrates' courts service and have been discussed with its representatives.
Amendments Nos. 39 to 42 are technical amendments which improve on the drafting of a government amendment, which was introduced in this House during the Third Reading, without changing the policy. That
38
matter was raised primarily by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, at a fairly late stage in the proceedings in your Lordships' House. We were able to give effect to some of the concerns while the Bill was still in this House.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 106 address special procedural features in the inner London area. Justices' clerks for the youth courts and family proceeding courts in inner London are not to be appointed to a petty sessional division within the inner London area, but to the inner London area and the City of London. This amendment makes provision for the present arrangements to continue to operate, consistent with the other provisions of the Bill relating to justices' clerks.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 establish a convenient and manageable system of selection for lay magistrate members of the division of work committee of the inner London magistrates' courts committee area.
One of the effects of the Bill is to bring the arrangements for the funding of the inner London magistrates' courts service into line with the arrangements in place elsewhere in England and Wales, by severing its links with the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police. This has implications for the pension arrangements of staff employed in the inner London service. The effect of Amendments Nos. 45, 103, 112 and 114 is to allow for the present arrangements to continue until such time as the best pension arrangements can be made. This includes ensuring that the pension expectations of staff will be fulfilled.
Amendments Nos. 111 and 128 to 130 are technical amendments consequential upon disengaging the Receiver.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.15 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
39 Clause 73, page 40, leave out lines 39 to 43.
40 Page 40, line 44, leave out 'by subsection (6) below or'.
41 Page 40, line 45, leave out '(3) or (4)' and insert 'or (3)'.
42 Page 41, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert:
'(6) The abolition by virtue of subsection (1) above of the statutory offices of senior deputy chief clerk and deputy chief clerk shall not affect the continuation of the contract of service of any person who holds either of those offices immediately before the commencement of that subsection.
(6A) A person who is employed under a contract of service to which subsection (6) above applies shall not he dismissed from his employment'.
43 Clause 74, page 41, line 18, leave out from 'justices' to second 'the' in line 19 and insert 'appointed by the chairmen of the petty sessional divisions of'.
44 Page 41, line 23, at end insert:
'(1A) The lay justices eligible for appointment under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above include any of the chairmen referred to in that paragraph.
(1B) The members of the committee shall hold office for a period of twelve months, but shall be eligible for re-appointment.'.
45 After Clause 74, insert the following clause:
Pensions etc. of justices' chief executive, justices' clerks and staff in inner London area
'—(1) Schedule [Continuing functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in relation to pensions etc. of court staff] (which re-enacts certain provisions relating to the functions of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District with respect to pensions etc. of court staff) shall have effect.
(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision with respect to pensions, allowances or gratuities payable to or in respect of inner London court staff, or any class of inner London court staff.
(3) An order under subsection (2) above may—

(a) itself make provision with respect to the pensions, allowances or gratuities which, subject to the fulfilment of such requirements and conditions as may be prescribed by the order, are to be or may be paid to or in respect of inner London court staff, or any class of inner London court staff, or

(b) provide that the civil service provisions are to have effect, with such modifications as may be prescribed by the order, in relation to the payment by such persons as may be so prescribed, out of such funds as may be so prescribed, of pensions, allowances and gratuities to or in respect of inner London court staff, or any class of inner London court staff.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (2) and (3) above, an order under subsection (2)—

(a) may include all or any of the provisions referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 of Schedule 3 to the Superannuation Act 1972, and

(b) may make different provision as respects different classes of persons and different circumstances.

(5) Paragraphs 1 to 11 of Schedule 3 to the Superannuation Act 1972 shall have effect, in their application for the purposes of this section, as if references to regulations were references to an order under this section and references to the Secretary of State were references to the Lord Chancellor.
(6) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (which relate to increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971) shall have effect in relation to an order under subsection (2) above as they have effect in relation to regulations under that section.
(7) The Lord Chancellor may by order repeal or amend any of the relevant enactments, whether or not he makes provision under subsection (2) above.
(8) An order under subsection (2) or (7) above may make such consequential, transitional, incidental or supplemental provision (including provision amending or repealing any provision of this Act, the 1979 Act or any other enactment) as the Lord Chancellor thinks necessary or expedient.
(9) Before making an order under subsection (2) or (7) above the Lord Chancellor shall consult—

(a) the inner London magistrates' courts committee,

(b) such local authorities as appear to him to be concerned,

(c) the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and

(d) such representatives of other persons likely to be affected by the proposed order as appear to him to be appropriate.

(10) An order under subsection (2) or (7) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(11) In this section—
"the civil service provisions" has the meaning given by section 15(1) of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967,
40
"inner London court staff' means the justices' chief executive employed by the inner London magistrates' courts committee, any justices' clerk for the inner London area and staff of the inner London magistrates' courts committee,
"the inner London magistrates' courts committee" means the magistrates' courts committee for an area consisting of or including the inner London area or, if there is no such committee, every magistrates' courts committee for any area which consists of or includes any part of the inner London area, and
"the relevant enactments" means—

(a) Schedule [Continuing functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in relation to pensions etc. of court staff] to this Act, and

(b) section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 (superannuation of metropolitan civil staffs) so far as it relates to the persons mentioned in subsection (1) (a) (ii) of that section.'

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 to 45 en bloc. I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 38.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 to 45 en bloc.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
46 Clause 75, page 43, line 50, at end insert:
'(bb) a county borough council,'.
47 Page 44, line 2, at end insert:
'(11) Until 1st April 1996, the definition of "unitary authority" in subsection (10) above shall have effect with the omission of paragraph (bb).'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 en bloc. These were spoken to with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
48 Clause 75, page 44, line 37, leave out 'clerk' and insert 'justices' clerk or justices' chief executive'.
49 Clause 78, page 45, line 26, leave out from 'may' to end of line 27 and insert 'consider appropriate'.
50 Page 45, line 36, at end insert:
'( ) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Magistrates' Courts Service shall make an annual report to the Lord Chancellor as to the discharge of the functions of the Inspectorate and the Lord Chancellor shall, within one month of receiving the report, lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 en bloc.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
51 Clause 86, page 48, leave out lines 31 to 35 and insert:
'(3) The following provisions of this Act—

(a) section 3 and Schedule 2, so far as they relate to—

(i) the power to make orders under the section inserted by section 3, or

(ii) the power to make regulations under paragraph 11 of the Schedule entitled Schedule 1C set out in Schedule 2,

(b) sections [Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc.] and [Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc. (Scotland).],

(c) sections [Police officers engaged on service outside their force] and [Constables engaged on service outside their force], subsections (3A) and (6) (a) of section 57, and paragraphs 20A to 20D of Schedule 5, so far as they relate to service in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, and

(d) section 41, so far as it relates to paragraphs 20A to 20D of Schedule 5,

shall come into force on the passing of this Act.'
52 Page 49, line 5, after '1964' insert '("the new police authorities")'.
53 Page 49, line 6, after 'supersede' insert '("the old police authorities")'.
54 Page 49, line 6, after 'them' insert ', for the performance by the old police authorities, before the new police authorities come into existence, of functions prescribed by the order'.
55 Page 49, line 8, leave out from 'application' to end of line 9 and insert 'in relation to them of provisions of this or any other Act or of any instrument);'.
56 Page 49, line 10, leave out 'of probity' and insert 'and apportionment of property, and for the transfer, apportionment and creation or.
57 Page 49, line 15, at end insert:
'(f) as to the payment of fees charged, or expenses incurred, by any person nominated to determine any matter by virtue of paragraph (e) above.'.
58 Page 49, leave out line 18, and insert:
'(a) for the transfer and apportionment of property, and for the transfer, apportionment and creation of rights and liabilities;'.
59 Page 49, line 21, at end insert:
'(c) as to the payment of fees charged, or expenses incurred, by any person nominated to determine any matter by virtue of paragraph (b) above.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 59 en bloc. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 20.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 59 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
60 Clause 89, page 50, leave out lines 13 to 16.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60. This amendment removes the privilege amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
61 Schedule 2, page 53, line 23, at end insert:
'(2) The members referred to in sub-paragraph (1) (a) and (b) of this paragraph do not include any member or a relevant council who is disqualified for being appointed as or being a member of the police authority under paragraph 12A of this Schedule.'.
62 Page 55, line 24, at end insert:
'12A. Without prejudice to paragraphs 11 and 12 of this Schedule, a member of a relevant council shall be disqualified for being appointed as or being a member of a police authority under paragraph 2 of this Schedule if he was elected for an electoral division or ward wholly within the metropolitan police district.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 en bloc. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 en bloc.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
63 Schedule 2, page 55, line 40, after 'district' insert ', county borough'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
64 Schedule 2, page 56, line 9, after 'paragraphs' insert '(and to the provisions of any order under section 3A(2) of this Act)'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
65 Schedule 2, page 57, line 31, after 'district' insert ', county borough'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
66 Schedule 3, page 61, line 4, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66. In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 67 to 71 and 89 to 102.
The amendments deal with three main topics. First, they deal with the inclusion in police appeal tribunals for non-chief officer ranks in both England and Wales, and Scotland, of a fourth member, a retired police officer whose former rank was similar to that of the officer concerned, plus the consequential provision that the chairman of the tribunal shall, when necessary, exercise an additional casting vote.
Secondly, they deal with the inclusion of police appeal tribunals among those which are subject to the supervision of the Council on Tribunals—again, for all three countries.
Thirdly, the amendments include a number of purely technical provisions which cover the differences between Scots law and that south of the border.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to Amendment No. 89. I would like merely to express my thanks to the Minister. This is the second time within a few days when I have had occasion to express thanks in these circumstances. I believe that there is much joy in heaven.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
67 Schedule 3, page 61, line 9, leave out 'and'.
68 Page 61, line 14, at end insert 'and
(d) one shall be a retired officer of appropriate rank.'.
69 Page 61, line 22, at end insert:
'Casting vote
. Where there is an equality of voting among the members of a police appeals tribunal, the chairman shall have a second or casting vote.'.
70 Page 62, line 17, leave out 'and'.
71 Page 62, line 19, at end insert 'and
(c) "retired officer of appropriate rank" means—

(i) where the appellant was, immediately before the proceedings, of the rank of superintendent, a retired member of a police force who at the time of his retirement was of that rank, and

(ii) in any other case a retired member of a police force who at the time of his retirement was of the rank of chief inspector or below.'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 67 to 71 en bloc. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 66. I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, for his kind remarks on a previous amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 67 to 71.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
72 Schedule 4, page 63, line 37, at end insert:
'( ) In subsection (3) for the words "for the purposes of there shall be substituted the word "by".
( ) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Where pursuant to arrangements made by virtue of subsection (3) above—

(a) a chief officer of police, or

(b) the deputy of a chief officer of police,

may discharge functions of a police authority, he may himself arrange for the discharge of any of those functions by a member of the police force or by a person who is employed by the authority but is not under the authority's direction and control." '
73 Page 63, line 38, leave out 'subsections (3) and' and insert 'subsection'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 en bloc. The amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 22.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72 and 73.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
74 Schedule 4, page 64, line 29, leave out from the beginning to end of line 33 and insert:
'(2) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6A after the words "joint authority", there shall be inserted the words "or a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964".'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 74. When the Bill was introduced, we chose December to February as the period when the annual meeting should take place, partly because that period would include the police authority's most important annual decision—setting the budget and the precept. Amendments were made subsequently which specified that the chairman is to be appointed at the annual meeting. That means that there is a risk, as the Bill stands, of the chairmanship changing part way through the budgetary process, if the annual meeting has to be between December and January. The amendment adopts the current practice of local authorities whereby the annual meeting takes place in the period March, April or May.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 74.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since we are in congratulatory mood, perhaps I may, on behalf of my honourable friends in another place who proposed the amendment, thank the Government for accepting it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply appreciative.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
75 Schedule 4, page 67, line 10, at end insert:
'. In section 114 of that Act (functions of the chief finance officer as regards reports), in subsection (2), for the words "or officer of the authority" there shall be inserted the words "of the authority, a person holding any office or employment under the authority, a member of a police force maintained by the authority,".'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75. It was spoken to with Amendment No. 22.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
76 Schedule 4, page 67, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert:
'. In section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (designation and reports of monitoring officer)—

(a) in subsection (1), after the words "paid service" there shall be inserted the words "(or, in the case of a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964, the clerk to the authority)";

(b) in subsection (2), for the words "sub-committee or officer of the authority", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "or sub-committee of the authority, by any person holding any office or employment under the authority"; and

(c) in subsection (3), for the words "head of the authority's paid service" there shall be substituted the words "person who is for the time being designated as the head of the authority's paid service under section 4 above".'

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76. The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
77 Schedule 4, page 69, line 25, after 'authority'" insert '(a)'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 77. If I may, I shall speak to Amendment No. 78 at the same time. These are minor amendments to Schedule 4 which correct a small error which was overlooked in the preparation of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 77.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
78 Schedule 4, page 69, line 27, at end insert ', and
(b) in paragraph (b) at the end there shall be added the words "or a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964,".'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 78. I have just spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 78.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
79 Schedule 5, page 70, leave out lines 39 and 40.
80 Page 70, line 41, after '12' insert 'of the Police Act 1964'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 79 and 80.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
81 Schedule 5, page 72, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert:
'(2) In subsection (3A), for the words "subsection (1) above" there shall be substituted the words "section 53C(3) of this Act".'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 81. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 81.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
82 Schedule 5, page 72, line 21, after 'Act' insert 'or with subsection (2A) of section 26 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967'.
83 Page 72, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert:
'(3) In subsection (1B) for the words "the Secretary of State" there shall be substituted the words 'a police appeals tribunal".'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 en bloc. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 13.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 82 and 83.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
84 Schedule 5, page 73, leave out lines 34 to 48.
85 Page 74, leave out lines 6 to 19 and insert:
'Pensions (Increase) Act 1971
20A. In Schedule 2 to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (list of official pensions for the purposes of that Act), in paragraph 15, for sub-paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
"(b) was engaged on service pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, being service in respect of which section 53C of the Police Act 1964 or, as the case may be, section 38A of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 had effect; or
(ba) was engaged on temporary service in accordance with section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967; or".
Overseas Pensions Act 1973
20B. In section 2 of the Overseas Pensions Act 1973 (which makes provisions for superannuation schemes as respects certain overseas service), in subsection (2), for paragraph (d) there shall be substituted—
"(d) a person who is—

(i) a member of a police force engaged on relevant service within the meaning of section 53C(1) (a), (c) or (e) of the Police Act 1964 (service under section 15A of the Police Act 1964, under section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980), or

47

(ii) a constable of a police force engaged on relevant service within the meaning of section 38A(1) (a), (c) or (e) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (service under section 12A of that Act, section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980),

and who is incapacitated or dies as a result of an injury sustained or disease contracted during that service;".
Police Pensions Act 1976
20C. In section 7 of the Police Pensions Act 1976 (payment of pensions and contributions), in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
"(b) an officer engaged on service pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980;
(ba) a person engaged on temporary service in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;
(bb)a person engaged on service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whose service is or was for the time being service in respect of which the provisions of section 53C of the Police Act 1964 or, as the case may be, section 38A of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 have or had effect;".
20D.—(1) Section 11 of that Act (interpretation) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—
"(a) service as an officer pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980;
(aa) temporary service in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;
(ab) service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary in respect of which the provisions of section 53C of the Police Act 1964 or, as the case may be, section 38 A of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 have effect;".
(3) In subsection (2) (b) after the words "subsection (1)" there shall be inserted "(aa), (ab),".
(4) In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (b) after the words after the words "subsection (1) (a)," there shall be inserted "(aa), (ab),', and

(b) after the words "body in" there shall be inserted the words "or with".'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 en bloc. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84 and 85.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
86 Schedule 5, page 75, line 32, at end insert:
'. For section 102 of that Act (representation at disciplinary proceedings) there shall be substituted—
'Representation at disciplinary and other proceedings.
102.—(1) A police officer of the rank of superintendent or below may not be dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank by a decision taken in proceedings under regulations made in accordance with section 33(3) (a) of the Police Act 1964 unless he has been given an opportunity to elect to be legally represented at any hearing held in the course of those proceedings.
(2) Where an officer makes an election to which subsection (1) above refers, he may be represented at the hearing, at his option, either by counsel or by a solicitor.
(3) Except in a case where an officer of the rank of superintendent or below has been given an opportunity to elect to be legally represented and has so elected, he may be represented at the hearing only by another member of a police force.
(4) Regulations under section 33 of the Police Act 1964 shall specify—

(a) a procedure for notifying an officer of the effect of subsections (1) to (3) above,

(b) when he is to be notified of the effect of those subsections, and

(c) when he is to give notice whether he wishes to be legally represented at the hearing.

(5) If an officer—

(a) fails without reasonable cause to give notice in accordance with the regulations that he wishes to be legally represented; or

(b) gives notice in accordance with the regulations that he does not wish to be legally represented,

he may be dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank without his being legally represented.
(6) If an officer has given notice in accordance with the regulations that he wishes to be legally represented, the case against him may be presented by counsel or a solicitor whether or not he is actually so represented.".'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 86. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 126. The amendments deal with Section 102 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which accords to police officers the right to be legally represented when any disciplinary action is taken against them which could result in their dismissal, a requirement to resign or a reduction in rank.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Government had proposed originally the repeal of Section 102 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The proposed repeal was removed from the Bill by your Lordships and the Government now accept that a measure of this type should be included in statute law. Section 102 as it stood, however, would not have permitted the introduction of the new disciplinary procedures. Its wording included a reference to specific charges. Nor would it have accorded legal representation to officers at risk of being dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank on grounds other than discipline. The redrafted Section 102, whose inclusion in the Bill is suggested by this amendment, corrects those faults while otherwise differing little from the current version, and I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 86.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sorry to have to say that I think a mistake has been made in the amendment. If your Lordships look at subsection (2) of the new Section 102, you will see that it says:
"Where an officer makes an election to which subsection (1) above refers"—
that is, an election to be legally represented—
"he may be represented at the hearing, at his option, either by counsel or by a solicitor".
The question that I must put to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who is head of the judiciary to which both branches of the legal profession are answerable, is: bearing in mind that it is not normal for counsel to appear, even in proceedings of this kind, unless instructed by a solicitor, why is it that the subsection appears to enact that a police officer cannot be represented both by a solicitor and counsel?
Of course if I have mistaken the effect of the wording, all will be well; in other words, if the subsection means by counsel or by a solicitor or by both we should have nothing to worry about. But that is not what it says. This is the one point which, it seems to me, should be taken back to another place to be resolved. I shall go on talking for a little so that the matter can perhaps be resolved in your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it is still the rule and the practice, except on rare occasions, that counsel not only expect to be instructed by a solicitor but ought to be instructed by a solicitor. Many counsel, especially leading counsel and busy juniors, are too busy to draw up instructions themselves and obtain them from the lay client. They rely upon a solicitor, and sometimes a solicitor's clerk, to enable the instructions to be properly prepared. They are sometimes instructions which involve the obtaining of statements from witnesses and sometimes even affidavits. Therefore it is important, so that there is no confusion, and so that justice may be done and police officers may be properly represented, that it be made clear that counsel may be instructed by a solicitor.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I do not know whether in order to test it I may put an idea into my noble and learned friend's mind. I have already told my noble friend Lord Renton privately that he is right to raise this matter, but might not the answer to his question be that the subsection deals with representation at the hearing, and at the hearing the client is not represented by counsel and solicitors; he is represented by counsel instructed by a solicitor. If that is right, then the clause as drafted by another place is correct.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham made a. peculiarly helpful intervention. The whole purpose is not to alter the current practice but to provide for the way in which people are to be represented at a hearing. Representation will be either by a counsel or a solicitor. As my noble and learned friend said, if a counsel represents the
50
person he will represent him only after having been instructed by a solicitor. I assure my noble friend Lord Renton that there is nothing sinister in the issue and that the current practice will continue. I hope that he will be satisfied with that assurance.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham for his excellent suggestion. I also thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers for accepting it, no doubt having obtained the advice of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor while I was talking.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is a little unusual, but at the invitation of my noble friend Lord Ferrers I intervene to say that I agree entirely with the interpretation of the phrase that was given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. In the event of counsel and solicitors appearing, counsel will represent the client instructed by the solicitor. If no counsel appears the solicitor himself or herself will be the representative.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87. It was spoken to with Amendment No. 13.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure the House will not object if the Minister seeks to shortcut the proceedings by moving Amendments Nos. 87 to 102 en bloc and after Amendment No. 105 moving the remaining amendments en bloc.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall do anything that I can to expedite the proceedings without bouncing your Lordships into passing something that your Lordships might wonder about. Perhaps I may take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and suggest that we take Amendments Nos. 87 to 102 en bloc.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
87 Schedule 5, page 76, line 4, leave out 'established by or'.
88 Page 76, line 12, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 17 and insert 'for the words "he has been" onwards there shall be substituted—

"(a) he has been authorised by an officer holding a rank above the rank of superintendent to exercise the power or, as toe case may be, to give his authority for its exercise, or

(b) he is acting during the absence of an officer holding the rank of superintendent who has authorised him, for the duration of that absence, to exercise the power or, as the case may be, to give his authority for its exercise.".'.

89 Page 76, line 42, at end insert:
'Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992
In section 7 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (which restricts Ministers' powers to remove members of tribunals listed in Schedule 1 to that Act), in subsection (2) (tribunals to which that section does not apply)—

(a) after "36(a)," there shall be inserted "36A,", and

(b) for the words "or 56(a)" there shall be substituted the words", 56(a) or 57A".

.—(1) Schedule 1 to that Act (tribunals under general supervision of Council on Tribunals) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In Part I (tribunals under the direct supervision of the Council), after paragraph 36 there shall be inserted—

"Police

36A. An appeals tribunal constituted in accordance with Schedule 5 to the Police Act 1964 (c. 48)."

