Sitting of 23 November 1994

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

NEW WRIT
Ordered,
That Madam Speaker do issue her warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough constituency of Dudley, West in the room of John Graham Blackburn Esq., deceased.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Post Office
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for the commercial future of the Post Office.
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The Post Office operates several businesses. We are actively engaged in widening the opportunities for Post Office Counters and we are helping to automate their services. We will announce any plans to change the present arrangements governing the remainder of Post Office activities as appropriate.
    Mr. Dowd: Despite the Secretary of State's failure to convince all his own Back Benchers, let alone the British people, of the need to privatise Royal Mail, will he confirm that he will not allow his personal pique or vanity to sabotage a prosperous future for the Royal Mail within the public sector? If he cannot give such an assurance, will he make way for those who can?
    Mr. Heseltine: I doubt very much whether the Post Office would want me to make way for the Labour party as it will remember that, faced with the dilemmas that I face, it was the Labour party's decision to cut the capital expenditure programmes of the Post Office by 30 per cent.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the decision of the Union of Communication Workers to take industrial action against what they call back-door privatisation?
    Mr. Heseltine: I believe that industrial action against back-door or front-door privatisation is extremely unwise. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir. W. Roberts) is concerned about the possible use of industrial action to frustrate the opportunities for the management of the Post Office to transfer individual
    580
    post offices from the public to the private sector. Where such post offices have been so transferred, that has been extremely successful.
    Ms Hoey: Can the Secretary of State tell us very simply why he will not allow the Treasury rules to be changed—the changes could receive all-party agreement and be put through the House very quickly—to give the Post Office the commercial freedom that everyone knows it needs and deserves?
    Mr. Heseltine: Because we are following the precedent of the Labour party in power which managed to cut the capital programmes of the Post Office by 30 per cent. If that was not enough, Labour cut the Electricity Generating Board capital programmes by 25 per cent. for exactly the same reason. In power—something Labour has now forgotten all about—Labour faced the same disciplines that we are facing.
    Mr. Page: Now that the plans to privatise the Royal Mail have been dropped and, with them, the removal of commercial restrictions on the Post Office, does my right hon. Friend agree that instead of the taxpayer receiving the money and benefit from the sale of the Post Office and the Royal Mail and the annual income from corporation tax, the taxpayer may well have to find money to finance investment and pay to fight increasing commercial competition?
    Mr. Heseltine: Those arguments are very powerful and they are the underlying arguments that have enabled the Government to privatise industry after industry, to turn state-run monopolies into world-class companies and to set a pace-setting programme across the entire world which Governments of all political persuasions are now copying.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Why does the right hon. Gentleman walk up a blind alley on the future of the Post Office? Does he not recognise that the British National Oil Corporation—until it was dismantled by the right lion. Gentleman and his colleagues—operated successfully outside the public sector borrowing requirement and that, until recent weeks, British Nuclear Fuels also operated successfully outside the PSBR until he brought it back within the PSBR?
    Presumably, if the right hon. Gentleman believes that the Post Office cannot be successful in the public sector, he is condemning not only the Post Office but British Nuclear Fuels plc, too. Why does he not seek, with his hon. Friends and with the Opposition, an agreed way forward which will guarantee success for the Post Office and for Britain? That course is open to the right hon. Gentleman—why does he spurn it?
    Mr. Heseltine: For precisely the reason that the Labour party could find no way of doing that when it was in office. If it is so simple, why did the Labour Government cut investment programmes by 30 per cent.?
    Mr. Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend indicate what competition the Post Office faces, particularly from abroad, and will he say something about the fate of the letter post and whether it is declining?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises the right questions. Increasingly, private sector American and Australian owned companies are competing with the

    581
    Royal Mail. The fax machine and the bike boys are eating into its marketplace. A proliferation of private sector companies which are subject to the disciplines of their balance sheets are competing with the Post Office. As the whole House knows, it is extremely difficult to impose on a public sector organisation the disciplines necessary to ensure that taxpayers' money is not used unfairly to compete with the private sector. Plenty of Opposition Members who have British private companies in their constituencies would be the first to complain if they felt that those companies were being subjected to unfair competition.

    Single European Market
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he is taking to ensure that businesses are able to compete effectively within the single European market; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): We have established a single market compliance unit which, alongside the trade barriers strategy, helps industry to tackle single market problems and conducts sectoral studies. We are assisting the Commission in its efforts to improve complaints procedures and are pushing successfully for closer co-operation between enforcement officials in the Community.
    Mr. Salmond: Can the Minister identify the precise mechanism by which having a part-time chairman at £450,000 and a 75 per cent. salary increase for a chief executive will enable British Gas to compete more effectively in the single market? Is there not a contrast between the President of the Board of Trade's specific support for the company and the Prime Minister's general condemnation of excessive salary increases, or is the common connection that neither of them intends to do anything about it, presumably on the ground that the Tory party helps those who have already helped themselves?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's bile has obscured his judgment of the success of the policy and the way in which British Gas has helped its customers over the past few years. The salaries of chairmen of such companies on the stock exchange is a matter for the directors involved, as the chief executive himself has said. We are concerned to improve the quality of service to customers. In many privatised utilities, that is exactly what happens. In the sphere for which I am directly responsible, we must look at the tremendous success of British Telecom since privatisation and the at improvement in services to customers. Prices have fallen by 35 per cent. Why does the hon. Gentleman not talk about those successes rather than ranting and raving?
    Mr. Quentin Davies: May I congratulate my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on their remarkable success in persuading our European partners finally to open the telecommunications market in the single market by 1998, which is a great success about which, needless to say, the media have said almost nothing? May I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to build on that success by now pushing for a single market in energy and forcing the monopolistic
    582
    owners of pipelines and electricity grids elsewhere in the single market to open those networks to competition as soon as possible?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend has noticed the Government's tremendous success in the Telecommunications Council on Thursday evening, when we persuaded recalcitrant Community colleagues to agree to liberalising infrastructure as well as services by 1 January 1998. I should point out to Opposition Members that the problem for several of those countries was that they were not sufficiently committed to liberalisation. A party that is not committed to liberalisation cannot envisage the true merits of the information superhighway.
    On my hon. Friend's second point, we are very much in favour of a single market in energy, and it is overdue. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy is working hard to obtain agreement on this across the Community.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware that one of the greatest single hindrances for British companies seeking to operate in Europe is the high cost of electricity for large-scale industrial users in this country? Electricity prices for that group of users have risen by more than 50 per cent. in the past five years, while they have fallen in comparable European countries; in pence per kilowatt the cost is higher in the United Kingdom than in France, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. Will the Minister tell the chairmen of the privatised companies to stop lining their pockets and to produce electricity at prices which will allow British firms—particularly those in the steel and chemical industries—to compete effectively in Europe?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's comparative figures are not entirely correct, but if he persists in his view perhaps he will write to me about the details.
    The point is that larger users in particular are capable of negotiating contracts. British industry is competitive in the European Union, regardless of the price levels that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, specifically because we have the right competitive background for British industry to flourish. That is why it is doing well in the European single market, and why our partners in the European Union regularly view the Government's policies as those that they should follow.

    Exports
    Mr. Batiste: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss exports.
    The Minister for Export Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): With other DTI Ministers, I regularly meet the CBI to discuss a wide range of issues, including exports. Underlying export volumes have risen by 12 per cent. over the last year and now stand at record levels.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the unprecedented success of British companies in exports is due at least in some measure to the success of small British companies in re-exporting products to rather difficult markets—companies such as those in my Leeds constituency involved in re-exporting musical instruments? Will he consider ways in which his