(3) In Part II (tribunals under the supervision of the Scottish Committee of the Council), after paragraph 57 there shall be inserted—

"Police

57A. An appeals tribunal constituted in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77)." '

90 Schedule 6, page 77, line 18, leave out 'member of a police force' and insert 'constable'.
91 Page 77, line 19, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.
92 Page 77, line 23, leave out 'and'.
93 Page 77, line 27, at end insert '; and
(d) one shall be a retired constable of appropriate rank.'.
94 Page 77, line 35, at end insert:
'Casting vote
. Where there is an equality of voting among the members of a police appeals tribunal, the chairman shall have a second or casting vote.'.
95 Page 77, line 42, leave out 'member of a police force' and insert 'constable'.
96 Page 77, line 42, leave out 'counsel' and insert 'an advocate'.
97 Page 77, line 43, leave out 'an officer of a police force or of the police authority' and insert 'a constable of the force maintained by, or an officer of, the relevant police authority'.
98 Page 77, line 44, leave out 'counsel' and insert 'an advocate'.
99 Page 78, line 31, leave out 'member of a police force' and insert 'constable'.
100 Page 78, line 32, leave out 'and'.
101 Page 78, line 34, leave out 'member' and insert 'constable'.
102 Page 78, line 35, at end insert '; and
(c) "retired constable of appropriate rank" means—

(i) where the appellant was, immediately before the proceedings, of the rank of superintendent, a retired constable who at the time of his retirement was of that rank, and

(ii) in any other case a retired constable who at the time of his retirement was of the rank of chief inspector or below.".'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 87 to 102.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 87 to 102.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
103 After Schedule 6, insert the following Schedule—
'Continuing Functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in Relation to Pensions etc. of Court Staff
1. In this Schedule—
"court staff' has the same meaning as in section 59 of the 1979 Act,
"the inner London magistrates' courts committee" has the same meaning as in section [Pensions etc. of justices' chief executive, justices' clerks and staff in inner London area] of this Act,
"the Receiver" means the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and
52
"responsible authority" has the same meaning as in section 55 of the 1979 Act.
(2) The Receiver shall pay out of the metropolitan police fund any superannuation benefits payable in respect of justices' clerks and other officers employed by the committee of magistrates or the inner London magistrates' courts committee under any enactment or instrument applied to those clerks or other officers by regulations having effect in accordance with section 15(9) of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967, other than benefits payable by the London Residuary Body, and any superannuation contributions and other payments for which the inner London magistrates' courts committee may be liable as their employer under any such enactment or instrument.
(3) Nothing in paragraph 2 above shall require the Receiver to incur any expenditure or make any payment which would cause the net cost to him in any year of the matters mentioned in paragraph 4 below to exceed the amount which, in relation to that year, is for the time being determined by the Lord Chancellor under paragraph 5(b) below.
(4) The Lord Chancellor may out of money provided by Parliament pay to the Receiver grants towards the net cost to the Receiver in any year—

(a) of the Receiver's functions under paragraph 2 above, and

(b) of the Receiver's functions corresponding to those of responsible authorities under regulations made, or having effect as if made, under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 with respect to court staff.

5.The amount of any grant under paragraph 4 above towards the net cost to the Receiver in any year of the matters mentioned in that paragraph shall not exceed 80 per cent of whichever of the following is the less, namely—

(a) that net cost, and

(b) the amount which, in relation to that year, is for the time being determined for the purposes of this paragraph by the Lord Chancellor.

6. In subsections (5), (6) and (7) of section 59 of the 1979 Act (grants by Lord Chancellor to responsible authorities)—

(a) references to that section include references to this Schedule, and

(b) references to the matters mentioned in subsection (1) of that section include references to the matters mentioned in paragraph 4 above.'

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 103. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 38. However, in view of the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is now in his place, perhaps I may repeat that it is an elaboration of what we inserted in answer to his representations at a late stage while the Bill was in your Lordships' House. I hope that all the noble Earl's anxieties have been met.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 103.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
104 Schedule 7, page 79, leave out lines 14 to 19 and insert:
'2.—(1) Section 17 (chairman and deputy chairmen of justices) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after the words "for the area" there shall be inserted the words "; and any contested election for the purposes of this section shall be held".
(3) In subsection (2), for the words "subsection (3)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (2A) and (3)".
(4) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—

53
"(2A) Subsection (2) above shall not confer on any chairman or deputy chairman of the justices the right to preside in court if, under rules made under the next following section, he is ineligible to preside in court.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 104.
Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 are the result of work carried out by a working party of representatives from the relevant bodies within the magistrates' courts service, which was set up last July to consider the chairmanship of benches. The representative training bodies have also been consulted.
Presiding over a court of lay justices advised by a clerk is a very specialised skill. This group of amendments permits the Lord Chancellor to ensure that every court chairman is suitably qualified and experienced while still leaving the discretion as to who is to preside over a court with the local magistrates of each bench. It also allows the Lord Chancellor to simplify the procedure whereby benches elect their chairmen and deputy chairmen. Currently, either all of the justices of the bench must be candidates for election or all of the justices must contribute to a shortlist of candidates. The amended power will permit the introduction of a nomination procedure whereby any justice may be nominated for office. A secret ballot will take place if there is a contested election.
I may have been a little summary in my references to Amendments Nos. 49 and 50. Amendment No. 49 eliminates the need for Treasury consent to the number of inspectors to the magistrates' court inspectorate and Amendment No. 50 requires that the chief inspector's report should be laid before Parliament.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 104.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
105 Schedule 7, page 79, leave out lines 21 to 26 and insert:
'(a) in paragraph (b), after the words "petty sessions area" there shall be inserted the words "(including any procedure for nominating candidates at any such election)",
(b) for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted—
"(c) as to courses of instruction to be completed by justices before they may preside in court;
(d) as to the approval of justices, by committees of justices constituted in accordance with the rules, before they may preside in court, as to the justices who may be so approved and as to the courts to which the approval relates; and
(e) as to circumstances in which a justice may preside in court even though requirements imposed by virtue of paragraph (c) or (d) above are not satisfied in relation to him.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
106 Schedule 7, page 81, line 15, at end insert:
'14A. After section 34A of the 1979 Act there shall be inserted—
"Justices' clerks for youth courts and family proceedings courts
Appointment of justices' clerks for youth courts and family proceedings courts.
34B.—(1) The inner London magistrates' courts committee shall appoint one or more justices' clerks for the youth courts and family proceedings courts for the metropolitan area.
(2) Subsections (2) to (4), (5) (b), (6) and (7) of section 25 of this Act have effect in relation to any justices' clerk appointed under subsection (1) above as they have effect in relation to a justices' clerk for a petty sessions area, but with the substitution for any reference to the magistrates for a petty sessions area of a reference to the justices of the peace who are members of the youth court panel for the metropolitan area or (as the case may be) of a family panel for that area, other than any such justice whose name is for the time being entered on the supplemental list.
(3) In this section—
"the inner London magistrates' courts committee" means the magistrates' courts committee for an area consisting of or including the whole of the inner London area or, if there is no such committee, all the magistrates courts' committees for areas which consist of or include any part of the inner London area acting jointly; and
"the metropolitan area" means the inner London area and the City of London.".'.
107 Page 82, line 25, leave out from first 'a' to 'means' in line 26 and insert 'commission area'.
108 Page 82, line 26, leave out from second The' to 'other' in line 27 and insert 'commission area'.
109 Page 82, line 30, leave out 'county or of a London'.
110 Page 82, line 32, leave out 'county or'.
111 Page 82, line 43, at end insert:
'London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939
. In section 151 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 (Crown exemptions), in subsection (1) (bb) the words from "the magistrates' courts" to "City of London)" shall be omitted and for the words "that area" in the second place where they occur there shall be substituted the words "the inner London area within the meaning of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979".'.
112 Page 82, line 43, at end insert:
'Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967
. In section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 (superannuation of metropolitan civil staffs), in subsection (1) (a) (ii), for the words from "or other officer" to "that area" there shall be substituted the words ", as a justices' chief executive for that area or as staff of the magistrates' courts committee for that area".
Pensions (Increase) Act 1971
. In Schedule 2 to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (list of official pensions for the purposes of that Act), in paragraph 47, at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be added the words—
"or as staff of such a committee; or
(c) service as a justices' chief executive."

55
. In Schedule 6 to that Act (employments relevant to section 13(2) of that Act), in paragraph (d) after the words "for that area" there shall be inserted the words "or by any magistrates' courts committee whose area includes all or part of that area".'
113 Page 84, line 17, after 'a' insert 'justices' chief executive or'.
114 Page 84, line 17, at end insert:
'Local Government Finance Act 1992
. In section 46 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (special items for purposes of section 45), in subsection (2) (d) for the words from "the magistrates' courts" to "that area" there shall be substituted the words "the probation service in the inner London area or the functions referred to in paragraph 4 of Schedule [Continuing functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in relation to pensions etc. of court staff] to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994".'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 106 to 114. I have already spoken to these amendments. Following the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I invite your Lordships to agree to the amendments en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 106 to 114.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
115 Schedule 8, page 84, line 37, at end insert:
'9 & 10 Geo. 6 c. 17. The Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945. Section 2(1), (1A) and (2).Section 3(1) and (2).'
116 Page 85, line 40, column 3, at end insert:
'Section 43(1) to (3). In section 43(5) the words "and "police regulations" " onwards.'
117 Page 85, line 52, column 3, at end insert:
'In Schedule 9, the entry relating to the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.'
118 Page 86, line 7, after 'superintendent' insert 'and'
119 Page 86, line 19, column 3, at end insert:
'In section 24(3) the words from "and the expression" onwards.'.
120 Page 86, line 26, column 3, at end insert:
'Section 38(1) to (3). In section 38(5), the words from ""police regulations"" onwards.'
121 Page 86, line 35, column 3, at end insert:
'In Schedule 4, the entry relating to the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.'
122 Page 86, column 3, leave out lines 43 to 47 and insert:
'Section 2.'
123 Page 87, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert 'Section 101(9) (c).'
124 Page 87, line 9, at end insert:
'1976 c. 35. The Police Pensions Act 1976. In Schedule 2, paragraph 1, in paragraph 5 the words "43(1) and" and in paragraph 6 the words from "1948" to "in both".'
125 Page 87, column 3, leave out line 13 and insert:
'Section 11.'
126 Page 88, line 7, column 3, leave out', 102'.
127 Page 90, line 17, at end insert:
'1994 c. 19. The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. Section 24.'
128 Page 90, line 26, column 3, leave out 'and 4' and insert', 4, 7 and 11'.
129 Page 90, line 27, at end insert:
'2 & 3 Geo. 6 c. xcvii. The London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939. In section 151(1) (bb) the words from "the magistrates' courts" to "City of London)".'.
130 Page 90, line 30, at end insert:
'7 & 8 Eliz. 2 c. 45. The Metropolitan Magistrates' Courts Act 1959. In section 3(1) the words "and the metropolitan magistrates' courts".
In section 4(2) the words "of the metropolitan magistrates' courts".'.
131 Page 91, line 58, column 3, leave out 'Section' and insert 'Sections 164(3) and'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 115 to 131. In view of the desire of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the expedition of the proceedings, I suggest that we take the remaining amendments en bloc. They happen to scoop up two which would normally fall to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I am sure that he will not mind if they are moved en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 115 to 131.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill [H.L.]
4.35 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill 89 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1Clause 5, page 4, line 15, after 'institution' insert '—

(i) made by either of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools, or

(ii)".

1A The Lord Beloff to move that this House do disagree to Commons amendment 1 but propose the following amendments in lieu-
IB Page 4, line 15, after 'institution' insert'—

(i) made, subject to sub-paragraph (c) below, by either of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools, or

(ii)".

1C Page 4, line 17, at end insert:
("(c) in relation to any particular institution, to the readiness of the institution by agreement to allow Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools—

(i) entry to the premises of the institution at all reasonable times;

57

(ii) access to records and other documents kept by the institution which reasonably relate to the discharge of the functions of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools.")

Lord Beloff: My Lords, it is often said that princes know no gratitude. Perhaps that might be extended to Prime Ministers. We in your Lordships' House received an Education Bill which we found distasteful in many respects. We passed a number of amendments which we thought improved the Bill to a great extent. For those improvements one would have expected Her Majesty's Government to be overflowing with gratitude. They sent us a bad Bill and we sent them a good one. In fact, I had visions not merely of telegrams of congratulation from the Prime Minister but that he would depute the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, to bring bottles of Krug champagne for all those who had done this valiant work. Nothing of the kind!
The Bill went to the Commons and after proceedings in Committee, which I can hardly recommend to your Lordships as an intellectual affair of the highest order, a number of amendments were inserted. Largely, they had the effect of reversing the improvements that your Lordships had made. I can only assume that this being an Education Bill I may address the House briefly in Latin: quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat. That means: those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad.
It is extremely difficult to understand the reasons that can have led the Secretary of State and his acolytes in another place to alter a Bill which, as it came to them, was acceptable to the education world in general. We are told by the press—and not everything we read in the press is to be believed—that before this week is out we may have a new Secretary of State for Education. I can imagine nothing that would be less acceptable to a new Secretary of State than to be landed by the Bill in a totally unnecessary quarrel with the universities of this country. It would indeed be a bad beginning.
Therefore, I suggest that my noble friend the Minister—after, perhaps, taking advice and, as it is still very early, I do not think that the House would object to a short adjournment for the purpose—should propose that further consideration of the amendments be postponed until the overflow Session in the autumn. In that case, if there is a new Secretary of State, there will have been time to reconsider the matter and the amendments from the House of Commons might not be pressed. Then the Bill in the form in which it passed through your Lordships' House might become law. However, I see no movement on the part of my noble friend to fulfil my very well-meant and helpful suggestion. I shall, therefore, proceed—alas—with my Motion.
The question relates to the access by inspectors of schools to institutions, especially those of higher education, which are performing functions in the field of teacher training. There has always been a fairly helpful and close relationship between universities and the inspectorate. The universities would be quite happy to continue that and those which are engaged in teacher training would probably often welcome the presence of persons with particular knowledge of the subject.
58
However, the way in which the Bill has now been amended would tend to make such inspections an automatic matter rather than a matter of mutual agreement. In particular—and this is the main point mat I should like to make to my noble friend the Minister— it was said by the Secretary of State after the Committee stage when the Bill returned to another place that he would ensure that the powers of grant which are given to the agency would be exercised in such a way as to compel universities to admit the inspectors.
One may say that something which is done by compulsion and which would, in any event, have been done by agreement is no great matter. However, it represents a departure from what has consistently been maintained by Her Majesty's Government, not only in the case of this Bill but also as regards preceding education Bills; namely, that it was not their intention to use the funding power to affect the internal arrangements in particular fields of teaching and study of universities. Therefore, such provision would create a departure and no doubt might in future be regarded as a precedent.
The purpose of moving the alternative amendments to Commons Amendment No. 1 is to ask my noble friend the Minister to say that the Secretary of State had no intention of indicating the use of funding powers to compel the universities to do this, and that that was an incident in debate which could be overlooked.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3, but propose Amendments Nos. 1A, 1B and 1C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Beloff.)
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I should very much like to support what my noble friend said, especially in relation to Amendment No. 1C. Perhaps a little background history will not be inappropriate here from someone who was Her Majesty's Chief Inspector for teacher training and higher education for six years, including the time when the visits by HMI to university departments of education first began; indeed, all 40 institutions which offered training for teachers were visited during that time.
I have used the word "visit" because we were never inclined to call such visits inspections, nor did we ever assert a right of access, a right of entry., a right to enter a university or a right to have access to any of its papers. It seemed most important at the time because of the much more overriding principle of academic freedom of our universities that HMI should go into universities by invitation only. That very important principle was preserved throughout the whole of the 1980s and, to my knowledge, also through the 1990s.
It is true to say that in the time when CATE (the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education) was first set up, it was necessary for universities to have a report by HMI on their courses before those courses could be submitted for accreditation by the council. In many ways that was a strong incentive for them to invite HMI. Nevertheless, it seemed to us, to the vice-chancellors and to the professors of education concerned that it was a very important distinction to

59
draw that HMI did not make such inspections by any right of the Secretary of State to send us in or by any right of access that HMI had, but simply because the universities chose of their own free will to invite us: we were there as guests.
The status of HMI in universities was totally different, although I hope that the courtesies were no less in institutions other than universities. As I said, we were there as guests of the universities and we only had access to those papers and classes that the university concerned chose. In fact, the universities were the most courteous, the most charming of hosts, the most willing to allow us free access to anything that we felt was relevant and, by and large, had an extraordinarily good story to tell as regards what they were doing in the training of teachers. Indeed, it certainly left me and, I believe, most of my HMI colleagues with a deep commitment to the quality of work which the universities were doing in the training of teachers. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure us that such a vitally important element of academic freedom, and the relationship between HMI and the universities as regards such visits, can be preserved in the future.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment. The two previous speakers have put forward the heart of the case. However, I should like to stress the fact that accountability is not at issue here. Indeed, there is no dispute about the ability of inspectors to look at courses of initial teacher training. The two qualifications that the amendment makes are very limited and, I hope, not unreasonable: first, that inspectors may have entry "at all reasonable times"; and, secondly, that they may look at matters which "reasonably relate" to their business.
It is always a good rule to imagine that we are dealing with the business the other way round. As the Minister knows, the Department for Education is accountable to Parliament. It is bound to supply Parliament at all reasonable times—and, indeed, it does so—with information which relates to Parliament's reasonable queries. However, it has not always been thus. There was once a time in the Parliament of 1626 when another place insisted on marching into the Signet Office and rummaging through the files itself. The noble Baroness will, I think, imagine the kind of reaction which that produced in quarters in Whitehall. It is something which I think, happily, has not been repeated.
The measure has two very reasonable qualifications for entry: that it should be done at reasonable times, and that it should be concerned with matters which are intra vires. I may say that because of the amendment which the noble Baroness, to my great delight, moved at Third Reading of this Bill, the research of departments of education in universities would be, as I understand it, ultra vires for the inspectors. Therefore it is only the initial teacher training with which they are concerned. I cannot see that this is really likely to be contrary to what the Government intended. I would be glad to be told
60
either that the amendment is to be accepted or that, because it in fact represents no more than they ever intended, it is unnecessary.
Lord Judd: My Lords, from these Benches, I too, would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on having so reasonably moved this amendment. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to reassure the House this evening, as indeed the noble Lord sought. The issue has raised profound anxieties about academic freedom, and I do not think that they can be lightly dismissed. I have read with some concern what the Secretary of State said in another place. The Secretary of State has had a long innings—many of us would perhaps say far too long an innings—and towards the end of an innings perhaps due to tiredness and so on it is possible that even by his own standards language became a little wild. But for those of us who treasure academic freedom in the universities and centres of higher education as something very special in British traditions, and something not to be eroded, what the Secretary of State said bears scrutiny. He talked about wanting to leave,
"as much freedom as possible to higher education institutions".— [Official Report, Commons, 677/94; col. 357.]
Those are ominous words. In whose judgment is that freedom assessed? He talked candidly about proceeding by means which were "not quite as straightforward"— those were his words—"as amending the Bill".
He went on to say specifically at the same column of Hansard —he himself claimed that he was not putting it pretty crudely, but if this is not putting it pretty crudely I do not know what it is—that,
"the bottom line will be no inspection, no funding".
He claimed that that is the method by which what he and some of his honourable friends wanted would be achieved. He went on to argue:
"It will be a condition of my grant to the agency under clause 7 that … it should impose as a condition of its grant to all higher education institutions under clause 5 a requirement that they must allow HMI unrestricted right to inspect activities on which the agency's funds are spent".
What we have heard, in the reasonable way in which this amendment has been moved and supported, is that everyone wants to see quality in the preparation of our teachers. We therefore want to be able to discuss in a reasonable way what is going on; whether it is adequate and how it could be improved. But this evening there is the much graver issue of the tradition of academic freedom in our centres of higher education. If the noble Baroness is able convincingly to reassure the House tonight as regards what the Secretary of State really meant to say, I am sure we shall take that seriously, but, if not, we on this side of the House shall have no hesitation in supporting the noble Lord if he pushes his amendment to a vote.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to say a few words in support of this amendment. I wish to start by expressing my most profound sympathy to my noble friend Lord Beloff who could reasonably have expected an emissary, and who obviously did. He had large expectations of a visit from his noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare

61
bearing dozens and dozens of bottles of Krug. He must have been painfully disappointed and I am sure that all your Lordships would wish to express their deep sympathy with him.
At the same time as expressing sympathy with my noble friend I would just like to express a note of surprise. I may have completely misunderstood this, but my impression is that the Government have once again said that university freedom is not a matter of such great importance and that it can be intruded upon from time to time. It would certainly seem to me that when the Government have said that in the past they have achieved the astonishing feat of bringing all the university vice-chancellors together to a position of total agreement, absolute unanimity and great effectiveness. I wonder whether they are doing that again on this occasion.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I hope I may add a very brief word to this debate, and it will be brief simply because other speakers have been so persuasive and so fluent. I remind your Lordships that the present involvement of universities in teacher training at all levels whether it is B.Ed, Postgraduate Certificate of Education and at higher degree levels, has evolved over many years in this country in the light of experience. The same is true of the partnership of the universities with the schools in which the practical experience is gained. It is a partnership which both sides value.
In their quest for quality which has already been referred to—and which we are all aiming for— universities have frequently opened their doors (I do not know of any case where they have closed them) to Her Majesty's Inspectors. That interaction between those inspectors and university departments of education has proved valuable to both sides. It is an arrangement which, because it is voluntary, engenders a degree of very fruitful co-operation which I in my experience have noticed is often absent from enforced inspection. I hope that the Government will not—as the Secretary of State almost threatened in another place on 6th July (this has been referred to already)—apply the principle of no inspection, no funding. I hope that instead the Secretary of State will choose not to disturb an arrangement which works well and will leave the university-HMI interface to develop further naturally. I am sure that neither side will be at all reluctant to co-operate where real advantage can be gained.
On the other hand, real damage will be done and academic autonomy will be infringed—that is something which has always been of great concern to this House, as has already been mentioned—were inspectors to succumb, or be instructed to succumb, to the temptation to interfere with what is taught and what is researched in the field of education despite the proviso which has excluded research. I, too, hope that the Minister can reassure us that in this matter the natural processes of evolution can continue without great upset.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think we do our friends and colleagues in another place a disservice if
62
we say that we give no credence whatever to the rights of an elected Chamber to have its say, for the first time, on a Bill passing through these two Houses. This is a Bill that started off in the House of Lords and I believe we, rightly, did a good job with this Bill. I agree with my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we sent this Bill in good shape to the House of Commons. However, we must not invalidate its legitimate right as an elected Chamber to have its say about this Bill.
Having said that, I want now, I hope, to give all the reassurances that noble Lords are seeking and to say that nothing has changed. The automatic, legally-based right of access, that is feared is the case, was indeed sought in another place and rejected. My light honourable friend did not accept the amendment.
I assume that the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Beloff are not designed to alter the requirement that the agency should have regard to Her Majesty's Inspectors' advice, which was the sole purpose of the original amendment. My noble friend's amendments seem designed to secure—although I am advised that they do not do so—that Her Majesty's Inspectorate's advice is available only when institutions agree to reasonable HMI access. My noble friend Lord Beloff wishes to prevent my right honourable friend securing such access for HMI through conditions of grant, as he has said he intends.
Those who took part in our debates on the Education (Schools) Act 1992, which established the independence of HMI within Ofsted, may recall that the inspection of school teacher training is mentioned specifically in that Act as a function which may be assigned to HMI. I recall giving my noble friend Lord Elton in particular a number of assurances that we intended HMI to continue to inspect this important area of provision.
It was suggested in the other place that—in the context of new arrangements for teacher training—it might be timely to put teacher training inspection on a firmer footing. But to give the inspectorate a new statutory duty in this area would have to have been matched by a new statutory right for HMI to inspect institutions. My right honourable friend decided not to go down that route.
On both sides of this House there is general support for the need for HMI to inspect and report on initial teacher training. HMI must have access to higher education courses, as well as to school centred courses, to allow open and fair judgments of quality to be made and the right balance to be struck between courses of different types. But the Government are equally concerned, as noble Lords know, never to encroach unnecessarily on the freedom of academic institutions.
HMI has had the de facto right to inspect teacher training in universities for many years—because the Secretary of State would not otherwise have approved the courses, as my noble friend Lady Perry pointed out. I stress that in that respect we wish only to preserve the status quo: to retain arrangements under which access is secured in practice by non-statutory means.
Course approval by my right honourable friend is, as noble Lords know, to be abandoned under the Bill. To replace it as the lever which secures HMI the access it

63
needs, my right honourable friend has decided to use conditions of grant. He proposes to make it a condition of his grant to the agency (under Clause 7) that the agency should in turn include among its conditions of grant to all higher education institutions (under Clause 5) a requirement that they must allow HMI to inspect all teacher training activities funded, in whole or in part, by the agency. That is the only way in which the agency will obtain information about the quality of provision. Equivalent access to schools running or involved in teacher training courses is secured directly under the 1992 Act.
The agency has to consult on the conditions it imposes under Clause 5, and that will enable the universities to make any representations they wish about the way in which the relevant condition of grant is expressed. It may well be that words similar to those used in my noble friend's amendment are included. It is certainly no part of our intention, or HMI's practice, to secure unreasonable access.
The right of access to schools and other public sector education institutions secured in the 1944 Act did not lead to unreasonable demands being placed on schools and institutions; nor did the arrangements for course approval. There is no reason why the new arrangements should be any different. But we need new arrangements because, as I have made clear, my right honourable friend will no longer have the course approval powers to underpin inspection. The agency could, it has been argued, build a similar right into its accreditation procedures. But in practice that would be the same as a condition of grant. An institution which did not allow access would not be accredited, and so not funded. The result would be just the same.
I can reassure the House that Ofsted has always limited its inspection of initial teacher training to those aspects of courses which are designed wholly or mainly for teacher training students. It does not have powers to do otherwise. It does not, for example, look at the subject study in B.Ed courses which is offered to other undergraduate students alongside intending teachers. There is absolutely no intention to alter that practice.
I hope that noble Lords who had any concerns about the proposed way ahead, including my noble friend Lord Beloff, are fully reassured that we are not intending to secure by conditions of grant anything which could not be secured through the course approval mechanism in the past or anything which higher education institutions will consider an unreasonable imposition.
We expect the practice to continue, but it is right to put on the record that any higher education institution not agreeing to be inspected or, even worse, refusing or being anti-inspection, could not possibly expect to be funded for teacher training if it were not possible to make judgments about the quality of the courses. That is what we are talking about here.
Finally, perhaps I may refer to the amendment which has been passed by the other place. I had hoped that that modest amendment would be widely welcomed, as it was in another place. It was prompted by the desire of Members of all parties to secure a firm role for Ofsted as the main source of independent quality advice for the
64
teacher training agency. That that was the Government's intention was clear from our initial consultation paper. The amendment put the position beyond any reasonable doubt.
I spent many hours at this Dispatch Box giving assurances to Members of this House that quality would be an issue for teacher training and that we would make sure that the teacher training given to our young potential teachers would be of quality. The only way that we can do that is to allow Ofsted and HMI to operate in the way suggested.
Clause 5(4) (b) relates to quality assessments to which the agency must have regard in carrying out its funding functions as respects a particular institution. As a result of the amendment these are divided into two parts: any assessments of quality made either by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools to which the agency must have regard and any other assessments to which the agency believes that it would be appropriate to have regard or to which the Secretary of State requires it to have regard. HMI assessments are therefore set apart as the first and most essential evidence. The use which the agency makes of that evidence or any other evidence is a matter for its judgment in the light of the objectives set out in Clause 1 of the Bill.
I invite the House to agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1 and to reject the other amendments on the Marshalled List.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, we will all have listened to the Minister with great care, as we always do. I can begin by assuring her, in the light of her first remarks, that we do not deny that the other place has certain responsibilities with regard to legislation. I think that there is common ground on that.
It is unusual for the roles of the two Houses to be reversed. Normally a Bill goes to the other place and after passing through its various stages there comes to us. We then exercise what is usually referred to as our role as a revising Chamber. Noble Lords congratulate each other on how well they perform that role. This is the opposite. This Bill came first to this House and went through all its stages here, and the other place was then asked to act as a revising Chamber. The fact that in the opinion of everyone who has spoken so far this afternoon on the subject the other place did not exercise that right very judiciously is a matter for regret.
On the substance of my Motion and the alternative amendments, the noble Baroness has gone a long way to reassure us that no substantial departure in the direction of compulsion was intended. Whether universities themselves will be wholly satisfied with that assurance when they have read the text it is not for me to say. However, I believe that it would be the general opinion of this House that we should accept and have on record what the noble Baroness said. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Amendments Nos. 1A, 1B and 1C, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 1 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 12, page 6, line 28, leave out from 'may' to end of line 30 and insert '—

65

(a) provide courses of initial training for school teachers, or

(b) join in a partnership or association with other eligible institutions, or (alone or jointly with other eligible institutions) establish a body, for the purpose of providing such courses.'.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I shall speak to Amendment No. 3 and ask the House to reject Amendment No. 2A, although it has not yet been spoken to.
It is now accepted on all sides that the particular changes made to the Bill in this House, which Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 remove, were defective. They gave to higher education the function of accreditation when—as the Opposition now accept — they intended to confer a validation function. I explained that distinction very clearly in my speech on the original amendments—but they were in any event pressed to a vote on tactical grounds, and accepted by the narrowest of margins.
I assume also for tactical reasons, the deficiencies of these amendments were not admitted by noble Lords opposite until the Bill had left this House. No further amendments to put them right came forward from the Opposition at Report stage or Third Reading—although noble Lords will recall how at Third Reading my noble friend Lord Pearson exposed the enormous confusion over just who did what to whom and in what order under the Bill as it then stood.
It was left to the other place to set matters straight— which it did by restoring the Bill to its original wording. That intention was made clear by my right honourable friend at Second Reading in the other place. It was carried out in Committee and fully endorsed at Report stage.
The objective of Clause 12 of the Bill is and was quite clear. It is to allow schools which are willing and able to offer courses of initial teacher training to do so with no more, and no less, regulation than is imposed on institutions of higher education. Higher education courses of initial teacher training must meet the Secretary of State's criteria—so must school courses. Both types of courses must be subject to inspection by Ofsted—against the same quality criteria. In all cases students leaving training must be graduates—and indeed those entering training courses run by schools must have a degree already.
Where we have always disagreed with noble Lords opposite, and continue to do so, is over whether schools must be required—not allowed, or even encouraged, but required—to run their courses in a partnership with and subject to the validation of an institution of higher education.
Of course that must be an option for schools. Most of those currently running courses have chosen to seek academic validation from higher education. But no current school-centred course—even those working very happily with a higher education institution—is a partnership in the sense that the institution is a joint provider. Indeed, while we use the word "partnership" to describe the arrangements entered into by higher education and the schools involved in school-based
66
schemes, this does not mean a partnership where schools are joint providers. In a school-based scheme it is the higher education institution alone which provides the course and is accountable for the funds. Those responsibilities are carried by the schools involved in a school-centred scheme.
The point of principle on which we stand is that schools should be free to choose whether or not to secure validation or work in partnership—or in some looser collaboration—with higher education. We do not want to force schools to adopt one particular model— just as we shall not be forcing schools to become involved in school-centred schemes. The Bill does not impose any unnecessary constraints.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lard Russell, have tabled an amendment to these amendments which would secure such constraints. But for all the reasons I have given I ask your Lordships to join me in rejecting their amendment and agreeing with that made in the other place.
Since we last discussed these amendments, and this part of the Bill, I have visited yet again the young graduates who entered a course a year ago and have just graduated from the courses. I have to say that their courses have been outstanding. They all have secured jobs and I believe that they will be a very real addition to the teaching force.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Baroness Blatch.)
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2
2A
At end insert:
("(1A) In subsection (1) above, a "course of initial training for school teachers" means a course provided by an accredited institution in partnership with and validated by an institution of higher education.")
Lord Judd: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2.
Let me make plain that we all recognise the need to improve the partnership between schools and colleges in teacher education and training. We must be clear about that. It is essential to evaluate the pioneer work already undertaken and to take seriously the difficulties which have arisen, with some centres of higher education withdrawing because they claim the schools have not been fulfilling their role, and with some schools, including Harrow no less, withdrawing because they feel the burden on teachers at the expense of pupils' education is too great. But the challenge is to get the matter right, not to run away from a partnership which we wish to argue is essential.
In a statement which has been unequivocally endorsed by every one of the teacher associations and unions, as well as by all the institutions of higher education which provide teacher education and training, the Standing Committee for the Education and Training of Teachers states:
"It is vital that initial teacher education brings together the different and complementary skills and experiences of both teacher trainers and practising teachers, if we are to produce the highest

67
quality of teachers … the initial education and training of teachers should [therefore] involve both practical and theoretical study of education."
However, one of the specific roles of the proposed TTA, as originally put forward in the Bill, was to promote wholly school-centred courses—an objective which noble Lords wisely declined to accept. It is an objective which the Minister has restated today.
The Government's Amendment No. 2 seeks to re-establish that misguided intent. By the same token, the Government have yet to establish why England needs this new TTA quango at all, with all its inherent dangers of direct ministerial political manipulation. By contrast, in Wales, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales is sensibly to retain its central role in teacher education and training. Why not England? It is difficult to discern from whence the pressure for the new body with its school courses comes other than from the enigmatic and eccentric preoccupations of the Secretary of State himself. There is precious little evidence of any significant number of good schools wanting to develop their own courses.
It is peculiar to say the least, for a Government which lambasts the inadequacy of teachers, as they see it, to insist on giving preparation of new teachers to those to whom they show, totally unjustifiably, mistrust. It is a contradiction all the more underlined by the Government's refusal to countenance a general teaching council, an objective to which I am glad to say that Labour is now resolutely committed.
The point has been stressed on more than one occasion. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—it is good to see him in his place today—spoke powerfully last year from the Benches opposite when he stressed the great need for consensus in education policy. I am afraid that on this matter, as yet —but it is not quite too late— there has been little attempt by the Government to build consensus. Indeed, there is no consensus. I would be doing a grave disservice to the House, and to those tempted to collaborate with this senseless new arrangement, if I did not make it categorically clear that, as now put forward, with the responsibilities as outlined in the Bill, the TTA will be abolished, scrapped, by the incoming Labour Government after we take office. We see the TTA in its specified role as a dangerous undermining of the quality of our future teachers and of the status and self respect of the profession, and as a threat to the future of our entire school system.
Teaching is a complex and demanding profession. Teachers need to be broadly and well educated, and to be well briefed on related disciplines. Graduate status, to which the Minister referred, vital in itself, does not confer a sound understanding of child development. The National Commission on Education, under the distinguished leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, put it well when it said:
"Among the strongest arguments for substantial higher education involvement in teacher education are the independence of universities and colleges and their commitment to inquiry and scrutiny of established practices and ideas".
68
But it was not only the commission. Ofsted's report, The New Teacher, in 1993 firmly recommended that it is necessary to establish strong and effective partnerships between schools and higher education institutes together with thorough monitoring and evaluation procedures. It is very illuminating to read the Department for Education Circular 9/92 requiring students on secondary initial teacher training to spend at least 24 weeks in school. It stated:
"The Government expects that partner schools in higher education institutions will exercise a joint responsibility for the planning and management of courses for the selection, training and assessment of students. The balance of responsibilities will vary. Schools will have a leading responsibility for training students to teach their specialist subjects, to assess pupils and to manage classes; and for supervising students and assessing their competence in these respects. Higher education institutions will be responsible for ensuring that courses meet the requirements for academic validation, presenting courses for accreditation, awarding qualifications to successful students and arranging student placements in more than one school".
It is that last paragraph in the DFE circular which interests me most and which is highly pertinent to the amendment before us. Higher education institutions are given responsibility for course validation and for presenting courses for accreditation.
Much has been made by the Government of the difference between validation and accreditation. In Committee in the other place, the Minister quoted the chairman of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education who has described validation as:
"The approval by a provider or by an external body of a course of training for the purpose of making an academic award".
He described accreditation as:
"official recognition of a provider or a course of study for purposes of professional qualification".
I broadly accept those definitions, but meanwhile we still have very little, if any evaluation of the pilot schemes for school-centred courses. What we know is that there is a possibility of multiple courses offered by schools, especially those in a consortium. Accreditation of courses, not just accreditation of schools as institutions, becomes essential. Otherwise how, for example, would the holders of a certificate awarded by a South Huntingdon consortium, should it exist, feel when schools fail to shortlist them for appointments because those schools do not recognise the certificate's currency?
Your Lordships attempted to cover that with the amendment that accreditation should be by institutions of higher education. The Government evidently find that unhelpful. So be it. Let us try to be helpful. In response to criticisms through amendments in debate, the Government have indeed elaborated on how they believe the Bill will work in practice. Ofsted is to have a clearer role to inspect, monitor and advise the TTA and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. The Bill now ensures that only courses run by accredited institutions could lead to qualified teacher status.
With those assurances—and I hope the Minister will note this carefully—we accept Amendment No. 3 and will not press the issue of course accreditation. Indeed, we shall support Amendment No. 2 as well, if the Minister agrees to accept our amendment. Our

69
Amendment No. 2A makes it absolutely clear that a school has to be accredited before providing such courses.
Certainly the Bill ensures that qualified teacher status will only be afforded to those students completing courses at accredited institutions. But no matter how small the risk seems at present, the Bill does not prevent schools providing their own courses, perhaps sponsored, which do not confer qualified teacher status, but which may be used, for example, by independent schools. This would be totally unacceptable. It would be an unjustifiable distraction from the responsibility of the school to its pupils. Our amendment ensures schools may provide courses of initial teacher training only if they are accredited. I am sure noble Lords will agree that that closes a potentially dangerous loophole.
However, more fundamentally, we believe it is essential that with a partnership between school and higher education, a course is validated by the institution of higher education. The amendment does not give the upper hand to higher education. Not at all. The school is likely to initiate the provision of such courses and will therefore take the lead role. The higher education institution will then be able to offer its experience, expertise and facilities to advise the school in setting up the course. I emphasise again that the TTA will have accredited the school in any such partnership.
Our amendment in no way prevents an increase in school-based initial teacher training. Nor does the amendment prevent consortia from providing courses for such training. We are not pressing for a return to the Bill as amended by this House. However, our amendment, of course, retains the core principle of partnership, a principle which, in all seriousness I put to the House, has yet to be countered by any coherent argument. With validation by higher education as the minimum basis for partnership, our amendment brings security to students undertaking the new courses. Incidentally, a full partnership will also ensure that the academic and welfare support provided by higher education institutions, to a degree schools cannot hope to match, will be available to students.
The national curriculum requires teachers to give children a broad and balanced curriculum. The way to achieve this is surely schools working in partnership with higher education. Therefore, even at this stage, as an indication of good will and a determination to build a constructive consensus for the future of our education system, I hope that, notwithstanding what she said in her introductory remarks, the Minister will feel able to accept our amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I could ask him a question. He said that he was prepared to accept Amendment No. 2 so long as the Government accept Amendment No. 2A. As they are wholly contradictory, would he explain to the House how that can be? Amendment No. 2 proposes to ensure that schools can operate alone without higher education involvement. Amendment No. 2A secures higher education involvement.
Lord Judd: My Lords, if I may just respond to that, with the leave of the House, as I said, we keep the whole
70
principle of partnership as central to our amendment and we therefore unashamedly see it as an important point to be accepted if we are to go along with the amendments which the Minister has put forward.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may reply, as this is very important. If we are to send the Bill back to the other place for further consideration tonight, it is absolutely essential that we send them something which makes sense. Amendment No. 2 reverses the need for school-based teacher training courses to become involved in any way other than by voluntary means with higher education. Amendment No. 2A requires that as a condition, and it will be a legal requirement within the Bill. The two are wholly contradictory. Does the noble Lord suggest that we send both amendments back to the House of Commons?
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am saying that if the House accepts our Amendment No. 2A then we will not press a vote on Amendment No. 2.
Earl Russell: My Lords, listening to that exchange, I cannot help thinking of my favourite quotation from Brakenbury in Richard III:
"With this, my lord, myself have nought to do".
I oppose Amendment No. 2 and support Amendment No. 2A. Degrees are like currencies. They are worth what they can be exchanged for. The difference which governments can make to that, though it exists, is small and often smaller than governments choose to think.
Part I of the Bill has been and remains intensely controversial. All the praise which has been given, in my opinion rightly, to the work done on the Bill in this House relates to Part II of the Bill. Part I remains as controversial as it was on the day when it was first put forward. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Judd, repeat the commitment to repeal Part I when, or if, he comes into office. That commitment was made by the Liberal Democrats before it was made by him and we are in complete agreement about it.
Where we have a Bill as controversial as this and we are considering the last nuts and bolts, it is worth considering those nuts and bolts so far as we can with an open mind about who is right and what the effect would be in either eventuality. If the Government are right and school-centred teacher training is capable of taking off and achieving a high standard without support, then the university validation would be no more than at worst a small irritation. It would not be insupportable.
However, supposing that we are right in our misgivings about what this would do to the standards of teacher education. Then Amendment No. 2A would be extremely important to preserving the standard of the qualification that is given and—a point that will be quite important to many people —to preserving the career prospects of those who have that qualification.
I have not forgotten the story from before the war of the man who applied to do postgraduate work at Oxford. He was asked: "What is your degree?". He replied: "BA, Albuquerque, New Mexico". He looked at the paper on which the man opposite him was writing. Seen upside down, it looked remarkably as if he were writing, "No

71
degree". We do not want that situation to happen. It would be extremely unfair on the candidates who would come out of this system.
Nevertheless, it is an area in which governments have to accept that their control is limited. However hard they try to enact that one qualification shall be regarded as equal to another, I think we all know how difficult that is to achieve in practice. With the university validation, I believe that it would be achieved. If there is to be a future in school-centred teacher training, then it should get off on the right foot. If it is a good thing, it will grow; and if not, it will not. Otherwise, what we are doing is a bit like enacting that £1 shall be worth 5 dollars. We can make that the law, but it will not happen.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minster seemed to be in some confusion as to the implications of this side of the House accepting Amendment No. 2 and her side accepting Amendment No. 2A. I wonder whether I may try to explain the situation from my humble understanding in a way that perhaps she might understand. I take, as it were, as my text my own experience. I did a degree course at Portsmouth Polytechnic. At that time Portsmouth Polytechnic did not have degree conferring powers. My degree was externally validated by the Council for National Academic Awards. The council had no involvement in the running of the course at Portsmouth Polytechnic. It effectively oversaw the course. It is interesting that some years later Portsmouth Polytechnic has become a university with its own degree conferring powers, but that was some years later.
I suggest that it could be possible for totally school-based training to produce adequately trained teachers. But surely in the initial period, for the first number of years—it may take quite a number of years for that situation to become readily understood and accepted—it is only sensible to ensure that the school-based training is validated by a university or equivalent. On that basis Amendments Nos. 2 and 2A would seem to be eminently sensible running together.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I just want to mention that Church colleges of higher education currently train between a quarter and one-third of all our teachers. I therefore want to express the conviction of my colleagues that teacher training should be firmly rooted as part of the higher education sector and not cast out into some sort of new tertiary system that is run by schools in isolation. Instead, we want to encourage the involvement of schools in teacher education and training in partnership with higher education institutions, which can bring a wealth of experience and a depth of learning. We would like to build on and extend the very promising partnerships that have increasingly become a feature of the teacher training scene in recent years.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I should like to oppose Amendment No. 2A to Clause 12, which is designed to try to reinstate the original amendment that was carried in this House by the emphatic majority of two.
72
As I understand it, there are two reasons for the Government's policy and it is worth restating them. First, it is to open up an alternative route into the teaching profession for those with a more varied background than that of people who enter the profession now. Secondly, it is to offer a form of teacher training which is more practical and less theoretical than much of what is on offer at the moment. I support both those aims.
Here is an argument for the first. Since 1988, the numbers of those taking and gaining A-levels in maths and physics has dropped between a quarter and one-third. That is a pretty catastrophic fall. One recognised reason for that is the shortage of qualified maths and science teachers. The Government's proposals offer a way of encouraging that kind of teacher. Perhaps—perish the thought!—some of them are put off by the dogmatism of much established initial teacher education. Are we to say to such people that they are not to be allowed to become teachers? Secondly, surely we can all agree by now that the role of education theory as the basis for good teaching practice has been greatly over-sold. Teachers should certainly be encouraged to reflect on what they are doing. No one sensible can deny that. But reflection should not be equated with uncritical ingestion of theory. Too many teachers have been sold too many pups over the past 20 years, to the detriment of many pupils.
It is alleged that the Government aim to deprofessionalise teachers. I really do not know what to make of that. First, as has been stressed ad nauseam by my noble friend the Minister, Clause 12 is an enabling clause only. No school has to offer a teacher training course. No graduate has to apply for one. In fact, no school will offer such a course unless there is a demand. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that there is no demand. What is his problem then? There will be no takers. On the other hand, if there is a demand and it is not supplied, we run the risk of cutting out of the profession precisely those graduates whom we need to make good the shortfall in the supply of maths and science teachers about which I spoke earlier.
I am afraid that it is also true that every skilled occupation since the beginning of civilisation has had a vested interest in limiting entry. That is the essence of the guild system. The argument has always been that limiting entry preserves standards. That it also prevents new ideas and new practices from spreading is not heard so often. So we should apply the appropriate discount to that kind of argument.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may refer to one passage in the CVCP briefing which says that:
"The career progression of those trained on non-validated courses may suffer".
That sounds to me very much like a veiled threat. I hope that it was not intended as such. If university graduates are denied promotion and responsibility, however well they teach, because they have not gone through the hoops that are recognised by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, that would be a very