    583
    Department could help such companies to expand their presence at international trade fairs through joint ventures?
    Mr. Needham: A recent survey showed tremendous confidence among Leeds business men in the export market, for which they deserve great credit.
    As my hon. Friend knows, this is the only recovery since the war—and I mean the Boer war—in which the trade deficit has actually declined. British exports are now at the level that they reached in the mid-1980s, and the decline of the British percentage share worldwide has ceased. That is because of the tremendous success of the Government's policy, and the dynamism of the British manufacturing base.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Do not the improvement in British exports since devaluation and the even greater improvements in exports outside Europe, where the devaluation has been greater, indicate the need for a competitive exchange rate to boost exports? Would not the best way of providing encouragement be to offer Eddie George on a free transfer to the Bundesbank instead of allowing him to yammer on about putting up interest rates—and therefore the pound—every time recovery stirs?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman asks enough questions over a month to know the answer to that himself. The fact is that Britain's share of world trade in manufacturing stopped declining in the mid-1980s, having-as the hon. Gentleman knows—declined consistently for most of the century. That cannot be purely to do with our leaving the exchange rate mechanism. The real factor is that Britain's exports are now more competitive and our productivity is increasing, as is our quality, mainly because the Government have managed to attract vast amounts of foreign investment into this country and to improve the competitiveness of British industry.
    Mr. Garnier: My right hon. Friend mentioned the Boer war. Will he encourage the CBI and its members to export vigorously to the Republic of South Africa—a country that needs all the trade that it can get, but trade that will benefit British industry as well?
    Mr. Needham: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade have already taken large missions to South Africa and I intend to add to those twice next year. I think that British business understands the importance of South Africa and the opportunities there, and that we shall take every opportunity to exploit those opportunities.

    Motor Industry
    Mr. Burden: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the contribution of co-operation between employers and employees to the performance of the motor industry.
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. Tim Eggar): In recent years, both existing vehicle manufacturers and inward investors have transformed working practices. That has led to very significant
    584
    improvements in productivity and quality. Those changes have also fed down the supply chain to component suppliers.
    Mr. Burden: Surely the Minister accepts that the hallmark of the really successful motor manufacturers recently, such as Rover in my constituency, has been the fact that they work closely with the trade unions representing the work force, that they value collective agreements and realise their validity, and that they have conditions of service well above the social chapter minima and low-pay thresholds. Does that not show just how bogus is the Government's approach of aclvocaling low wages and union bashing?
    Mr. Eggar: I confirm that the number of working days lost through industrial action has decreased dramatically since 1979—from 29.5 million days then to 649,000 days last year. That is a credit to the industrial relations changes brought about by the Government which the Labour party consistently opposed.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: As the motor industry makes such a major contribution to manufacturing industry in the west midlands, which itself accounts for more than a third of exports from Britain, is it not encouraging that a recent CBI survey of the west midlands shows that no fewer than 80 per cent. of companies expected an increase in sales in the next three years and 60 per cent. expected an increase in exports? Would that not be jeopardised by the huge rise in business taxation which the Opposition expect will increase by no less than 50 per cent. at a stroke?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The worst thing that we could do in terms of inevitably reversing the present trend towards increased competitiveness by British industry would be to take on board the burdens of minimum wages and joining the social chapter, which is exactly what the Opposition advocate.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many small businesses were set up in Devon and Cornwall last year; and how many went out of business.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: The figures for VAT registration and deregistration in 1993 are not yet available, and they would be the best guide. Commercial sources show a decrease in company failures in the south-west during the first nine months of 1994 compared with the same period in 1993.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Devon and Cornwall since the mid-1980s 21,000 people have lost their jobs in defence-related industries, many of them small businesses, with a total loss of £500 million to the local economy? When will the hon. Gentleman announce new measures to assist small businesses in Devon and Cornwall, and when will he take the interests of the south-west seriously?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should know that we do take the interests of the south-west seriously, as any visit to the Government office in the south-west will show. In addition, the help that we are giving through Business Links particularly helps smaller companies in periods of adjustment or expansion. We are working with