73
serious situation not only for the reputation of teaching but also for the future of our pupils. I strongly support the Government in resisting the amendment.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I feel that I ought to make my position clear. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord but I am not absolutely sure that it is necessary. That is what I want to find out now.
There are two ways of improving teacher training. One is by administrative acts—through more courses in the schools, and leave out universities. The other is by means of the partnership which the noble Lord wanted and which I want too. We ought not to weaken the link between the schools and the universities for a rather different reason than has so far been given. I believe that it is a moral or psychological link—I do not know which is the right word to use.
Let us imagine a promising young man who is trying to make up his mind about the career upon which he should now embark and spend his useful working life. He will ask himself: "Shall it be the law, medicine, accountancy, the Civil Service or teaching? I did well at school and I am told that I am cut out for a professional career. I like the idea of teaching. So does the girl that I am going to marry. We both want to be teachers. But we do want our families to be in the same kind of social position as the families of doctors and lawyers. Now we hear that one of the ways by which we thought we could attain that professional status—closer relationship with higher education—will now be weakened".
If that is the case, the Government should change their policy. With the Bill as now drafted, the Government, if they so wanted, could strengthen the partnership; that is to say, they could strengthen both sides—the in-school teaching and the validation by the universities, and no doubt it needs a lot of improvement—and build up that double partnership. If that is possible under the Bill and if the noble Baroness will give an undertaking that the policy of the Government is not in any way to weaken the link between the schools and higher education, I shall be satisfied. If she cannot give that undertaking, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, goes into the Lobby, I shall go with him.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment but I should like to make only a few remarks. In answer to my noble friend Lord Eccles, the Government have declared their intention to allow—or indeed their desire to see flourish—courses in schools which are not connected with higher education. On my reading of the Bill, which is probably that of most people, as well as the debates both in this House and in another place, the demand of the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, cannot be satisfied within the text of the Bill because it clearly allows schools or consortia of schools to put forward courses for teachers without any higher education partnership.
I find the arguments of my noble friend Lord Skidelsky quite extraordinary. I cannot see any reason to believe that it is a restriction on the kind of people who might wish to enter teaching as a profession to
74
indicate the normal route to achieving their goal. I agree with him about the need for more teachers of mathematics and science. Why should someone with such talents, which perhaps have been exercised in another walk of life, not agree to something which in fact is no different from taking a further piece of training because he resents the idea that in some way he would be associated with a university? Perhaps such a person exists in the noble Lord's imagination but he escapes mine.
I do not believe that we are talking about a restrictive practice. Let me take an obvious example. The medical profession would not say: "We will not bother about physiology and such matters. Let the students go into a hospital and learn that in the wards". We do not refuse the demand from the medical profession that the basic sciences should be acquired as well as the practical training with patients. The provision is not a matter of limiting entry for some guild principle; it is establishing the kind of training that is thought desirable. This House thought it desirable that there should be joint responsibility between institutions of higher education and schools. I cannot see why that is in any sense a restrictive practice.
I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, since I do not believe that either he or the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is likely to be in a position to reverse the legislation of the present Government in the next Parliament. I am concerned only that we should get the legislation right because we shall probably continue to be the governing party. Therefore, I think it is rather deplorable that in this respect there seems to be on the part of the Government an unwillingness to accept what is apparently the overwhelming consensus among all levels of the educational profession on this matter. Why do they wish to ignore the clearly expressed views of the universities and the views of many schools expressed both verbally and in their actions? Why do they not wish to seek general assent to what they are doing throughout the educational profession? Why do they not, therefore, ignoring the party points which may have been made by noble Lords opposite, simply accept a return to what this House originally decided?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, many of your Lordships may be in the dilemma that I am in, which has been almost but not quite resolved by my noble friend Lord Eccles. The dilemma is that over the years some teacher training colleges have developed a theoretical approach to education which has not resulted in the improvement of teaching that was expected of it. I do not want to overstate the case, but there have been some remarkable examples of that. We all have recollections of very sensible practising teachers who had the ability to imbue new arrivals into the profession with their standards and practices. We would wish that to be encouraged. I myself received a lot of education from such eminent teachers.
On the other hand, in the schools themselves there are many instances in which teaching is not of the standard that we expect. Many examples have been quoted during the earlier stages of this legislation.

75
The question arises as to which path one takes since either route is suspect. The choice offered to your Lordships by this amendment—or rejection of the amendment—is either to try something new or to stay where we were before under the aegis of further education.
Great as may be the weight of authority of higher education as a whole, we must consider the performance of higher education as evinced in the training of teachers over the past 10 to 15 years. I believe that it is important not to regard the issue as 100 per cent. one way or 100 per cent. the other way. We must look at what is proposed in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said, this is not a mandatory requirement; it is an opportunity to be taken up by schools and students if they so wish. The extent to which it is extended as a new practice will depend on two points. One is its success or failure in practice; the other is the decision of the funding agency whether to provide more funds or less to achieve the objective.
If my noble friend is saying, "Let us put in an alternative method as an experiment and also as a sharpener to those already training teachers", that is something I find rather attractive. If it has the effect of encouraging the existing institutions to perform in a more rigorous and lively way, that must be a benefit. On the other hand, if my noble friend is coming to the House with something to sweep away the whole of the existing machinery, including that briefly but eloquently supported by the right reverend Prelate, then that would be a matter for considerable alarm.
Therefore, my noble friend on the Front Bench will determine whether a number of us follow my noble friend Lord Eccles into one Lobby or into the other, depending on the extent to which she intends the power to be used. Obviously she can only give a limited undertaking. But to my mind it has not been made clear whether we are looking for a root and branch reform, which many of us would find excessive, or for something which would improve the existing system by adding an alternative and not undermine the attractions of teaching as a profession, which my noble friend Lord Eccles rightly pointed out is something of very great value in recruitment and the maintenance of standards.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he think it possible that ideas in departments of education would change faster if there were less government pressure to change them and not more?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not sure that I understood the question. If I did, I am not sure that I ought to answer it.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I should like to explain— though not at any great length—the reason I subscribe my name to Amendment No. 2A. When I look at the great professions already mentioned—medicine, engineering, science and technology generally—it is not and never has been acceptable to separate theory from practice. Each is essential to the other. My objection to what now stands as a result of the Commons amendment
76
is that it is possible to separate the two. That must surely be wrong. For that reason I subscribe my name to the amendment—and for one other reason.
We are all concerned about the quality of the entrants to the profession. At the end of the day what is provided in education depends on the quality of the entrants and the added value given by the courses and the actual practice within the schools. I am concerned that if we introduce a system in which entry can be through school only and not validated by a university—and this must be contrary to the Government's intentions—far from attracting the better students, it will attract the poorer students. Those who are the more able will go for the university-validated courses.
That does not seem to me to be right on any count. It neither gives the experiment of school-centred education a proper test; nor, on the other hand, does it give any benefit to the system as a whole. I hope therefore, along with the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, that the Government can give the kind of reassurance mentioned. At this point I must say that in all logic Amendments Nos. 2 and 2A are not compatible.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I want to support the Commons amendment, being the Government's amendment in the Commons, and to express my disquiet with Amendment No. 2A.
It is important to remind ourselves that it is an experimental suggestion. There is no question that all courses from now on will be run without the involvement of higher education. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that any school or group of schools would not wish to call on the resources of higher education in order to meet the criteria for courses which the Government laid down. If one reads the criteria for the provision of courses for teacher training, it is apparent that there is no suggestion of separating theory from practice. The theory is still there; it is part of the course and most schools, even if they were operating without validation from higher education, would still wish to involve the kind of expertise which only higher education can naturally provide. The additional cherry on the top—if I may use that phrase—of university validation is not an important issue.
If we are to allow experiment; if the good schools— and only good schools would gain accreditation—wish to experiment with their own initiative and the generation of excitement in the profession; and if we are to give to the professionals in the schools some control over entry to the profession, that is a good and desirable end. Noble Lords opposite who are arguing against the Government's wish to allow schools the opportunity to experiment in this way are inconsistent with their wish for a general teaching council. The nub of the wish for a general teaching council, at best, seems to me to give more control in the teaching profession over the quality of new entrants, their training and accreditation. The school-based course would do just that; it would allow good professionals in schools to take responsibility for the training of the next generation of their colleagues. That must be a desirable end.

77
To my noble friend Lord Eccles I say just one thing. If the Bill were to allow people to enter the teaching profession without any contact with higher education, then I too would be prepared to vote against the Government; but it does not. Clause 14 makes absolutely clear that only those who are already graduates can enter the teaching profession. There is no question of a young woman or a young man being put off the profession of teaching because it is something which no longer carries a university degree or qualification. Of course only graduates will enter the teaching profession and Clause 14 makes that quite clear. If there is to be a much more rigorous and well-accredited course following on a degree, largely school-based, that would make it more attractive to the kind of dedicated professional that we wish to attract to improve the standards of the teaching profession. I therefore wholly support the Government's position on the matter.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I can add a brief word of support to the Government's position to draw attention to what I think is a fallacious argument, if I may have the temerity to say so, advanced by my noble friend Lord Beloff. He draws a parallel between medical education, and the necessity for university-based education in the medical profession, and teacher education. But a fundamental difference exists between the two—and I have worked in both areas.
When we are talking about the undergraduate education of medical or nursing students, there is a body of clinically-based knowledge which is necessary for safe, competent, sensitive, clinical practice. When we are talking of teacher education I do not see a similar body of knowledge in the name of "education" which is necessary for safe, competent, efficient practice. I plead guilty to having taught some of those subjects which form part of a teacher education syllabus. For example, I would not put sociology of education in the same domain of rigour or essential nature for safe practice as I would pharmacology or physiology for medical practice. Indeed, if one talks to many of the graduates who have gone through the university courses which qualify them as teaching practitioners, they say that the great majority were a waste of time and put many of them off. The useful parts were the parts connected with apprenticeship learning in schools where they understood the nature of teaching and learnt to teach.
I can reassure my noble friend Lord Eccles that the Government's amendment is not mandatory. It is entirely a question for those people who wish to see teaching flourish; who wish to choose teaching; to choose that route which they find most appropriate both in terms of provision and choice for their own professional training. It is not mandatory; it allows diversity, experimentation and choice and the Government have got it right. I hope that the House will support the Government's proposals and reject Amendment No. 2A.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, at the outset I shall address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who I see had the discourtesy to speak to the
78
amendment and leave the Chamber. I do him the courtesy of replying because he posed a question that needs to be answered and placed on record.
There is an incompatibility between Amendments Nos. 2 and 2A. Amendment No. 2, as I explained, means that schools will be allowed to do teacher training where the involvement with higher education is a voluntary one. Amendment No. 2A makes it a legal requirement that there should be a link with higher education. They are incompatible. Therefore, if we send the Bill back to the House of Commons this evening with both amendments agreed, it will be a nonsense. I hope to have no part in that.
We have heard a number of arguments for compulsory higher education involvement. It is claimed that schools simply cannot offer adequate courses without any involvement from higher education institutions. But inadequate providers will not be accredited by the agency and Ofsted reports will make sure that bad provision, whether in higher education or schools, is weeded out. The recent inspectorate report which led to the closure of a university course demonstrates quite clearly that the involvement of higher education offers no absolute guarantee of quality. We are told that we should not encourage school-centred courses until we know more about how the pioneering courses have fared. But we are setting up an agency which can respond to the evidence from evaluation as it emerges. It is those who assert now, and would write it into the Bill, that such courses cannot work except under the wing of higher education who are prejudging the issue.
We are told that students who do not gain a validated qualification will not be employed. That is simply untrue. Those from the one unvalidated course currently running are gaining employment just as fast as those from other courses: indeed I would say, as I have met many of these young people, probably even faster. Schools may be more confident of students from a course run and assessed by serving teachers, and the students themselves are the best ambassadors for such courses. I visited the course in question last week and was enormously impressed, as I had been on my first visit when I met the students at the beginning of the course. I have to say that the calibre of all those involved was extremely high and qualified teachers from these courses are no less qualified under the law than those with other qualifications. However, care over recruitment leaves a great deal to be desired in much of the higher education sector.
It has been said many times—and it bears repeating— that these young people are all graduates. They are graduates in their subjects. The young people I have met have had a first-class postgraduate year of education and training. The visits that have been made throughout the year by Ofsted will form the basis of evaluation of those courses.
We are also told that schools do not want the burden of full responsibility: indeed, not only is school-centred training too much of a burden but even involvement in school-based schemes is asking too much. As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said, if schools do not want this role it will not be thrust upon them. They are volunteers in this respect. If they want to run courses and purchase quality control, if they want to purchase validation or lectures and seminars from higher education, they can; and indeed

79
they do. Even for the unvalidated course—the course that is being self-validated—not only has the consortium been accredited but it uses outside agencies to come in and mix theory and professional studies with the practice of teaching. It is surely impossible to justify erecting a legal barrier to any other approach on the ground that schools do not want to pass that point anyway.
Perhaps I may refer to some of the points raised during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the TTA promoting school-centred courses. I should like him to point out to me where in the Bill that is the case. The Bill never required the TTA to promote school-centred courses. It allows schools to offer such courses and it requires that the agency should establish a balance between school-based courses on the basis of quality and cost-effectiveness with other courses. What is required of the agency—this point was raised not only by my noble friend Lord Eccles but by my noble friend Lord Elton—is that it will have a real and positive role to promote teaching as a career but not specifically school-based courses. That must be a choice for the schools and for the students, subject to all the rigours of inspection and accreditation.
My noble friend Lord Eccles wants assurances. I continue to repeat the point that these young people are graduates. They have been through higher education. They have the subject competences already well established. All the Bachelor of Education courses will go through higher education. Many of the courses taking place at the moment with consortia are using higher education and all of them are using outside agencies to make sure that they cover both professional studies and teaching practices as well.
The point was also made that the Bill should in some way enhance partnerships between higher education and schools. I can say that it does just that. The Bill should secure and enhance partnerships between higher education and schools. Higher education will have a greater incentive to form genuine and responsive partnerships with schools because schools now have a real choice.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to evaluation. I can say that a great deal of evaluation is going on at the moment. All of it is feeding back into my department and it will feed back to the agency when it is set up. There have been many more visits by Ofsted to the courses over the first year, and quite rightly so, than to similar postgraduate courses in higher education.
The right reverend Prelate was also worried. I hope I have given him assurances that this is just one other route into training. It does not invalidate any of the marvellous work going on in the Church colleges. Indeed, there is also a requirement on the agency to make sure that there is a balance of provision between the denominational colleges and other providers.
My noble friend Lord Skidelsky quite rightly pointed to the fact that this is an enabling measure. No school has to provide such courses. No student must apply for these courses. But what we do know is that schools are interested in providing these courses and students are interested in applying for them. Those completing the courses, contrary to what has been said by noble Lords
80
who are concerned about these matters, are actually getting jobs and they are getting them very quickly—even before their courses end. This autumn there will be 80 schools in 13 consortia offering around 450 places. All of the courses have had more applicants than they can accept.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, made a point about separating theory from practice. I have already stated that theory is not separated from practice. Indeed, that has been reinforced by my noble friend Lady Cox. It is simply not the case. In order to pass accreditation requirements it is necessary for the schools to satisfy the accreditation requirements that they will cover the professional studies as well as the practical side of teaching. My noble friend Lord Elton also touched on the extent of school-centred courses expected by Ministers. School-centred training is postgraduate only. Undergraduate training remains a matter for higher education and partnership with schools. We have no power under the Bill to compel more school-centred training, with or without involvement with higher education. It is a matter for the schools themselves.
I am sorry to sound a note of cynicism here, but I wish that those who are so vocal in their opposition to this measure would visit some of the courses and take the trouble to learn more about them. If they did I believe that their fears would be allayed. There is a fundamental and philosophical difference between us on this matter. If we are tested in the Division Lobbies, I hope that noble Lords will agree with our colleagues in the House of Commons that this is an enabling measure and a fresh opening into teacher training. I believe that it is wholly complementary to and not in conflict with that provision of higher education.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful for that very lively reply from the Minister. Perhaps I may briefly take up several of the points which have been made in what I consider to have been a very useful debate. In her characteristically direct way the Minister has made absolutely clear the Government's determination to have courses based in schools which shall be free, if those schools so wish, of an involvement in higher education. She has not prevaricated about that. That is precisely our anxiety.
The point which has not been answered in the debate today and which still troubles me is this: what will happen, for example, in the future career patterns of teachers who have been through such courses, if the courses have not been validated by an institute of higher education so that schools in any part of the country which may be contemplating an application from one of these students will have an assurance of the academic standard which has been reached in the course? Without such validation it will be impossible for schools throughout the country to have enough insight and information about all the school courses which may crop up in any particular part of the country.
That of itself is an argument which deals very well with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, because it is an option scheme and an experiment. What will happen to the students in the future? We have a responsibility for them as well as being concerned about the academic standards which are reached. The noble

81
Baroness, Lady Perry, made an important point and the Minister picked it up. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said that all the students will be acquainted with higher education in the sense that they are all graduates. But to be a graduate in geography or science is not the same as having insight into all the subjects concerned with the development of the child and the adjacent academic disciplines and the social sciences which are involved in its development. I suspect that the noble Baroness understands that point very well.
Therefore, as regards teachers, we are saying that it is essential to be certain that that person has reached the right level of learning on the subject matter of teaching itself and not simply the particular discipline on the timetable with which he or she may be concerned, such as geography or whatever.
I conclude by saying that it is validation which concerns us most. In my introductory remarks I hope I made it quite plain that in our amendments we are not suggesting for a moment that there should not be more school-based courses. We accept that point although we may have views about it. We are saying that if that happens the school should have a great deal of responsibility and all the lead responsibility for developing what is involved in the courses. We are saying that parents, governors, the rest of the profession and society as a whole should have an assurance that what happened was validated by a centre of higher education in terms of its academic status. For that reason and because that point has not been met in the reply to this debate, we must press this amendment to a vote.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lock wood): My Lords, the Question is that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, as amended. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content".
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, "Not Content"?
Noble Lords: Not Content.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I believe that the "Contents" have it.
Noble Lords: Order!
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I am sorry. The Question is that Amendment No. 2A, as an amendment to the Commons amendment, be agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 2A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2, shall be . agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 140.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Airedale, L.

Avebury, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Barnett, L.

Ardwick, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

82

Beloff, L.

Killearn, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Bottomley, L.

Listowel, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

McNair, L.

Dainton, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Monkswell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue,L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Park Of Monmouth, B.

Eatwell, L.

Parry, L.

Falkender B

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Glenamara, L.

Redesdale, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Halsbury, E.

Russell, E.

Hampton, L.

Saltoun Of Abernethy, Ly.

Hamwee, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Serota, B.

Haskel, L

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sherfield, L.

Hollick, L.

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howell, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Hughes, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jacques, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Judd, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Courtown, E.

Addison, V.

Cowley, E

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cox, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Annaly, L.

Cranborne, V.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Arran, E.

Davidson, V.

Astor, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Balfour, E.

Denham, L.

Barber, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Blatch, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blyth, L.

Downshire, M.

Boardman, L.

Eccles, V.

Borthwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E

Ferrers, E.

Butterworth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Byron, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Cadman, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Caithness, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Carnock, L.

Goschen, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Gray, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Gridley, L.

Chesham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Colwyn, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hayhoe, L.

83

Henley, L

O'Cathain, B.

Hertford, M.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Hives, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Holderness, L.

Peel E.

Hood, V.

Pender, L.

Howe, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Huntly, M.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Rees, L.

Kenyon, L.

Rennell, L.

Keyes, L.

Renton, L

Kimball, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Rodney, L.

Leigh, L.

Romney, E.

Liverpool, E.

Seccombe, B.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lucas, L.

Skidelsky, L

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Stewartby, L

Stockton, E

MacLehose of Beoch, L

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strange, B.

Mancroft, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sudeley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Vivian, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Moyne, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Munster, E.

Wise, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wolfson, L

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L

Northesk, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 2A disagreed to accordingly.
6.22 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I commend Commons Amendment No. 2 to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 7, page 5, line 33, at beginning insert 'In'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 After Clause 17, insert the following clause:
Power to reimburse certain payments to persons formerly employed in teacher training
'.—(1) A higher education funding council may make payments, subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit, to—

(a) the governing body of a grant-maintained school or grant-maintained special school, or

(b) a further education corporation or the governing body of any institution designated under section 28 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992,
84
in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by that body in making safeguarded salary payments to which this section applies.

(2) This section applies to payments made to a person who in consequence of a direction given by the Secretary of State under—

(a) regulation 3(2) of the Further Education Regulations 1975,

(b) regulation 15 of the Education (Schools and Further Education) Regulations 1981, being a direction relating to a course for the training of teachers, or

(c) regulation 16 of those Regulations,

ceased before 1st April 1989 to be employed in a college for the training of teachers, or in a department for the training of teachers in any other establishment of further education.
(3) The amount of the safeguarded salary payment is the amount by which, in consequence of the matters mentioned in subsection (2), a person's salary exceeds that which would normally be appropriate to the post held by him.
(4) A body to which subsection (1) (a) or (b) applies shall give to a higher education funding council such information as the council may require for the purposes of the exercise of their power under that subsection.'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
This is a purely technical amendment updating existing legislation to enable the higher education funding councils to perform their functions effectively. Its length belies its modest, though important, effect.
The new clause relates to payments under the "Crombie" scheme which was set up to assist those who were redeployed following the reorganisation of teacher training establishments in the 1970s and early 1980s. The scheme allowed those who were moved to jobs at a lower salary in schools and further education colleges to receive salary enhancements. The necessary funds have since been paid by successive funding bodies to local education authorities.
A number of local authorities have suggested the need to revise payment arrangements because some of those involved are no longer local authority employees. They work in grant-maintained schools or further education colleges. The new clause therefore enables the funding councils to make payments direct to such schools and colleges in respect of any relevant staff now in their employ. I am sure that this explanation will help the House to agree with the new clause.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
5 Page 12, line 42, at end insert:
'and students who exercise that right should not be unfairly disadvantaged, with regard to the provision of services or otherwise, by reason of their having done so;'.
5A The Earl Russell to move that this House do disagree with the Commons in their amendment 5
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my purpose in moving this Motion is interrogative in the first instance. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 9, which is grouped with it, in which the wording is similar
The provisions state that a student who chooses to opt out of a student union should not be "unfairly disadvantaged". Since none of us wishes to be unfair, the amendment states only that people should not be disadvantaged in ways in which they should not be disadvantaged. The sentiment is so unexceptionable that it seems important to find out exactly what the provisions mean. The wording concedes—this is vital— that if one chooses not to belong to a body, one suffers some fair disadvantages. First, I should like to ask the Minister in what ways it is fair for a person to be disadvantaged if he or she agrees to opt out. I await her reply to that with a certain degree of cautious optimism.
That is not my only question, although on that question I should be very grateful if the Minister could indicate that she was speaking to us under the ruling in Pepper v. Hart because that might clarify the matter considerably. Although our intentions may very well agree, the trouble that we have is that even since Pepper v. Hart the courts do not rely exclusively on the intention of the legislator. That is a very long-standing rule of law. So, however much we may agree on our intentions in the rule that people shall not be unfairly disadvantaged, that will not be the only thing that governs us.
I should also like to ask the Minister how this amendment from another place is to be reconciled with the points that she made to us about the European Convention on Human Rights when we debated the matter on Report. I understand that the effect of the European convention is that we may not restrict freedom of association. How does the amendment sit with that requirement? There may well be an answer, but I should very much like to hear what it means.
Before we reach any decision on this, we need to understand, first, what the amendment actually means and, secondly, how it will work. I shall listen to the Minister's replies with a great deal of interest. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Earl Russell.)
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think it will be most convenient if I say, first, a little about the amendments in this group brought from the other place before responding to the points that the noble Earl has raised on them.
After a stormy start to our debates on the student union reforms, with your Lordships' help we succeeded in putting together a robust and coherent package. This met with broad approval and I was grateful for the supportive remarks many of your Lordships made.
It may help if I remind your Lordships briefly of the purpose of these reforms and what we intend to achieve. We are determined to ensure that choice, fairness, democracy and accountability flourish in all our student unions. There is, I think, no dispute over the relevance of these principles to student unions.
The amendments made in another place do not affect the principles or structure of the Bill, which remain as when it left this House. The amendments clarify two points already agreed by this House: the choice of whether to belong to the union and the provision of
86
information to students. These principles of choice and information were approved in this House; the amendments simply provide further detail on implementation.
Amendments Nos. 5, 8 and 9 are concerned with the choice of whether to belong to the union. That choice is not available currently: it was provided in this House. It is essential that the choice should be real. In our earlier debates many of your Lordships were rightly concerned that students who exercised this choice should not thereby lose access to important services. Up to a point, I agree. A choice not to join the union, if it simultaneously cut a student off from all welfare or sports facilities, would be no choice at all. That is why we tabled amendments to ensure that students who choose not to belong to their student union are not thereby unfairly disadvantaged and to extend the complaints procedure to cover claims where students feel they have suffered unfair disadvantage in exercising this right.
But at the same time students must expect opting out to have some consequences or it is meaningless. That is what choice is about: weighing up the pros and cons of alternative courses of action; but the options must be fairly balanced. That is what these amendments are intended to achieve. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is concerned about that and I shall refer to the advantages and disadvantages of that in a moment.
Amendments Nos. 6, 13 and 14 enhance the information requirements of the Bill. Amendment No. 6 requires student unions to include details of all donations to outside bodies in their annual financial reports. Amendment No. 11 ensures that students have full details about their right not to belong to the union. Amendment No. 14 is a technical amendment which removes a potential ambiguity so as to put it beyond doubt that the information provided on services for non-members describes any services parallel to those provided by the union, not just the services provided by the union itself.
The right to choose whether to belong to the union is central to our student union reforms. Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 ensure that all students are informed about the right to choose, and provide further protection for students who decide to exercise that choice. The principle of choice, with its corollary of information, was first agreed in this House. The amendments brought from the other place do no more than enable this principle to become a reality. I believe th:3t we in this House should accept them.
Students who opt out of a union are not in the same position as those who stay in. That is self-evident. They must expect to lose something—for example, they cannot expect to stand for union president—and the Bill requires that the decks should not be stacked so heavily that students who want to opt out do not have a genuine choice. In some cases disadvantage may be fair; for example, where students who opt out cannot stand in elections. In other cases, disadvantage may be unfair; for example, where a student union provides the only catering service for students it could be an unfair disadvantage if opted-out students were denied access.

87
But if there were alternative catering facilities, it might not be unfair if student unions denied access to opted-out students.
The question is where the line falls between what the student expects to lose on opting-out and what is disproportionate. For example, it could be unfair if opting-out of the union meant that students could not thereby play rugby, but it might not be unfair if opted-out students had to pay a higher subscription to join the rugby club. It is not possible to give hard and fast examples. Each case will have to be judged on its merits and it will be for institutions to decide at what point disadvantage becomes unfair in the light of local circumstances which may vary. I go back to the principle established by your Lordships in this House before we sent the Bill to our colleagues in another place; that is to say, it will be a matter of judgment on the part of institutions themselves, and it will be for students to make a claim that they have been treated fairly or unfairly. The judgment would have to be made if that issue was not resolved within the institution itself.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that careful and thorough reply. There is a broad measure of agreement between us upon how the matter should be implemented. I am sure that that extends to institutions as well. I still feel a certain amount of anxiety about how the provision will be interpreted when it comes to the courts, as I have no doubt on some occasion or other it will come to the courts. But in the absence of any really substantial disagreement between us, it would be churlish of me to do anything but to beg leave to withdraw the Motion, and hope that the matter is interpreted by the courts in the way that the Minister and I both wish.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 Page 13, line 10, at end insert 'and each such report should contain, in particular—

(i) a list of the external organisations to which the union has made donations in the period to which the report relates, and

(ii) details of those donations'.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 21, page 13, line 11, after 'clubs' insert 'should be fair and'.
7A The Lord Beloff to move that this House do disagree with the Commons in their amendment 7
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.
I cannot altogether follow my noble friend the Minister in her account of the amendments relating to student unions because having studied the debates and the Committee stage in the other place, it becomes evident that what the amendments did was to illustrate by their inapplicability the original point which I made unsuccessfully to your Lordships: that the whole idea of optional membership of a student union, except in cases where there are many campuses, is not a sensible way of going about providing student services. In the Open University, and so on, there would clearly have to be exceptions
The amendments that we have were, in the end, accepted by the Government in another place, following pressure from a group of Back-Benchers whose hostility to universities in general and student unions in particular has been often referred to. They were led by the honourable Member for Colne Valley whose qualifications to speak on the subject are that he twice failed a preliminary examination at the university he attended, and left without a degree, which does not seem to me to make him a good adviser on matters of university policy. Nevertheless, he and his friends put forward these suggestions in which the one that I am now addressing is included.
The point is that once one makes that distinction between members and non-members, one cannot avoid getting into the kind of problem which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, illustrated and which arises again in the current amendment which relates to the distribution of money between clubs. It is sometimes thought that choice is an essential element of Conservative philosophy. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the practice at a university (the University of Buckingham) of which the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, is chancellor and one of her former Ministers is vice-chancellor. At that university, membership of the union is acquired automatically by a student on admission, and over the years there have never been any protests or wishes to withdraw from it. Therefore the university can provide services for all students without the intolerable complication which a division of the student body is bound to bring about.
It is, after all, a question whether we wish to load the universities—which are already under considerable pressure from central bureaucracy for a number of academic reasons which have been rehearsed in this House—with yet another load of administration, complete with an apparatus for appeals and an ombudsman—and goodness knows what!—to decide whether some student is or is not entitled to this or that other aspect of university provision. Why cannot the universities be allowed to look after the students in the way they find most appropriate? I regard this part of the Bill, and its amendments, as unnecessary now as it was when it was first introduced. One cannot make any sense

89
of it. Therefore I should like to move and press at least one Motion to show the general mess which the Government have got into by pursuing this policy.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Lord Beloff.)
Lord Judd: My Lords, I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for having picked an issue upon which to make the point. Because if one looks at Clause 21 on page 12, one sees that it states clearly:
"The governing body of every establishment to which this Part applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that any students' union for students at the establishment operates in a fair and democratic manner".
The point is made: the institution's responsibility is laid down in the Bill. It is gratuitously insulting to re-emphasise the point in paragraph after paragraph. That seems to me at least to smack of an attitude of paranoia on the part of the Government. It is an ungenerous attitude that unless on every conceivable occasion the word "fair" is deployed people will act unfairly.
I expect that in many Ministers' establishments an item of furnishing is the mirror, because this preoccupation with fairness seems to have some interesting psychological explanations. We are faced with a Government who are not marked for their commitment to fairness in general matters of public policy. For them to be insisting in every element of a Bill of this kind that the point which is made adequately in Clause 21 is repeated is not only superfluous but humiliating for all concerned.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It is worth while remembering that we have arrived at this position after a series of incidents which led us all to ask, "Were we pushed or did we jump?". When the National Union of Students knew that it was going to be reformed it came up with its own reforms. It does not matter whether it was pushed or whether it jumped; it has got to where it is now. Most people applauded its ideas, which were roughly compatible with what was in the Bill when it left this House.
Thanks to a great extent to the amount of dissatisfaction on the Opposition and Government Benches with the initial proposals, the Government accepted that the Bill in its current form was totally unworkable. We now have the position in which a club dealing with funds "should be fair". How on earth can one decide that? Is it to be by the number of people, the activity, a cross-section graph showing the number of people and the activity, minibuses to take out members of the hill climbing club, the number of tables provided to the board games society, or what? How on earth can one possibly impose the provision? As regards political societies, surely one must decide about the number of people, what they want to do and whether they are supporting someone or protesting. The provision is ridiculous and does not mean very much. Indeed, I suggest that many amendments on the Marshalled List are designed to ensure that people in the printing
90
departments of universities will have a great deal of work to do because they will have to print a series of lists and make them readily available to everyone.
I totally support the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I believe that Amendment No. 7 sums up the petty nature of certain Members of another place over the changes that we sensibly made to this Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I too support my noble friend Lord Beloff. I am not against opting out on principle and I am in favour of choice. However, I am against opting out in this case and, the Minister will remember, I have always been because the provision is unworkable in the circumstances of campuses. The Commons amendments have only exposed the unworkability of the original principle. Except in a narrow political sense, I have never understood the purpose of allowing students to opt out of student unions but to use the facilities which those unions exist to provide. That is completely illogical.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked what are the consequences of choosing to opt out of membership. My noble friend was able to state only one consequence; that students who have opted out of membership will not be allowed to stand for election or to take part in the political affairs of the union. However, as regards every other issue, she said that it would be a matter for the campuses to decide what was fair or unfair.
That is a recipe for endless campus litigation. It will not be big litigation, but whenever a student who has opted out believes that he is being unfairly deprived of some facility he will be able to make an issue of it, and universities will seriously be disrupted by that.
I do not know how to deal with the problem because we agreed to the opt-out when the Bill was in this House. However, I believe that the Government should reconsider the whole matter because they will not achieve their purpose and they are letting us in for something which they do not expect but which is foreseeable in the light of this proposed legislation. Therefore, if supporting my noble friend's amendment and pressing it to a vote will give the Government a chance to reconsider the matter, I shall support that course of action.
Earl Russell: My Lords, Part II of this Bill is now a little like a Christmas tree. It left this House fairly well decorated but, as often happens when one has finished decorating a Christmas tree, younger children want to hang odd things on the lower branches. Something similar has happened to Part II.
The best way I can illustrate why I support the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in Amendment No. 7A is to cite the verse in the Koran which states that a man may have four wives provided he can treat them fairly. There is a school of thought among modern liberal Moslem theologians which holds that that is so difficult that it amounts to a prohibition. If one is to be fair one must have a criterion of fairness. When, in the classic phrase, one is comparing apples with oranges it is hard to know what exactly is fair. When looking at this requirement, my own college president asked, "How am I to be fair

91
between the rugger club and the Gilbert and Sullivan Society?". I cannot answer that because I have no idea how one draws up objective criteria to be fair to both.
Perhaps one can compare the University of Wales at Aberystwyth mountaineering club—in which I should declare an interest as my son is a member—with the history society at the same university. The mountaineering club may claim that it is entitled to more money because it has more members. The history society may claim more money because it brings in visiting speakers from far away and therefore needs to pay expenses. It can argue that it deserves more money because its activities are inherently more expensive. If such disputes are to be justiciable in the courts, we shall take up a great deal of court time and it is not as though we have a surplus capacity in the courts.
I do not see how we can protect ourselves against the prospect of vexatious litigation. Everybody would like to be fair and most of us do our best to be fair. Most of us know that with the best will in the world we often fail. If we are to be taken to court every time we try to be fair and fail, we really shall be in a mess.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I wish to add a few comments in support of what was has been said, in particular about the litigation that the provision will engender. Clause 21(2) imposes a number of onerous obligations on governing bodies as particular examples of what is set out in Clause 21(1). That provision obliges governing bodies to secure that student unions operate:
"in a fair and democratic manner".
Those are the overriding words; the need for fairness is set out in Clause 21(1).
It is now proposed that one should add the words "should be fair and" to Clause 21(2) (i). As a consequence, Parliament will either be including words that are entirely otiose and unnecessary because they are already covered by Clause 21(1), or—and, I suggest, more worryingly—a very important ambiguity will be written into the statute book; namely, does the word "fair" in paragraph (i) mean procedural fairness or substantive fairness?
If the word means procedural fairness, then it is perfectly possible that the courts would find that a justiciable question; that is, the kind of question that courts are capable of answering. But if it means substantive fairness —in other words, that the procedure for allocating resources must ensure that such allocation is itself fair and that the procedure involved achieves that aim—that is really not the kind of question which our independent courts would find it proper to answer.
Speaking as someone who earns his living relying upon ambiguities in statutes and watching the endless delays in applications for judicial reviews in respect of which our courts are now completely clogged, I strongly deprecate the inclusion of such language which would create the possibility that applicants could contend that the substance of the allocation of resources was unfair and that the courts were somehow to second-guess the matter in deciding applications for judicial review. It
92
would be a complete disaster. It seems to me to follow from the language that such an ambiguity would have to be resolved by the courts in the way that I suggested.
Baroness White: My Lords, those of us who have had experience, as I have, of student unions will very much deprecate the inclusion in this version of the Bill of provisions which have rightly been described as impractical. When the Bill left this House it had been considerably improved. The addition now of the words "should be fair", will really just add to the complexity of how one intelligently handles the affairs of one's students. I do not wish to take any more time on the issue because there are other matters to be considered tonight. However, I was shocked to find that the other place had, presumably, been encouraged by the Government to include such provisions in the Bill. It is a great pity. It will make life much more difficult on the campuses than it need be and will produce no adequate, positive or desirable result so far as I can discern.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have debated at some length to ensure that our package for the reform of student unions is both robust and coherent. We have striven to set out a framework which will enable the principles of choice, fairness, democracy and, indeed, accountability to thrive in all our student unions. That has been the goal and rationale from the start.
The amendments made in the other Chamber are in keeping with those principles, which this House approved. They merely provide further detail on implementation. Such is the case with Amendment No. 7, which provides for enhanced financial accountability and fairness by restoring the requirement for fairness to the procedure for distributing resources to groups or clubs. I believe that the other place, acting as a revising Chamber, was right to seek more specific wording here. Certainly it was our expectation in this House that student unions should be expected to act fairly in providing resources to clubs and societies; and if that is what we expect, the Bill should make that explicit.
By his resistance to Amendment No. 7, my noble friend Lord Beloff has queried the requirement of fairness in the distribution of resources to clubs and societies. Petty unfairness is all too common. The kind of thing we have in mind is the club that is politically unsympathetic to the student union leadership, and which finds it strangely difficult to book a room for meetings. That kind of behaviour should not be tolerated. The requirement for fairness was indeed included when the Bill was first introduced; when we revised this clause, the argument was that the requirement was redundant. But I believe that the other Chamber was quite right to restore it.
Some of those who have spoken to the amendment appear to have returned to base on the subject. They talked about whether or not students should opt out. I have to say that Amendment No. 7 and resistance to it is not about whether students should opt out. That was determined both in this House and in another place. We are talking about leaving institutions themselves to determine what opting out will mean for those who wish to take that course.

93
The amendment agreed in the other place is to establish clearly the notion of fairness. I have given examples of fairness and unfairness. While most people may be happy to have no notion of fairness addressed specifically in this part of the Bill, I have to say that those who are the recipients of unfair treatment will find it a very real measure. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can she answer the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Lester that the point of substantive fairness is not justiciable?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was absolutely right to refer to the requirement on institutions to act under the overall framework of the measures in Clause 21 in a fair and democratic way. We are talking here very specifically about the allocation of resources. So there is a procedural element involved: namely, that that should be fair and democratic; that the procedures should be set out; and that the issue of membership and non-membership should be properly addressed. However, in the case of allocating resources to clubs and societies, it was felt important in another place to address the issue of fairness. We believe that there is sufficient evidence to substantiate that case. I believe that Members of the other place are right to ask us to agree to their amendment.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I find the argument of my noble friend the Minister unanswerable; but, at the same time, it does not meet the case put forward. It is unanswerable because, of course, it is true that all people tend to be unfair and young people probably tend to be more unfair than most. There have certainly been cases of which I am aware—and, indeed, I could rehearse them—where the officers, a committee or members of a student union have discriminated against a particular society of whose views they disapprove. For example, the experience of Jewish and Zionist societies in some universities comes to mind.
However, it does not seem to me that the situation will be improved by putting in a number of opportunities for complaint which could lead to extensive litigation. In fact, it brings us back to the view that it is the business of universities themselves to ensure that the students and others making use of their facilities use them in a proper manner. The reason why I find this part of the Bill—and, indeed, most of it— objectionable, is that it seems to be a denigration of the responsibility which ought to rest on universities to ensure that their resources, including their physical resources, are properly used.
It also seems to me that to have given way to a group of Back-Benchers in another place who make no secret of the fact that they would like to destroy the student union system altogether, and for whom opting out is a glorious war against institutions of which perhaps they had an unfortunate experience in their youth, is unacceptable. As the noble Baroness put it, the Government's willingness to accept such views and to
94
insert such language in the Bill is something which makes me grieve a great deal. For that reason, I should like to test the opinion of the House on my Motion.
6.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 102.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lester of Heme Hill, L.

Airedale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Avebury, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Beloff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Butterfield, L.

Mishcon, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carter L

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dainton, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Redesdale, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear B

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Skidelsky L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howell, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elton, L.

Annaly, L.

Ferrers, E.

Arran, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Astor, V.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Balfour, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Barber, L.

Goschen, V.

Blatch, B.

Gray, L.

Blyth, L.

Gridley, L.

Boardman, L.

Halsbury, E

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Brentford, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Byron, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Cadman, L.

Henley, L.

Caithness, E

Hertford, M.

Carnock, L.

Holderness, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Howe, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Kenyon, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Kimball, L.

Chesham, L.

Kinnoull, E

Clark of Kempston, L.

Leigh, L.

Courtown, E

Long, V.

Cowley, E

Lucas, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Craigmyle, L

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cranbome, V

Cumberlege, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Marlesford, L.

Denham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mersey, V.

Downshire, M.

Miller of Hendon, B.

95

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mottistone, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stockton, E

Moyne, L.

Strange, B.

Munster, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E

Napier and Ettrick, L.

[Teller.]

Northesk, E.

Sudeley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Tugendhat, L.

Pender, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Perry of Southwark, B.

Vivian, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Renton, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Wise, L.

Rodney, L.

Wolfson, L.

Sharples, B.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
7.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Motion No. 8A not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor: Motion 9A—Lord Beloff—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think we have to move Amendment No. 8 if we do not carry 8A.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry. I am grateful for that.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8Page 13, line 43, after 'students' insert 'who—
(i)are'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
9Page 13, line 44, after 'union,' insert 'or
(ii) claim to be unfairly disadvantaged by reason of their having exercised the right referred to in paragraph (c) (i) or (ii) above,'.
9A The Lord Beloff to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.
I think that the arguments for this have already been rehearsed and, although I would like to put it on record that I move this measure, I do not propose to speak to it.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Lord Beloff.)
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I simply rise to invite the House not to accept Motion 9A but to agree with
96
the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.I do so for the following reason. This matter is about information to students. We insist that not only should they be informed—we believe that is self-evident —but that even potential students who write to a university or college for general information about the college where they are contemplating membership or participating in courses should have it made absolutely clear to them the arrangement for opted-out students as well as for those who are members of the union. It is no more or less than that.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Motion 9A.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Page 14, line 4, at end insert 'in relation to any students' union for students at the establishment, setting out in relation to each of the requirements details of the arrangements made to secure its observance.'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10,I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. I need to be advised whether Amendment No. 12A is to be taken at this point.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House to take it at this point.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am in some confusion because I have always understood that amendments to amendments are dealt with before the government case. I wish to move Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. Perhaps it may be better if I move Amendment No. 10 and then leave the debate open, listen to the arguments in respect of Amendment No. 12A and then sum up on Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 and respond to Amendment No. 12A.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am entirely agreeable to that arrangement if it suits the Minister's convenience.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
11 Page 14, line 8, after '(a)' insert 'the code of practice currently in force under subsection (3) above, (aa)'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 Page 14, line 16, at end insert 'and shall include in any information which is generally made available to persons considering whether to become students at the establishment,'.
12A The Earl Russell to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.
Amendment No. 12 reads:
"shall include in any information which is generally made available to persons considering whether to become students at the establishment".
My objection is not to the objective, but because I do not think that it is possible. It is a requirement imposed on the Bill by another place to include in the prospectus exactly what will be done for opted out students. The point that we wish to make is that one cannot know exactly what arrangements one has to make until one knows how many people one has to make arrangements for. The point is fundamental.
If we include all the information in the prospectus and then find either that we have twice as many opted out students as we expected or that we have half as many opted out students as we expected we shall have to change the prospectus. We may then be accused of misrepresentation. Again, there is room for a great deal of trouble.
I have a great affection for lawyers, but it is not the chief purpose of this House to provide outdoor relief for lawyers. They have quite enough work to do already and it should not be the prime object of legislators to impose extra work on lawyers. Where possible, legislation should be clear and unambiguous. I do not think that we are achieving that here because I believe that we are imposing a requirement that simply cannot be met.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Earl Russell.)
Lord Judd: My Lords, I support the noble Earl in the Motion. It seems to me that there are several points that should be underlined.
As we come to the end of our consideration of the Bill, this particular amendment encapsulates much of what is wrong with the whole direction of this legislation. We are now talking about the information that will be made available to potential students at a particular institution of higher education. What is the picture that will be put before them? Will it be the dream, as we used to have it, of the ideal of higher education, of a community of scholars in which all share and to which all belong, with the richness of belonging and exchange of dialogue between academics and students? Or will it be a heavily regulated institution suffering under a weight of injunctions from the Government, who apparently do not trust academics, administrators or even students to make a success of
98
their institution? This is a sorry reflection on the Government's whole approach to the potential of higher education in our society.
I make the point again that it is paradoxical that this Bill comes in a year dedicated to deregulation. The Bill will produce a bureaucratic nightmare. It is a petty Bill, well illustrated in what will now be put before students, negative rather than positive in intent. I am very sad to see it go forward from this House.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I fear that I too must support the Motion. It does not take a neanderthal or a liberal, as I understand the honourable Member who was responsible for the amendment defined us, to understand that this is nor. a workable amendment. That is my chief concern.
The only way in which universities and institutions generally could give such information would be through the undergraduate prospectus. As we all know, the deadlines for the prospectus this year are February for the copy and May for it to be issued so that it can reach in time people who will apply for admission at the end of this year but who will not enter university until next year. How on earth can the institution provide information nearly two years in advance? There is no way that it can reasonably expect to provide information for an unknown quantity of possible opt outs. How can it possibly do that under the terms of the Bill as it stands relating to students who opt out? Such provision would have to await the decision of students once registered and would very much depend on the size of the problem, which will vary from year to year and from place to place.
There are other important aspects of the union membership which could never be provided by the institution. A simple example is the access to cheap travel which the holder of a union card enjoys. Travel discounts are negotiated by the NUS at national level and no institution could secure similar terms through individual negotiation for a small number of students. Members of the AUT in a university enjoy similar concessions negotiated by the union at national level. Members of the university who are not members of the AUT do not benefit from those negotiated concessions, but nor do they expect to do so.
I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister, who has shown such statesmanship—or perhaps I should say seamanship—in her earlier navigation of the troubled waters of parts of the Bill, will look hard at the amendment. It is simply not practical. It is not merely that it will impose yet further heavy bureaucratic and administrative burdens and a drain on resources in institutions which are already overworked and which welcomed the good sense, the reasonableness and readiness to listen to practical problems which have characterised my noble friend's approach to this legislation so far. It is also that it simply cannot work. I cannot see how it could be made to do so.
I shall spare the House everything else that I had intended to say except to say that I think that the Bill already provides for an excellent complaints procedure and an independent investigator appointed by the

99
institution. It includes provision for fair application of the rules, and it requires institutions to take steps that are reasonably practicable to secure them.
Surely a government as committed as this one to deregulation should trust universities and unions to work together to solve any problems that may arise. And surely the Government could proceed on the excellent principle contained in the words of Mr. Boswell, the Minister, during the proceedings of Standing Committee E in the other place (quoted in col. 388 of Hansard of 21st June.) He was discussing codes of practice, but what he said is applicable. He said:
"It is essential for the individual institution, together with its student body and the student union, to decide what should happen".
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have considered how this situation might be achieved. One would have a prospectus with a code beside all the activities of the union. The code would indicate that if x number of people opt out next year this activity will be available; if there are x number more people, that activity will be available; if there are none, the activity will not be available; and if there is a change half-way through the year, the situation will have to change again. One could continue like that for ever. I suggest that the Minister takes the opportunity to take this message back to another place. The student unions are not the unpleasant bodies that they might have seemed. Some of the provisions regarding the student union bodies remind me of someone who as a small child had their sweets taken away from them and has come back 30 years later to wreak a terrible vengeance. Such measures run totally counter to any organised life for students outside their academic activities.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if I may follow the nautical analogy, perhaps I may ring a bell, sound a hooter or give a sounding. The requirement is not to announce to intending students what the arrangements will be. The requirement is to give details of any arrangements that the body has made. The provision is a historic not a prospective requirement. In the first year there may be no arrangements. The Bill refers to "any arrangements it has made". Perhaps we may leave aside the tone and emotion which noble Lords have taken from the provision, having perhaps ill-advisedly read comments about your Lordships made in another place which are perhaps less than complimentary. I am happily spared that aggravation because I have not read them. However, I have read the Bill. It simply requires an announcement of any arrangements that have been made. That is an announcement of historic fact and of no bureaucratic difficulty whatsoever.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the point that we have made will become relevant in the second and third year of the Bill's enactment. Referring to what will happen and what has changed may once again apply. The situation will become a nightmare.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not accept that. At the end of a year one states what the arrangements in place are for the benefit of those who will come. It is like one's annual accounts which deal with matters up to
100
31st March in the year concluded. It is not up to date. That may not be a good or useful thing—I make a narrow point—but it is perfectly easy to do.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with regard to the description put forward by my noble friend Lady Park and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that will only transpire if the institution wishes that to be so. If the institution, as I believe it should, determines the framework for treatment of members and non-members of the union, it will provide standard information which will go out with a standard pack just as all other information goes out. Information going to students ought not to be a year out of date but as current as possible. Treatment of members and non-members ought to be part of that information. Therefore information will be part of a standard pack.
My noble friend Lady Park gave a specific example about travel. If that is what the institution has determined, it would be entirely reasonable that it was not including the negotiated advantages of travel arrangements for students. But for students to partake of offers made by British Rail, Eurotravel or whatever it might be, it will be for the student to prove that he is a student. In many instances that is the only requirement; there would simply be verification of that fact.
The principle of giving information to students is important. Clearly the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is against that because he would cancel the requirement. He thinks that it is malign and malicious and that we should not give information to students. If the principle has now been established for both opting out or remaining members of the union, it is important that students understand what that means. The increased choice that goes with that principle should be extended as far as possible to intending students as well as to those who have already committed themselves to a specific institution.
I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate against the provision in Amendment No. 12 for information about services to students outside the union to be provided not only to current students but also to those considering studying at the institution. I have not heard anything to dissuade me from the view that I expressed earlier: that it is entirely right for an intending student to know in advance about the availability of provision of services and facilities should that student choose not to belong to the union. Once the institution has determined a framework for membership and non-membership, it must be ensured that students know about it.
If a minutiae of detail would flow from that, it is entirely possible for the pack of information which goes out to students to contain the fact that the updating of the information can be checked. It could give a contact number so that at least potential students are given access to a source of information which would help them to make an informed judgment about whether they wished to be part of that institution. I therefore ask the House not to agree with Motion No. 12A but to accept Commons Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Earl Russell: My Lords, of course I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that it is good that students should know what facilities are available to opted-out students when that is possible. It is good that noble Lords should agree and know what is to be the timetable of this House when that is possible. In both cases unpredictable things may occur. We cannot give a firm undertaking that we will reach a specific piece of business at a specific time. In just the same way, if we are to provide food to opted-out students, we simply cannot know what facilities are needed, how many seats, how much cooking or how many staff are required until we have some idea of how many people will require it.
The noble Baroness puts before us a perfectly good idea. But I regret to say that it is Utopian. Throughout the Bill the noble Baroness has been outstanding in her concern for the practicalities of the matter. On this occasion, I regret to say that that concern has let her down. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for drawing my attention to yet another ambiguity in the Bill as it will ultimately emerge. In the Bill, as he says, the reference is to, arrangements that the college "has made" for services. In the amendment the reference is to,
"information which is generally made available".
We have slipped from the past tense into the present tense. There is room for even further confusion.
It would be perfectly possible for this House to pass a law that I should fly. That does not mean that I would fly. If the House passes a law requiring universities to do what is stated, we cannot do it. There is only one way in which I can put that view on the record. It is to move that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, the two examples that he gave are absolutely flawed. First, with regard to feeding students there is no guarantee that student union members will eat in the dining-room. Therefore it is a day-to-day operation for people feeding students to make judgments about how many people will come in and how many tables or chairs are needed.
With regard to the analogy of the flawed notice of the timetable of this House, as potential Members of the House who know that we shall come but have not yet arrived, we know what the rules are for Members and non-Members of this House. For example, until I am sworn into the House, I am not allowed to pass by the Bar of the House. We also know that rules pertain for husbands and wives of Members of this House. All that information is made available to us. That is simply all that we say: that the rules available to members and non-members should be made available before students become full members of the universities and colleges.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I cannot help wondering where the noble Baroness was on 4th November last when the Railways Bill came back from another place. The Commons amendments were scheduled for consideration the next day; and we were suddenly told
102
that we were to consider them that night. If the noble Baroness wishes to condemn what the Government did on that day, she can keep her position consistent. If not, then she cannot. I commend the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 95.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Airedale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Avebury, L.

Mayhew, L.

Beloff, L.

Mishcon, L.

Butterfield, L.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Carter, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Craigavon, V.

Redesdale, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Sefton of Garston L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, I,.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Judd, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henley, L.

Annaly, L.

Hertford, M.

Arran, E.

Holderness, L.

Astor, V.

Howe, E.

Balfour, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Barber, L.

Kenyon, L.

Blatch, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Blyth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boardman, L.

Leigh, L.

Brentford, V.

Long, V.

Butterworth, L.

Lucas, L.

Byron, L.

Lyell, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Caithness, E

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Carnock, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chesham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranborne, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mottistone, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.

Moyne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Munster, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L

Downshire, M.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elles, B.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Parkinson, L.

Elton, L.

Pender, L.

Ferrers, E

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Renton, L.

Goschen, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gray, L.

Rodney, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sharples, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

103

St Davids, V.

Trumpington, B.

Stewartby, L.

Tugendhat, L

Stockton, E.

Ullswaler, V. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Vivian, L

Strathclyde, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller]

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Sudeley, L

Wise, L

Teynham, L.

Wotfson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 12 agreed to.
7.37 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
13 Clause 21, page 14, line 16, at end insert:

'(a) information as to the right referred to in subsection (2) (c) (i) and (ii) above, and

(b)".

14 Page 14, line 17, after 'services' insert 'of a kind'.
15 Clause 26, page 16, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
16 Schedule 2, page 22, line 4, leave out from first 'or' to end of line 5 and insert 'teacher training'.
17 Schedule 2, page 22, line 9, leave out from 'training' to end of line 10.
18 Schedule 2, page 22, line 18, leave out 'the Teacher Training Agency' and insert 'a funding agency under Part I of the Education Act 1994 or the governing body of an institution receiving financial support under that Part'.
19 Schedule 2, page 22, line 19, leave out from '(2)' to end of line 21 and insert 'omit the word "and" following paragraph (bb) and after paragraph (c) insert:

"(d) with respect to studies relating to a funding agency under Part I of the Education Act 1994, the agency; and

(e) with respect to studies relating to the governing body of an institution receiving financial support under that Part, the appropriate funding agency or the governing body;".'.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 which were spoken to with Amendment No. 5, and Amendments Nos. 15 to 19 which are technical changes. They do not reflect any change in policy.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 19.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 1994
7.38 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this order is to make some minor modifications to the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 in order to reflect
104
the accession of Spain and Portugal to the 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations.
It may be helpful at the outset to say a few words by way of background about the 1980 Rome Convention. This is a convention made between member states of the European Community, the purpose of which is to harmonise their private international law rules on contract. It lays down rules to determine which law is to apply to a contract that has connections with more than one country. It does not affect the substantive law of contract, but merely enables courts to decide which country's law governs a contract. This harmonisation is designed to make it easier for people to do business in the Community, since the rules on applicable law will no longer vary according to which member state's courts hear litigation in the field of contract law.
The two basic principles of the convention accord with previous United Kingdom law, and its implementation has therefore led to few changes in our law. First, the parties to a contract may choose which country's law is to apply to it; we regarded this enshrining of freedom of choice as central to the convention. Secondly, in the absence of such a choice the contract is to be governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected; the convention lays down various rebuttable presumptions for determining this connection.
Certain matters are excluded from the scope of the convention, including contracts more closely related to family law, trusts, wills and succession, certain insurance contracts and questions governed by company law. There are special provisions on employment contracts and consumer contracts which are intended to benefit the weaker party. Although the convention is made between EC member states, it will apply to all contracts with a foreign element, whether with an EC state or not, which come before the courts of an EC state.
The convention was opened for signature in 1980. This country signed it in 1981 and ratified it in January 1991, having given effect to it in United Kingdom law by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990. The reason for the delay was the time taken to negotiate two protocols to the convention which provide for the European Court of Justice to have jurisdiction in certain cases under the convention and which were signed in 1988. This country's ratification was the last needed to bring the convention into force on 1st April 1991. All nine member states at the date of the opening for signature of the convention have now ratified it.
Although the Rome Convention is not strictly a piece of Community legislation, it is related to Article 220 of the Treaty of Rome, the treaty which established the European Economic Community. The purpose of this article is to ensure that member states enter into negotiations to secure the simplification and facilitation of recognition and enforcement of judgments in the Community, and new member states undertake to accede to the conventions made thereunder, in particular the 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The Rome Convention concerns a related area

105
of private international law and Greece therefore acceded to it by the Luxembourg Convention of 1984. The United Kingdom ratified this latter convention and it too is now in force.
The convention on the accession of Spain and Portugal was signed in Funchal on 18th May 1992. It followed that for Greece very closely and is largely of a formal nature. It is to be found in the schedule to the draft order, Article 9 of which will insert it as a new schedule into the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990. By Article 1, Spain and Portugal accede to the Rome Convention. Articles 3 to 7 deal with texts, copies, ratifications and entry into force. Article 5 provides for its entry into force as between those states which have ratified it three months after ratification by Spain or Portugal and by one other contracting state; thereafter it will come into force for other states on the first day of the third month after they ratify. It came into force on 1st March 1994 in relation to Spain, the Netherlands and Italy.
Article 2 deletes Article 27 of the Rome Convention and makes consequential changes elsewhere. Article 27 enables this country, by means of a declaration, to extend the scope of the Rome Convention to Gibraltar. Its deletion follows a similar change made in the San Sebastian Convention whereby Spain and Portugal acceded to the 1968 Brussels Convention, and is also consistent with the 1988 Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and judgments made between member states of the EC and those of EFTA.
The object of Article 2 is to remove from the face of the convention the reference to,
"any European territory situated outside the United Kingdom for the international relations of which the United Kingdom is responsible".
As well as covering the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, this is also an oblique reference to Gibraltar, which is, of course, an issue of long-standing sensitivity in Spain. The practical effect of the deletion of Article 27 will be minimal. Contracting states will remain free to rely on accepted principles of public international law, as expressed in Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, that a party is entitled to apply a treaty to all its territories.
Although the right to extend this convention to Gibraltar after the commencement of this order would thus be unaffected, the Government have in fact decided to make such an extension shortly. We see no reason to delay it until after the coming into force of this order. No legislation is needed in this country because Gibraltar has already enacted the necessary legislation in its own legislature.
In conclusion, the changes to the 1990 Act contained in this draft order are minor and uncontroversial and are necessary in order for this country to be able to ratify the convention whereby Spain and Portugal have acceded to the 1980 Rome Convention. As such this order facilitates a useful development in an important area of private international law and I commend it to the House. I beg to move
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I may quote from the last words of the noble and learned Lord, this order is indeed happily uncontroversial. From these Benches I have nothing to add to what the noble and learned Lord has so clearly said about it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1994
7.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretery of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne)The Parliamentary Under-Secretery of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the statutory basis for the disciplinary arrangements of the three services.
As noble Lords know, it is a long-established practice that the Services' disciplinary system is fully reviewed every five years through the consideration of an Armed Forces Bill and an Armed Forces Act is passed making such amendments to that system as are considered necessary. In each of the four intervening years the disciplinary code is reviewed annually by an Order in Council. The last Armed Forces Act was passed in 1991.
With the leave of the House, I wonder whether noble Lords would allow me to follow previous precedent and take the opportunity of this debate on the three service discipline Acts to mention a very small number of subjects in my opening remarks that are being undertaken in the Armed Services on disciplinary and personnel matters.
Perhaps I may begin with homosexuality. Noble Lords will remember that the Select Committee in another place recommended, and the Government indeed accepted, that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal in civilian law should not constitute an offence under service law. In announcing acceptance of that recommendation, the Government stated that Section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 would be repealed as soon as the legislative programme allowed. As noble Lords are aware, that legislative opportunity presented itself through the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, and Clauses 144 and 145 of that Bill seek to achieve the repeal of Section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 and corresponding provisions in respect of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We debated this matter in Committee, where the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Boardman was carried. We have now reflected on this and have tabled further amendments which are designed to tidy up the amendments carried in Committee. It would perhaps be otiose to anticipate the debate which we expect to have tomorrow at Third Reading.

107
Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I shall not say anything further on this subject, except to treat this occasion as something of a trailer to tomorrow's proceedings.
Noble Lords will also be pleased to know that the new tri-service guidelines on dealing with homosexuality in the Armed Forces were distributed down through the services' chain of command in March and a copy was placed in the Library of the House on 22nd April.
Perhaps I may emphasise to the House, as I have done on several previous occasions, that it remains the firm policy of the Armed Services not to accept homosexuals or homosexual activity within the Armed Forces. That policy is made clear to all applicants when they first apply. Service personnel are no longer prosecuted for homosexual acts that are legal in civilian law provided that no other service offence has been committed.
I turn now to the question of ethnic monitoring—a subject that has come up a number of times before in the debates in this House. I told the House last year that we intended to introduce in-service ethnic monitoring later on in 1993 and that that would begin with an ethnic origin survey. I am sure that noble Lords will be interested to hear that instructions on in-service ethnic monitoring and the code of practice on race relations in the Armed Forces were distributed throughout the services in December 1993. So we just made the deadline.
I can also advise the House that the ethnic origin survey began last December and was completed in May. Questionnaires were distributed to all regular personnel, with the obvious exception of the Brigade of Gurkhas. Completed questionnaires are being returned. Later this year they will be analysed and appropriate statistics compiled. The speed of response has been variable. Your Lordships may be interested to know that so far, of those distributed to the RAF 67 per cent. have been returned, of those distributed to the Navy 55 per cent. have been returned and of those sent to the Army 48 per cent. have come back.
The information obtained from the survey will allow us to establish the numbers and ranks of ethnic minority personnel in the Armed Forces and will also enable the services to monitor their equal opportunity policy, for example, by checking whether ethnic minority personnel are achieving the same promotion rates as their white counterparts. The ethnic origin information will remain strictly confidential and will be used only for monitoring the Armed Forces policy of equal opportunities for all personnel, whatever their racial origin.
We intend that statistical analyses of the ethnic origins of serving personnel by service and rank group will be published in due course in UK Defence Statistics, which is the statistical publication that accompanies the annual statement on the Defence Estimates.
The ethnic minorities continue to be under-represented among applicants and indeed entrants to the Armed Forces, despite strenuous efforts made by the services to encourage their recruitment. However, the services will continue to introduce a range of measures aimed at increasing ethnic minority recruitment and will also continue to monitor the ethnic
108
composition of applicants to the Armed Forces. All of the services' recruiting organisations have an officer responsible for ethnic minority recruitment matters and all three services have ethnic minority awareness training for recruiting staff.
The services are fully integrated, non-discriminatory organisations. They are also subject to the Race Relations Act 1976. It has been made quite clear throughout the Armed Forces that racial abuse or discrimination of any sort will not be tolerated. Any complaint by a member of the Armed Forces concerning his or her treatment will be thoroughly investigated under the redress of grievance procedures provided for in the service Discipline Acts that we are discussing. If the complaint is substantiated, appropriate action will be taken against those found to be involved.
Although complaints are generally dealt with by the commanding officer, if a complaint cannot be resolved at that level or if the complainant is dissatisfied, the complaint may be referred up the chain of command and ultimately to the appropriate service board. The Army and the Royal Air Force already keep a record of complaints which involve a racial element and the Royal Navy expects to introduce a similar reporting system soon.
Your Lordships will be aware that women have always undertaken a wide variety of duties in the services and that over the past few years their employment opportunities have been widened. They now represent nearly 7 per cent. of the total strength and very few roles remain closed to them. Women entering the services now have the same opportunities to pursue careers which qualify them for a wider range of the most senior posts at one-star rank and above. The highest rank held at present by a woman is that of brigadier or equivalent. In fact, there are five of them.
Your Lordships may be aware that during the Gulf conflict over 1,000 women served in a variety of roles, including aboard Royal Navy ships. Women also served with the United Nations peacekeeping forces and are serving in the former Yugoslavia and Cyprus. They are now able to serve as air crew in all three services. The Navy has one female pilot under training and seven women under observer training. The Army has two trained women pilots in the Army Air Corps and a further two are in training. The Royal Air Force has three women pilots, two on multi-engined aircraft and one on rotary wing aircraft. Eleven female navigators have also entered service on multi-engined aircraft. A further 29 pilots and 14 navigators are under training. The Army is revising its policy on the employment of women to increase further their employment and indeed deployment opportunities.
I mentioned last year that the Army was developing proposals for the introduction of what has been called gender-free physical testing. The Army hopes to introduce that into the service in spring 1995. It will enable physical capacity rather than sex to determine suitability for a particular specialisation. Gender-free testing is not a policy in itself but will be an aid to determining suitability for a particular role according to physical capacity. The Armed Forces are of course

109
continuing their work to remove remaining differences in the terms and conditions of service of men and women wherever that is possible.
Before I finish, I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute—I know that your Lordships will wish to be associated with it—to all the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. It is very much to their credit that at a time of unprecedented change for them their morale, dedication and professionalism have never wavered. It is important to remember that in order that they can continue to be as effective as they are, particularly in the face of danger in areas such as Northern Ireland and the former Yugoslavia, we should do our very best to support them, introducing an element of stability which will put their minds at rest about the future of their careers after the turbulence of the past few years and months. Part of their effectiveness is undoubtedly based on the fair and equitable system of discipline that operates in the Navy, Army and Air Force and the consequent high morale that that engenders. That system of discipline is founded upon the three service Discipline Acts. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to approve the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise to the House and particularly to the Minister for the absence of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel who unfortunately has to be elsewhere. I have spoken on these matters from these Benches in the past and I am now very pleased indeed to have the opportunity to come back to issues in which I have always taken a keen interest.
Let me begin where the noble Viscount ended; namely, his valedictory remarks about the service that this country receives from its servicemen and servicewomen. This is a fine opportunity to pay tribute to our Armed Forces. We have celebrated and commemorated the events of D-Day and I know that the Minister played a major role in serving his country. He is to be congratulated on the success of the organisation with which he was involved. This House is not short of men and women who, when younger, served in the forces and continue to take a sharp interest in the welfare of those who now serve in those forces. There is not a whisper in the country against the quality and loyalty of any elements of the services. I myself served in the forces during the Second World War. There were times when criticism was made about the behaviour of personnel, unruliness and on occasion the attitudes taken. However, to the best of my knowledge at this time the standing of our forces is as high if not higher than it has ever been in the past. The Minister and his colleagues can be satisfied and grateful about that.
Quite rightly, the noble Viscount told us that the discipline in the services owes much to the framework of the Acts that are under discussion tonight. Nevertheless, the debate provides us with the opportunity to ask questions. I know that the Minister will have come to the House prepared to deal with them.
110
In his speech, the Minister spent some time on the introduction in December 1993 of an ethnic monitoring survey. Clearly it is far too early to draw conclusions from any data that have been collected. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what kind of consultation took place, for instance, with not merely the Commission for Racial Equality which was consulted, but with any of the groups putting themselves forward as representing ethnic minorities. I think particularly of those who are not merely part of an umbrella organisation like the Commission for Racial Equality, but others who say that they represent the views of black people, Cypriots or West Indians. There must be a range of bodies and I wonder to what extent they were consulted.
I am sure that the Government must be as puzzled as we are when looking at the disappointing shortfall that exists between the potential numbers of ethnic minorities that could be recruited and those who are recruited. I am sure that the Minister must be disappointed that, despite pay and conditions which, if not of the highest, are certainly at as high a level as they have ever been, and despite the undoubted loyalty of ethnic minority groups to the flag and the state, the proportion of ethnic minorities in the services is exceedingly low.
Of course we are talking of volunteers; about people who want to serve. Therefore two questions arise. Why are we unable to make it more attractive for those in ethnic minority groups to serve in the forces? Does the Minister have any idea of the reasons for the reluctance on the part of those in ethnic minority groups to come forward and serve in this way?
The Minister raised the question of the extent to which women now serve in our forces. Having served in the Second World War I can say that percentage-wise the ratio was considerably higher at that lime. We are told that 7 per cent. of the total strength of the Armed Forces is made up of women. Clearly 7 per cent.— meaning that 93 per cent. are men—does not reflect the balance of the sexes in the community. Does the Minister have any target in that regard? I think he will agree that 7 per cent. is too low. What kind of figure will he accept as being reasonable? Is it 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or what? Does the Minister have any comparison of figures to give the House in relation to the proportion of women in the services in, for instance, America, France or Germany? If they have been more successful in inducing women to serve, what techniques do they use?
The Minister referred to the Navy. I shall be interested to know whether the small proportion of women who want to go to sea to serve can be strengthened. We have gone past the days when a furore broke out over this aspect of women's service. Two years ago when, for the first time, women were allowed to go to sea, all sorts of tales were raised as to what may happen. I am not asking whether or not anything did happen because from time to time the newspapers tell us. But can the Minister say whether or not the Government are endeavouring to increase the proportion of women who serve in the Navy?

111
The Minister quite rightly drew attention to the hiatus in the intentions of the Government to deal with Section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act. I am a little puzzled. He made reference to the amendments to be moved tomorrow designed to tidy up the legislation. Does that mean that there will be an attempt to negative the purport of the amendment carried against the Government's wishes by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman? I see also that in the Commons the Minister said that what happens in this Chamber will have no impact on the Government's intentions.
I shall not be drawn into the decriminalisation aspect, which is what the Government intended and what the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and his colleagues sought to correct. But I shall be grateful if the Minister will spend a minute or two telling the House whether what was carried in this House on the Criminal Justice Bill at Report stage has any meaning and whether any amendments at all passed in your Lordships' House at Report stage have any meaning.
Perhaps the Minister can say something in relation to the incidence of drinking. It is a social problem and something about which the Minister and the Government will share my anxiety in regard to the excesses that occur in the taking of drink or drugs. We know that drug-taking, sadly, is on the increase in society. Drinking is something which has always been associated with certain aspects of the services. Perhaps the Minister can tell us something about that.
Finally, perhaps the Minister can comment on a remark made by my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Eric Martlew, when he said during the fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments that in a recent homeless report it was found that one in four people who were sleeping on the streets were ex-service personnel. I do not know how valid that information is. However, it must be a source of worry to the Minister. Is he satisfied that the arrangements that should be in place when servicemen are discharged are in place? A mechanism of some kind is in place; it cannot be perfect. One cannot walk out of the Armed Forces and say, "I do not want this; I do not want that; but I will take the other". Can the noble Viscount tell the House what steps are taken to monitor what happens to ex-servicemen when they leave the services?
Another general question on which the Minister may like to comment is that of prejudice in general to coloured people in our services. It is not a question of the aggravation of percentages. It is a question of hostility. I listened carefully to what the Minister said regarding the intentions of the ministry. But can he say that he and his colleagues are doing more than issuing instructions and guidelines? Is there anything more that they can do?
This is one of those occasions when there is no difference between these Benches and the Government on the need for both the Act and the orders. We thank the Minister for the care he gave in presenting them to us.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am sure that we are all agreed that the question of homosexuality in the forces
112
can best be dealt with tomorrow during the Third Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, will find that there is no point of substance here. It is a question of whether or not we put into the Bill the question of administrative discharge. It is a procedural matter.
I was sorry that the noble Viscount took some credit for the Government for putting the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the forces into the Criminal Justice Bill. I put it to him that it was by no initiative of the Government at all; it was an initiative by the defence spokesman of the Liberal Democratic Party to whom he should have paid tribute for his enterprise and wisdom in what he did.
On the question of ethnic monitoring, it is obvious that, when the survey is published and we see the results, we shall be disappointed. That is certain. The situation is appalling. As I understand the last figures published, whereas 5 per cent. of the population is from the ethnic minority groups, only 1 per cent.—perhaps less than that —are in the forces. I wonder why that is.
I had a great deal of experience during the war of working alongside black soldiers in the United States Army. I know that conscription explains a lot; but I cannot understand why, in the United States Army, people from ethnic minority groups are in all the senior posts and yet we cannot do better here in that regard. I am sure that there are ways of improving the situation. I wonder whether we have studied the American experience; whether we have asked for co-operation from highly successful military personnel in the United States Army, Navy and Air Force who are black and whether we have asked them to come here and help us? I am sure more could be done. Perhaps the ministry's new idea, which is a good idea, of closing the recruitment offices and recruiting through the jobcentres may give an opportunity for more recruitment from the ethnic minorities. Something must be done because the situation at the moment is appalling.
The noble Viscount said that promotion results were as good for the ethnic minorities as for the run-of-the-mill recruits and soldiers. That is surprising and welcome. But, heaven knows, we need to make more progress in this field. In this context the noble Viscount described very accurately the machinery of making complaints about assaults and other ill treatment. How many complaints have been made? Is the figure going up or down? How many of them are racially motivated? If the noble Viscount has the facts we should be very glad to see them.
The remark about gender-free physical training fascinated me. Has gender-free physical training been tried anywhere else outside the Armed Forces? We shall all be very interested to see the results. It may in some circumstances help the cause of those who wish to see women playing a bigger part. In other respects it may make them think again. But it is a sensible idea for the Armed Forces and the results will be fascinating. Following up what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, how is the project of sending Wrens to sea going? We have heard conflicting reports. I should like the noble Viscount to tell us whether all is well there.

113
Those are the main questions to which I should like to have answers. I end by saying, as the noble Viscount said, that these have been trying years for the forces. It is not only that Northern Ireland and Bosnia are two of the more unattractive operational tasks for the forces but it is also that they have had this constant uncertainty from repeated, often piecemeal, cuts and reorganisations by the Government. Now they face another one—the noble Viscount did not make it clear. There is the whole question of conditions of service. That is another source of disruption and worry. We are not altogether satisfied by what we hear about the way it is being conducted and we suspect that there is more civilian input than is sensible.
It is a very good tradition on these occasions to pay tribute to the wonderful service that we get in this country from the Armed Forces. It is more sincere than ever when I say that this country owes them a great deal, especially in the unusually difficult circumstances in which they are serving.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Viscount has been so deluged with questions that I feel diffident about asking one further question, especially as it will take me a moment to explain the context of the question. In the Sex Discrimination Act and in the Race Relations Act the Armed Forces were excluded from the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, including the industrial tribunals. Parliament took the view in the mid-1970s that it was better for grievances to be redressed internally by the redress of grievance procedures. As a result though of European Community law that exclusion was ended a couple of years ago when the Divisional Court decided that the exclusion would not pass muster under the equal treatment directive.
Consequently, as the noble Viscount knows only too well because of the damage awards that resulted, men and women in the Armed Forces can have their complaints of sex discrimination dealt with in the ordinary way just as the police and prison officers can. But I do not think that that has been applied to complaints under the Race Relations Act. Whereas in the past the Government have very wisely decided always to implement the knock-on effects of Community law by uncapping damages, for example, and by dealing with interest payments, they have not decided to do so in the sphere of race relations. At least that is my understanding of the position. My question comes out of that. Will the Government consider, as one way of encouraging racial justice and racial equality in the Armed Forces, doing the same in race relations as they have in sex discrimination cases and entrust the jurisdiction to the independent courts rather than to internal procedures, which however fair they may be are not able to have the same virtues and benefits as the independent judicial process?
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the three noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I certainly felt that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was at the very least an extremely graceful and charming substitute for the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who
114
normally speaks for the Opposition on these matters in your Lordships' House. I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord for the kindness that he displayed about the organisation of D-Day. As he knows, we are indebted mostly to members of the Armed Forces for the magnificence of that occasion. The tribute paid to the Armed Forces by the noble Lord and by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will have been noted by the Armed Forces and appreciated. I extend my gratitude to the noble Lords for what they said.
The noble Lords raised a number of points which I shall do my best to answer as succinctly as I can. I start with the question of race relations. All three noble Lords raised this matter. I am very pleased that they did because it is a matter for which I have a personal responsibility in the Ministry of Defence and it is one which I have endeavoured to take extremely seriously during the two years or so that I have enjoyed that responsibility—I use the word advisedly.
I was particularly interested by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, about whether we had looked at the United States experience. All of us are aware of the extraordinary competence of General Colin Powell, who is an example for all soldiers, white and black. For that reason I was particularly pleased to be able to encourage the organisation recently by the Adjutant General at Bovington Camp of representatives from all over the Army to discuss the question of how we could do better in this important area
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will be interested to learn that we asked a former colonel in the United States Air Force to lead part of our discussion. He himself is black and is now resident in this country— I assume he likes living here. He has already done a great deal of work for both public and private bodies based on his experience. I hope I do not misquote him, but when I asked him how we could breed our own General Powell, if I may put it that way, he said, "You must have people who are prepared to be standard bearers because the only way in which you can encourage people"—this is where I address myself to another question asked by the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Mayhew—"and convince them that there is a worthwhile career in the Armed Forces for them, particularly if they have black or brown skins, is if they see people in senior positions who also have black or brown skins".
The point that my American friend made to me was that the first people, even in the American forces, who crossed that line were exceptional people. There is no way of avoiding finding exceptional people because if they are going to gain acceptance from all their colleagues of whatever racial origin, they have to be self-evidently highly competent in the jobs that they do. I hope that that one example will be enough in this brief debate to give some flavour to the work which we have been trying to undertake particularly in the past 18 months in this important field.
I now address the question which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked me. As a distinguished lawyer, he will be familiar with what I believe have come to be known as the Anderson principles. I shall not bore your Lordships by reading them. The noble Lord will know

115
of the High Court's review of the Army Board's decision in respect of Private Anderson's racial discrimination case and that five principles emerged. We have adopted those principles. I hope that that will go at least some way to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Lester, although I am aware that he asked us to go a little further than that.
The department consulted the Commission for Racial Equality about the code of practice on relations in the Armed Forces and instructions on ethnic monitoring. We did not consult other bodies as such, but we made sure that recruiting staff developed contacts with ethnic minority communities about increasing recruitment among them. If I am spared this autumn, I intend to take a personal interest in that and to develop close contacts with people from the ethnic minorities at ministerial level. If your Lordships are interested, I shall be happy to report in due course on the effects of that work. Unfortunately, thanks to DCS and other matters, I have had to postpone my original intention rather longer than I intended to.
I am aware that this has been a short debate. There were a number of other questions which your Lordships asked. I shall explain this tomorrow, but it is very important to understand that there is no wish on the part of the Government to negative the amendment of my noble friend Lord Boardman. I believe that there is no difference between my noble friend and the Government on the intention. We shall accept the principle of putting the matter and the intention on the face of the Bill. I have endeavoured to point out in your Lordships' House some of the disadvantages which are attendant on that course of action. We lost, and we hope to show ourselves to be good losers. The amendments are merely technical in nature and address the very deficiencies in my noble friend's own amendment which he acknowledged during the course of his introduction of it.
As regards targets for women which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked me about, the percentage of women in the British armed forces is I believe higher than in most of the armed forces of our allies. I believe that only the American armed forces have a higher proportion of women. Certainly, the British armed forces have a higher proportion of women than our European allies. That may have something to do with the professional nature of our armed forces and with the professional attainment of the women who work in them.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, also, asked about conditions concerning the Bett Inquiry. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has been showing a great deal of interest in that matter. Is there too much civilian input? It is important that there should be civilian input because employment habits have moved on very much in the past decade or so. It is important that the armed forces should examine best practice elsewhere to see whether we can learn from it. Your Lordships will be as aware as I am that the armed forces are a very different case from ordinary civilian employment. Therefore in the end the terms and conditions of employment examined by the Bett Inquiry must always have as their guiding rule
116
whether they will add to or subtract from the operational effectiveness of the armed forces which is why they exist.
I am most grateful to your Lordships for the spirit in which you have participated in this debate. I am more than grateful for the unanimity in your Lordships' House with which the armed forces of the Crown are admired. My more than two years so far in the Ministry of Defence have convinced me that there is no finer department for any Minister, however junior, to serve in. I have counted it an enormous privilege to have done so. I shall do my best to serve their interests in your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994
8.26 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the adjourned debate on the Motion, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee] be now resumed.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we return once again to debate the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order. This follows the adjournment of the earlier debate on 29th April. This is a fairly formidable document, and is couched in fairly legal terms and, even in the context of European Community orders, is somewhat more complicated to understand than most. I would like to apologise at the start to those of your Lordships who may already be familiar with the subject but, in view of the gap since the order was last debated, I think that it might be helpful if I were to outline briefly the main provisions of the order and the background to its introduction.
This Order in Council is to be made under the European Communities Act 1972. It will consolidate, and it will incorporate into United Kingdom law, nine European Community directives which all relate to freedom of movement and rights of residence. It also extends the rights of free movement and residence to nationals of Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden in accordance with the European Economic Area Agreement, which came into force on 1st January 1994. All of these countries were members of the European Free Trade Association and all but Iceland will, we expect, become members of the European Union in January of next year.
For this reason, the order refers throughout to "European economic area nationals"—that is to say, to nationals of those five states together with nationals of the member states of the European Community or, as it is now known, the European Union. Under the provisions of the order, and in accordance with Community law, on arrival in the United Kingdom a European economic area national must produce a valid European economic area passport or national identity card. At most major United Kingdom ports and airports, we have introduced a separate European economic area immigration channel in order to speed the passage of British and other European economic area nationals.
No stamp or endorsement is placed in the European economic area national's passport. Subject to a brief passport check to confirm their identity and nationality, he or she is then free to enter the United Kingdom in much the same way as is a returning British citizen.
Having entered the United Kingdom, the European economic area national is then free to work in an employed or in a self-employed capacity to carry out business; to study here; to retire here; or to reside in any other capacity.
Students, retired people and others, who wish to reside without working, need to be financially self-supporting and to have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on our social security system.
The order also contains provisions which allow family members of European economic area nationals to join them in the United Kingdom. There are powers to exclude and to remove European economic area nationals and family members on public policy; public security, or public health grounds. The order also sets out rights of appeal.
Of the nine directives which the order implements, six are already dealt with in the existing immigration rules. The three most recent directives which relate to students, retired people and others who are financially self-supporting, are already complied with administratively.
Once the order is in force, it will confirm our existing immigration practice in relation to European economic area nationals and their families. It will also enable us to meet our obligations to incorporate all the "Rights of Residence Directives" into United Kingdom law. It will also establish a separate legal instrument, distinct from the immigration rules, covering the treatment of European economic area nationals and their families under Community law.
The order is, as I have said, rather complex. This complexity is necessary in order to ensure that the provisions of the nine directives are accurately reflected in the order. However, I know that some noble Lords opposite—and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter —expressed concerns previously over some aspects of the drafting of the order. I shall do my best to try to resolve these. For example, some noble Lords questioned the need for Article 2(2) which is, remarkably, only one line in length. This excludes from the provisions of the order anyone who seeks to avoid immigration controls by contracting a marriage of convenience with a European economic area national.
It has been said that there is no basis in European law for such a provision and that, without further definition, the term might be interpreted too widely. I would like to make it quite clear that this provision has been included to deal with marriages which are entirely bogus, the purpose of which is simply to circumvent immigration controls. I would hope that I could allay any fears that this provision might be used against genuine marriages. We regard it as a very important principle that a party to a marriage, which is nothing other than a marriage of convenience, cannot be
118
regarded as a member of the family of a European economic area national and that he or she cannot, and should not be able to, benefit from Community law.
We recognise that the European Court of Justice has not issued a substantive ruling on this point of principle. But, the United Kingdom Government have had their view upheld by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in the recent case of Kwong. I understand that leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal has been granted in the Kwong case and that this may lead to a reference to the European Court of Justice. But I am happy to confirm that we would consent to such a reference being made to the European Court of Justice in this case. That does not, though, alter the need for marriages of convenience to be excluded from the provisions of this order.
I can assure your Lordships that it will remain our policy, in the majority of marriage cases, to grant a residence document to spouses of European economic area nationals, who are exercising their treaty rights, simply on the production of evidence of their nationality, their identity and their marriage and evidence that the European economic area national is exercising a treaty right.
We will make further enquiries, before deciding the application, only when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the marriage is a sham—for example, where a marriage involves a non-European economic area national who is on the point of deportation and where there is no evidence of any relationship with that person prior to the marriage.
I can also confirm that we would not regard as a marriage of convenience a marriage which is a genuine marriage but where, for example, a couple were living apart for work reasons or where the marriage had suffered a breakdown, leading to a separation.
During the debate on 29th April, some noble Lords suggested that the order should include provisions relating to the various European Community association agreements with Turkey or other countries. I should make it clear that this order is limited to transposing into United Kingdom law the nine directives which relate to free movement and rights of residence for European economic area nationals and their family members. Association agreements are of a different character and they do not confer rights of free movement on individuals. It would be outside the scope of this order to deal with association agreements or other wider aspects of Community law. In any event, while recognising our obligations under Community law, the Government do not consider that the immigration rules are in conflict with association agreements.
Some noble Lords expressed concern that the order fails to make provision for relatives who cease to be dependent on a European economic area national. There are, in fact, no provisions in the European Community directives for the treatment of those family members who cease to have an entitlement to remain as dependants. These people, therefore, must qualify on their own account—either under this order or under the immigration rules.
It has also been suggested that the order should cover the admission of more distant relatives who have been living under the same roof as the European economic

119
area national. We do not consider that if we "facilitate" or "favour" applications from more distant relatives that fact should confer upon them an entitlement to admission to the United Kingdom. But we do recognise our obligation to consider any such applications. In order that applicants should be aware of this, we will ensure that it is reflected in the information leaflet for European economic area nationals which will be published following the entry into force of the order.
The order introduces a new term, the "European economic area family permit". This is an entry clearance document which will be able to be obtained from a British diplomatic post overseas by non-European economic area dependants who wish to install themselves with a European economic area relative in the United Kingdom. It has been suggested that this is an entirely new requirement. In fact, this is not so. Non-European economic area dependant relatives, who are coming to the United Kingdom for settlement, are already expected to be in possession of an entry clearance document before they depart. This is in line with the entry clearance requirement for the foreign dependants of British citizens or of people who are already settled here, if they are coming to join their relative on a permanent basis.
The European Community directives do not contain any general provisions relating to settlement. The new immigration rules will, though, enable European economic area nationals —apart from students—who have been issued with a residence permit which is valid for five years to be granted settlement after four years here.
In providing a route to settlement under the immigration rules, we have, therefore, gone further than the directives themselves require. The grant of settlement in such circumstances is a matter of domestic immigration law and it does not constitute a "social or tax advantage".
We do not accept, therefore, that this is discriminatory compared with the treatment of the foreign spouses of British citizens who may be eligible for settlement after 12 months. It is the immigration rules which set out that the spouses of those who are settled here under domestic immigration law may be eligible for settlement after 12 months. This provision would, of course, apply equally to the spouse of a European economic area national who had been granted settlement under the rules.
During the debate on 29th April the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew attention to the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which raised doubts as to whether the order was intra vires. The joint committee suggested that the requirement that a student should demonstrate that he had sufficient resources, so as to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the United Kingdom, might be more onerous than the directive had intended. As the order does not refer to a "declaration", the joint committee said that it believed that it was doubtful whether the order in this respect implements the directive.
With the greatest respect to the joint committee, we take the view that the drafting of the relevant article does properly reflect the requirements of the directive.
120
The order does not specify the means by which a student may assure us that he has adequate resources. The wording of the relevant article in the order—which is Article 6(2) (h) (ii)—is taken from the directive and we remain of the view that it meets our obligation to transpose the Students Directive into United Kingdom law.
We will only require applicants for student residence permits to show reasonable evidence of funds, such as bank statements. A declaration, consisting of a letter indicating financial support from parents or other sponsors, would generally be regarded as sufficient. Our clear view remains that it cannot be right that a student should be able to acquire a right of residence—possibly also thereby becoming a burden on public funds—by misrepresenting the adequacy of his resources through a false declaration.
I apologise if I have gone over territory which may already be familiar to some of your Lordships, and to have done so in a degree of detail which some of your Lordships might have found tiresome. However, I hope that by doing so, I might have managed to reassure your Lordships that the order is a measure which should not represent any substantial change in the treatment of European economic area nationals and their families.
The order will also, for the first time, provide a separate provision in United Kingdom law covering the rights of residence of European economic area nationals. This will not only help to clarify those rights in domestic law, but it will enable us to comply with our obligations to implement Community legislation on rights of residence. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the adjourned debate on the Motion, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee] be now resumed.— (Earl Ferrers. )
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to my noble friend if I raise a long-standing issue. This is an extremely complex order. As my noble friend knows, it refers to immigration. I would put just one question. My reading of the order is that it does not—I have had this confirmed—impose any further burden under immigration (carriers' liability). I should be grateful to my noble friend if he would confirm that point when he replies.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, as the Minister made clear, this is the second time that the order has been debated in your Lordships' House. In the first debate the draft order was subjected to severe criticism from my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who unfortunately cannot be present this evening, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Since then there has been a substantial exchange of correspondence and one or two meetings on the issues outstanding between Members of the Opposition and the Government Front Bench. We are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, and Mr. Charles Wardle, the Minister in another place, for the help that has been given and for the clarifications that have been received.

121
I am also grateful to the Minister for reading into the record this evening the substance of some of those letters and discussions as background to the understanding of this complex order. There are, however, still some points upon which I wish to record the Opposition's reservations with the hope that the Minister might respond to one or two of those reservations and allay our worries, and, if he does not, to indicate that there is this conscientious difference of opinion which perhaps cannot be resolved.
The Minister will not be surprised to know that the first problem relates to marriages of convenience. Broadly speaking, there are two issues here, neither of which affects the central agreed point—that people should not benefit from marriages of convenience and how that general principle is incorporated into the order. We welcome the assurance given by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his letter of 12th July that the test of primary purpose in UK immigration rules does not apply in European economic area marriage cases.
However, in the letters received by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, from the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, and Mr. Charles Wardle, the definition of a marriage of convenience still seems to be rather loose and objective as, for example:
"a marriage entered into solely for immigration purposes, with neither partner having the intention of living permanently with the other as man and wife in a settled and genuine relationship".
It is difficult to see how, in that necessarily subjective context in which judgments have to be made about the nature of marriage, elements of primary purpose which have been excluded from European economic area marriage issues will not creep back in. I think that they will, and that will be unfortunate.
Letters from Ministers talk about marriages of convenience being sham and bogus marriages, but we are not given a definition, a criteria or detailed guidelines. I still feel that the order should be more specific about those things. The Minister has given one or two example in his speech and in correspondence about what in his understanding would constitute a marriage of convenience. But if officials are to act on some notion of a marriage of convenience it would have been better to have had something more substantial by way of criteria and guidelines. That point is perhaps particularly apposite since in a recent decision in the Queen's Bench Division of the Supreme Court it was held that a marriage of convenience can include a marriage where the couple intend to stay married. It is not for me to question the judgment, but it is one that causes some worry about the extent of the interpretation of the notion of a marriage of convenience. The order should have been much more specific.
If we are to invoke marriages of convenience, excluding the criterion of primary purpose, then we need to have a much clearer idea of what the concept involves, and I do not believe that the correspondence has elucidated that sufficiently, and neither did the Minister's speech this evening.
The second point on marriages of convenience is an important procedural one. As the Minister said tonight and in his letters to my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in the case of Kwong the question of
122
marriages of convenience is likely to be referred to the European Court of Justice for it to rule on whether it is right to introduce a marriage-of-convenience rule into a national provision which seeks to implement Community law.
The point I want to make here is not over the substance of that, but it does seem curious to introduce the provision of a marriage of convenience into the order before the court's judgment has been made, particularly since in his letter the Minister seems to be almost pleased that the application to the court is likely to be made and he looks forward to a rapid resolution of the issue. In those circumstances it seems odd to have incorporated marriage-of-convenience exclusions into the order without waiting for the European Court of Justice to rule on the Kwong case.
So far as we can tell, issues relating to marriages of convenience affect about 40 people a year. That sort of number of cases is investigated. In the light of those quite small numbers, we should be able to ask for greater clarity about the assumptions made in, as it were, identifying marriages of convenience.
The second general issue that I want to raise relates to a point that the Minister addressed in his speech; namely, association and co-operation agreements. As I understand it, and I am not a lawyer—no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will put me right if I am making a mistake—the European Court of Justice has ruled twice on the rights of residence of Turkish workers. In both cases (one in 1992 and one in 1993) Turkish workers who have completed at least one year's employment in a member state are entitled by Community law to an extension of their work and residence permits. Those judgments are nowhere reflected in the immigration rules or the order. The order, in my untutored way, seems to be the obvious and correct place for such a provision since it is, as the Minister stated, implementing directives and law relating to rights of residence.
The Minister may well argue that he considers the association agreements to be of a different character and to fall outside the ambit of the order. Indeed, that is; a point that he made in his speech. But surely it is true, as a point of Community law—again I stand to be corrected on this—that the provisions of the association agreements which the court has held to have direct effect have the same character as all other provisions of Community law in this area which the order claims to be implementing. It therefore seems that the court's judgments in this area are of the same character as the directives and law which the order tries to implement. I may be wrong in my interpretation of the point of law but if I am not it is curious that the order does not reflect that.
I wish to raise two other general points. The order, and the letters of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, suggest that a non-EEA child who joins or accompanies a family here and who then becomes 21 or ceases to be dependent by leaving school and getting a job, for example, will no longer qualify to stay with the rest of the family. It would seem, therefore, that one of the implications of the order is; that Ministers are prepared to contemplate the break-up of families

123
who have lived in the UK for a number of years prior to being granted indefinite leave to remain if at the stage they apply for settlement one child is working or is aged over 21.
That contrasts strongly with the provisions of the Statement of Changes in immigration rules to come into force on 1st October 1994, which provides for the granting of applications by a child who is:
"under the age of 18 or has current leave to enter or remain in this capacity";
or, in the case of settlement applications,
"is under the age of 18 or was given leave to enter or remain with
a view to settlement".
It must be wrong that children in European Economic Area families have less protection than others and strong assurances of the practice to be followed, which we hope will be in line with that envisaged in the immigration rules, should be incorporated into any leaflet which is being prepared.
I ask my final point as a direct question because it was put to me this afternoon. I have not had a chance to write to the Minister about the matter but, if he is unable to give me an answer tonight, perhaps he will write to me. I was not clear whether a comment that he made in his speech addressed the point. It has been put to me that the suggestion that non-EEA nationals can apply for settlement after 12 months living with a settled European Economic Area national spouse cannot be correct. European Economic Area national family members are entitled to the rights of residence held by their spouse or parent, as was confirmed, so it has been argued, in the case of Surinder Singh. The Somali wife of an Italian settled here five years ago, for example, was judged to be entitled to settlement and not just to an initial one year's probationary period.
I do not know whether that is how the law stands but it is a specific question which suggests that the general point made about the 12 months qualifying period is wrong. Therefore, overall, we believe that after all the lengthy correspondence and meetings there are still points which lack clarity and give cause for concern. The aim of my speech has been to register those points in the hope that the Minister will be able to respond at least to some of them and, if not, to put our anxieties on the record.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I wish first to express regret on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter that he cannot take part in tonight's debate, in particular as he played such a prominent part in the debate on 29th April. I am here as his understudy.
Secondly, there is no need whatever for the Minister to express any apology, as he did in his concluding remarks, for the full and detailed nature of the statement that he has made to the House. On the contrary, I endorse everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, as words of gratitude to the noble Earl and his colleagues for the way in which they have assisted the House in this matter.
I wish to thank the noble Earl for clarifying uncertainties and ambiguities in the draft order as regards the scope and effect of the order itself and its
124
compatibility with European Community law. During the earlier debate, it was left to the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, to bear the heavy burden of responding to the formidable comments, criticisms and questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter. Therefore, it was sensible to adjourn the debate until this evening because it has enabled discussions on these issues to take place with the noble Earl and his advisers.
I welcome the assurances given tonight about the way in which the Home Office regards the relevant practice and the way in which government will interpret the order. It shows the value of the decision of the Appellate Committee in the case of Pepper v. Hart, since the assurances given by the noble Earl tonight will be able to be looked at by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal adjudicators and the ordinary courts in order to resolve any uncertainty or ambiguity in the order.
Without the explanation that has been given by the noble Earl tonight, the draft order would bear on its face the stigma of illegality under European Community law. That is because of the vagueness and overbreadth of the undefined concept of a marriage of convenience derived from the rules on the control of Commonwealth immigration. The Minister has given a narrower meaning confined to manifestly bogus and sham marriages. That, too, is welcome. Whether it will pass muster under European Community-Jaw will need to be decided by the European Court of Justice. It would have been preferable if the order had made the position clear rather than leaving it to the noble Earl to give clarification in his speech. It would be presumptuous of me to express any opinion on the answer to that question. However, it would be most welcome if the matter could be decided speedily and we are glad to see that the Government will support any reference under Article 177 to the European Court.
Having expressed gratitude and welcomed the statement, I wish to say something which is more critical. It is unsatisfactory to have opaque and vague language in a statutory instrument without proper definitions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Plant, in his criticism. It is also unsatisfactory that other principles of rules of European Community law in this area have still not been directly incorporated into United Kingdom domestic law.
In the case of Re Freedom of Establishment: EC Commission v. Italy in 1988, the European Court of Justice stated:
"if a provision of national law which is incompatible with the EEC Treaty (even a treaty provision which is directly applicable in the national legal order) is retained unchanged this perpetuates uncertainty and therefore itself constitutes an infringement of the Treaty by the Member State".
It is therefore not sufficient to fail to introduce implementing measures properly into United Kingdom legislation. I refer to implementing measures on such matters as rights and obligations contained in association agreements or judgments of the European Court on the right of establishment of companies in other member states employing foreign workers.

125
I appreciate that those issues are beyond the scope of this order. But surely it is incumbent on the United Kingdom to implement Community law properly in these other areas too. I hope therefore that the Government will speedily introduce clear and transparent measures so as to implement Community obligations and rights properly and fully in these other important areas. That is no reason to oppose the Motion which is before the House tonight, nor do I subtract anything that I said earlier by way of gratitude to the noble Earl.
9 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may just tell the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, how grateful I am for his kind remarks, especially those expressed at the end of his speech. I know that he and a number of other noble Lords were concerned about the provisions of the order. It is indeed a complicated measure. If the noble Lord who is an expert on such matters finds them complicated, he will understand how a mere novice like myself also finds them complicated. The noble Lord said that he wanted to see transparent measures taken. I understand what he means. The noble Lord also said that he found the language in the order to be difficult and that he wished it had been simpler and clearer without a Minister having to explain it. I also understand that view. I am only glad that I have been able to explain the order and to iron out any difficulties that I believe some noble Lords certainly had before I spoke.
Many points were raised by several noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Mountevans referred to the carrier's liability. I should just point out to him that Article 19 of the order makes it clear that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 does have effect, but only in relation to a visa national who is required under the order to hold an EEA (European economic area) family permit. It means that there should be no more onus than is the case under the present arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Plant, referred to marriages of convenience. I was glad that he accepted the fact that people should not benefit from such marriages. Indeed, I do not believe that anyone thinks that they should. I can confirm that the primary purpose test of the immigration rules does not apply in European economic area marriage cases. The noble Lord also said that he wished that the definition of marriage of convenience was more precise. However, in my opening remarks, I said that such marriages were marriages which were entirely bogus, the purpose of which was simply to circumvent immigration controls. I should have thought that that was a pretty clear definition of what a marriage of convenience is regarded as being from the Government's point of view. Of course, each marriage will differ, but it is better to have such a broad, obvious generality rather than to try to be too precise and possibly miss some marriages which ought to be caught. I do not think that I can be any clearer than I was when I gave the earlier definition in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Plant, also referred to the association agreements. He suggested that the obligations under the Turkish association agreement are not reflected in the order or in the immigration rules.
126
However, I explained earlier that such rights are outside the ambit of the order. Nevertheless, I can assure the noble Lord that the right of Turkish workers is given full effect under our work permit schemes. As regards the Kwong case, the noble Lord suggested that the fact that there may be a reference to the European Court of Justice should delay the order. But I made clear that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Government's view that parties to a marriage of convenience should not benefit from Community law. Therefore, we feel content with the position which we are adopting in the matter.
The noble Lord also referred to an example— although I forget exactly what it was—of a non-European economic area national marrying an EEA national. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but I shall have to study that slightly complicated position. Perhaps I may write to him on the matter. The noble Lord was also concerned about dependent children. The order makes it clear that children of an EEA national who are under the age of 21 or who are dependent upon an EEA national will qualify for residence here, along with the EEA parents. They will be able to apply for settlement in the way in which I described earlier. The noble Lord was worried that they may come over here at a certain age and then, by the time they are possibly a year older, they may find that they do not have the right to stay here. Obviously, one has to have a cut-off point in such matters. But once those children reach that age, they will be able to apply in their own right.
As regards settlement for European economic area nationals and their dependants, I can tell the House that the matter is dealt with in the United Kingdom immigration rules. It is not contained either in the European Community directives or in the order now before us which implements them. As I said at the outset, the order incorporates nine totally different directives which are not all that easy to follow. Therefore, it is quite difficult to incorporate all of them in one document and make it relatively comprehensible.
I am grateful to noble Lords for the understanding with which they have dealt with the problem. I hope that the answers that I have given tonight will satisfy noble Lords that the order is in fact both appropriate and proper and that your Lordships will be content to accept it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill
9.8 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 67 [Power to contract for police]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 53, leave out lines 45 to 50.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small amendment which seeks to leave a subsection out of the Bill as drafted. The reason for it is quite simple. The subsection as drafted in the Bill defines the limits within which transport police may act as constables. When the

127
Bill was drafted that definition was necessary but it no longer is. The provision has been overtaken by the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Act 1994 which deals with the matter. Consequently, the subsection is no longer needed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 [Planning permission]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 58, line 24, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (4)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. The purpose of these amendments in my name is to give effect to undertakings given by the promoters during proceedings in another place that they would not seek to take advantage of the deemed planning permission given to the park-and-ride site under Clause 82 of the Bill. Assurances were given that in due course the undertakers would apply to the county council for planning permission and the county council would have discretion to grant temporary or permanent permission and to impose conditions.
The proposed park-and-ride site in connection with the light rapid transit system comprises some seven acres of the forest recreation ground. It is important that before the car park goes ahead consideration should be given to its impact on the provision of other public transport which could be undermined by the existence of the park-and-ride in this particular location. Consideration should also be given to whether the site, if developed for park-and-ride, could be made suitable and available for public recreation outside the normal working and shopping hours when it would mainly be in use in connection with the light rapid transit route.
I am extremely grateful to the Open Spaces Society for drawing my attention to the proposal which— however valuable the light rapid transit route may be, and I agree that it is valuable—constitutes yet another nibbling away at our diminishing supply of public open space. It is important therefore that as much as possible should be done to limit the impact, and this can best be achieved in the context of a planning application at the appropriate time.
Because it may be some years before this part of the scheme goes ahead, it is important that the requirement for a planning application should be made clear at this stage. The undertakings were, I am sure, made in good faith but they are recorded in an obscure part of the proceedings and could easily be forgotten or overlooked some years hence. At that point even the personnel dealing with the development may have changed. It is therefore important that these undertakings should be put on the face of the Bill in the form of the amendments which I propose. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, will see the value of the amendments and will be prepared to accept them.
It has been suggested to me that accepting these amendments may delay the Bill further. But, as we have just heard, the noble Lord himself has proposed an amendment and that will have to go to the Commons. I believe that there were other amendments made in
128
Committee which will also need to be approved by the Commons. Therefore there is no question of my amendments holding up the Bill and I hope that they will be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I have only a few words to say. My noble friend Lady Nicol said that the undertakings were given by the proposers. I would like to know whether these have been honoured in letter as well as in spirit. That is rather important because people or groups tend to promise all sorts of things and part of our duty consists in ensuring that the promises are firmed up. On the other hand, I have a slight worry as regards whether an area that was laid aside for park-and-ride should be available for other people outside the times it is used for park-and-ride. I believe that the provision is a wee bit too vague and I would like it to be tightened up considerably. When does an area cease to be needed as a park-and-ride area? Is that six o'clock, seven o'clock, or eight o'clock at night, or is it seven o'clock in the morning? I believe that that matter must be looked at and I hope that the Minister will deal with that.
The only other worry I have concerns the difficult problem of nibbling away at open space. I believe that those were the words that my noble friend Lady Nicol used. However, to a certain extent, if one does not nibble away at the open space on the periphery of a conurbation, one will nibble away at the open space right in the centre of the conurbation and destroy the whole concept of park-and-ride. I hope to receive a satisfying answer to those points. I fully support my noble friend Lady Nicol in her endeavours to tighten up this particular aspect of the Bill.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, Clause 82, as drafted, is in accordance with the normal manner of dealing with planning matters in Private Bills. The promoters have followed the usual procedures which have been used hitherto.
This specific problem was considered in Committee in both Houses. This is an attempt to reopen a matter which was rejected in Committee in both Houses after careful consideration of the representations made by the Open Spaces Society and others.
My noble friend Lady Nicol says that the assurance given in Committee was inadequate and obscure. The promoters are content for the assurance to be repeated on their behalf.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I did not suggest that the assurances were obscure but that the place in which they are recorded is obscure.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am happy to accept that correction. The place in which they are found is the Minutes of the Proceedings, and they may not be readily available to everybody. Accepting that point, the promoters are content for their assurances to be repeated on their behalf during this Third Reading debate, which will be more readily accessible to anyone who is concerned with these matters. In that way it will appear on the record.

129
I have been asked to make it quite clear that the promoters regard this and other undertakings given to Parliament during the proceedings of the Bill as being of the utmost importance. There is no danger of them being overlooked. Moreover, the promoters regard the undertakings as binding on them.
The current local plan predates the proposal for the light railway and makes no mention of the matters which are under discussion now. However, a new citywide local plan is now out in draft form for public consultation. It is expected that following the formal deposit and public objection stages and any local plan inquiry it will be adopted in 1996. The inquiry and discussions on the plan will of course deal with the matters which my noble friend Lady Nicol has raised.
The new subsection proposed for inclusion in the clause states that the development for which planning permission is granted in accordance with subsection (3) shall not include the car park in the forest. I am told that the drafting of the amendment is defective and rests on a misinterpretation of the clause. Planning permission for the works will not be granted by Clause 82 but by the general development order which states that development authorised by Private Acts is permitted development. The purpose of Clause 82 is to impose a 10-year time limit on the permitted development.
As I have already said, similar provisions to Clause 82 have been included in all recent Private Acts authorising light railway systems and railways, and are to be found in most recent Acts authorising public works.
I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with an assurance given on the record, to be recorded in Hansard, in the following words. If the Bill becomes law, the promoters will not take advantage of the permitted development rights given by the Bill and the general development order to establish a park-and-ride site in the forest recreation ground, but instead will seek planning permission for the site so that consideration may be given to the attachment of appropriate conditions to any permission which is granted.
I hope that my noble friend takes note of the words "the attachment of appropriate conditions", which I hope will satisfy her. I hope with that assurance on the record, she will feel able to withdraw her amendments.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I wish to make a few brief remarks. First, it may be helpful if I inform the House that the Government have examined the Bill and raised no objection to it.
Secondly, with regard to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, we believe that Clause 82 as it stands is acceptable. Provisions very similar to Clause 82 have been included in almost all other recent Acts authorising public works. Clause 82 is therefore well precedented.
In any event, it seems that the proposed amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has already submitted, are unnecessary, since the promoters have already stated in Committee that, notwithstanding the provisions in the Bill, a planning application will be made in respect of the park-and-ride site which is the subject of the proposed amendments.
130
Bearing in mind the assurance that has been given, and repeated and restated by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, this evening, I suggest to your Lordships that the amendments are unnecessary.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am grateful, too, to my noble friend Lord Howie for the clear assurance that he has given. Of course, it does not have the same force as having the provision on the face of the Bill. However, I believe that if it came to any inquiry about future developments, due weight would be given to the clear assurance that will now appear on the record. I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved. ]
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I shall speak briefly at this late hour. The light railway is proposed to run from the centre of Nottingham to the nearby town of Hucknall, about 13 kilometres away. The proposal has been widely accepted in the area by most organisations. It is true that there have been objections. However, most of the objections have been met and the promoters have made a substantial number of undertakings, all of which they regard as very serious.
The reason for the proposed light railway is simple. It is to relieve traffic in Nottingham and, by relieving traffic, to increase the opportunities for economic development in that city.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Howie of Troon.)
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I, too, am concerned about the Bill and about some of the objections raised. I feel that I am being a little unfair. Today was the first time that I saw the amendments. I have evidently lost the opportunity to put down amendments which would have suited my anxieties, and those of many residents of Nottingham, about the Bill.
Perhaps I may explain the direction of the intended route. It starts in the city centre. Anxieties were expressed in Committee. I appreciate that the majority of Members present were not on the committee and therefore the story that I tell will be new to them. The line starts in the centre of Nottingham. A point which has worried me and the people of Nottingham is that the area at the start of the line is so congested that the speed of the vehicle will have to be restricted. That sounds all right, but we have just had an example of how high technology can fail with computerised braking systems that cannot work even on a new construction on Blackpool pleasure beach.
The vehicle then moves out of the area in question and goes through one where the streets are so narrow that it has to go north through a shopping area and return through a residential area. That residential area has been subject to traffic calming measures over a long period. Evidently there is a problem from traffic. The railway will be a new form of traffic in the area. The calming measures will not be as effective because a railway line will be laid down through the shopping area. That was the subject of very extensive spending by Nottingham

131
County Council before the railway was planned. There is a grave danger of two things happening: first, the congestion will be fairly heavy; secondly, that shopping area may go altogether.
The line goes north of the city to Hucknall and adjacent is a nice piece of land which will be ripe for development. I was assured both in Committee and in Nottingham itself that there was no question of it being developed as an alternative shopping area to the one that I mentioned. I do not believe that. I believe that economic pressures will be such that it will be developed as a shopping area and all the expenditure of money in the suburb will be wasted. It will decline still further and the area which Nottingham has been trying to build up will be ruined. Efforts will have been in vain.
The third point of anxiety is that just north of that area there is a newly developed housing estate—that is, new in comparison with the rest. Cutting through the estate was an old commercial railway line that served the colliery in the north. It was a narrow one. The proposal is to run the new railway line between two rows of houses adjoining, and in some cases about 10 feet away from, the back gardens of those new houses. Naturally that is a cause for concern to the residents.
There are other proposals in the Bill, and I believe that what is happening in Nottingham is that someone has fallen for the new-fangled fashion of introducing trams again. Economic and political pressures are being exerted in order to get things through. Some of the objections were raised by individuals, and entirely through my own fault I am now out of time as regards moving any amendments. So my only chance to air these points is to say what I have done in this Chamber and then suggest that perhaps a better way to decide whether the people of Nottingham want the railway, the light rapid transit system, is to propose that they themselves should examine it. Here I rest in the knowledge that this is the last Bill to be considered under the present system. So the situation will be that if we do not pass the Bill, it will go back under a completely new procedure to the people of Nottingham.
132
I speak tonight because I recognise the anxiety of the people in Nottingham who are worried about the problems that I have just outlined. They are worried about how long it will be before the rapid transit railway is built, with the consequent blight that will be visited upon them. If we say no to the Bill, it will go back to Nottingham, which in my opinion is the proper place for it to be considered.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sefton for his observations on the Bill. He was a member of the committee and knows the situation thoroughly. He will, of course, be aware that most of the matters which he raises now were discussed in the committees of both Houses. They were accepted by both committees, who thought that the Bill should go ahead.
My noble friend raised a number of matters of detail. It is not uncommon for a double track railway to be split if the geographic circumstances demand that it should be split. It is very similar to a dual carriageway on the road. Dual carriageways are sometimes separated—and sometimes by quite substantial areas. That is all that is happening in this case; the twin tracks are being separated for the convenience of running and to make the railway possible. There is nothing unusual or abnormal in that.
What strikes me most is that, as I understand it— and, unlike my noble friend, I was not present on the committee —there was very substantial local consultation about the proposal for this railway, and the results of that consultation indicated general approval. There were of course objections. It would be absolutely astonishing if there were none. But the promoters have gone to very considerable lengths to meet those objections. I hope that the House will pass the Bill.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before ten o'clock.

  INDONESIA: PRESS FREEDOM
  INDONESIA: PRESS FREEDOM
  SUDAN
  SUDAN
  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL, CLAUSE 13
  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL, CLAUSE 13
  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL, CLAUSE 5
  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL, CLAUSE 5
  ARMED FORCES PAY REVIEW BODY
  ARMED FORCES PAY REVIEW BODY
  ARMED FORCES INDEPENDENT REVIEW TEAM
  ARMED FORCES INDEPENDENT REVIEW TEAM
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  TERRORIST PRISONERS TRANSFERRED TO NORTHERN IRELAND
  TERRORIST PRISONERS TRANSFERRED TO NORTHERN IRELAND
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS, 1 JULY 1994
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS, 1 JULY 1994
  LOCAL PRISONS: CNA AND POPULATION
  LOCAL PRISONS: CNA AND POPULATION