    585
    the defence industries and through the European Union's Konver programme. However, the hon. Gentleman might think closely about the Labour party's policy towards defence as that would be the biggest job destruction programme going.
    Sir Peter Emery: Does my hon. Friend agree that unemployment in east Devon, as in most of Devon, is among the lowest in the United Kingdom and that the investment of overseas companies in Devon and Cornwall is high and based on small industries which have grown in order to attract such investment? Will my hon. Friend do everything possible to continue the support that we have had from the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that such investment continues?
    Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for being positive, which is in the interests of the region. The Government are giving considerable help in the form of DTI assisted area status, particularly for Plymouth where the inward investment office will be. As I have said, there is the status 2 objective for the European Union, particularly for the urban areas, the Konver 1 and 2 programmes and Business Links seeking to ensure that small companies, to which my right hon. Friend referred, receive the best possible advice. That is a story of considerable assistance; if Opposition Members did more to highlight it, they might provide companies with more incentives to move into the area.
    Mr. Bell: That is a story of complacency rather than assistance. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the south-west and the small business man, will he refer to the famous memorandum of the famous John Maples, which states clearly that privatisation has not been popular and that the small business man in particular feels let down? That view was immediately echoed by the hon. Members for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), for Bridlington (Mr. Townsend), for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Dover (Mr. Shaw). None of those Back-Bench Members supports the Minister, and Mr. Maples does not support the Minister, so who does?
    Mr. Taylor: The Minister is not looking for support for something that he is confident that he is doing right. That will be self-evident, and support will flow from the success of the economy, including that of the south-west. There is no question but that the south-west is benefiting from the Government's policies across the board, which have stimulated growth among smaller companies. All the figures now emerging from the banks show a rising number of business start-ups and an increase in the total stock of businesses in each of the first three quarters of this year. Those are the statistics. What I said earlier shows that we are also providing a framework for further support to allow those companies to grow from small into medium-sized businesses. That is actually rather good progress.
    Mr. Streeter: Has my hon. Friend been able to assess the adverse impact on all small Devon and Cornwall businesses supplying goods and services to the dockyards if a future Labour Government were to comply with the policy of the Labour party conference and scrap Trident, thus destroying the dockyards?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) has spoken up long and
    586
    loud in the interests of his constituents, and I know that they are now paying close attention to the support that the Government have given him. There is no doubt that Labour policy on defence, especially on Trident, would be devastating for people in and around the dockyards. Those problems would continue and get worse if ever a Labour Government came to power—which is one reason why people in the south-west would be well advised to read the Labour party's defence document, especially on Trident.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for payments to mineworkers on the transfer of the coal industry to the private sector.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Charles Wardle): I have no such proposals.
    Mr. Illsley: The Minister may be aware that there is increasing speculation among mineworkers employed in the coal industry that their contracts of employment will be terminated when they are required to apply for jobs in the private sector. Can he tell us whether that will happen, and whether any payment will be made to mineworkers invited to transfer to the new privatised coal industry? Will there be redundancies, with fewer men employed in the industry in future?
    Mr. Wardle: Miners transferring to the private sector will not be redundant and they will transfer under the well established Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, which will cover their contractual rights, including those relating to redundancy levels. The hon. Gentleman has always been perfectly open about his past employment with the National Union of Mineworkers, but it is a bit rich for him to suggest that an industry which has received nearly £20 billion from the taxpayer since 1979 should ask the taxpayer to dip further into his pocket and give miners a parting gift when they sensibly join the private sector.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the requirements of the privatisation process was that companies bidding would provide redundancy finance if and when required?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right; that is the cover provided by the TUPE regulations. When the Minister of State made his announcement last month about the preferred bidders he made it clear that those companies were well funded and able to meet their liabilities. Thanks to the TUPE regulations, they will do precisely that—when necessary.

    Telecommunications
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further discussions he has had with the National Consumer Council about the level of service provided by telecommunications companies.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Although my officials met the National Consumer Council following its September 1993 report, "Paying the Price", which covered the work of all the utility regulators, the level of services provided by

    587
    telecommunications companies is primarily monitored by Oftel. Oftel deals directly with representations from consumers.
    Mr. Jones: I am glad that the Minister has mentioned the NCC report, "Paying the Price", as it says that since privatisation the cost of connecting a telephone has increased by 20 per cent. How does he justify that?
    Mr. Taylor: Matters of interconnection are now being assessed by Oftel, which has said that a report will be published early next month. Oftel has kept continuously under review the question of whether the consumer is best protected and the necessity, in a highly complicated sector, of providing a proper balance between access to BT and enabling it to perform properly as a company.
    The key point to bear in mind, however, is that since the liberalisation of BT call costs have been reduced by 35 per cent. in real terms. Cheap communications are important not only to customers but because they will enable the information super-highway to grow.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that many pay phones did not work when BT was in the public sector, whereas many more do so today? Does not that show that competition and privatisation give a better service to the consumer?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is quite right: shareholders are not known to vandalise telephone boxes. Since competition began, universal service provision—a matter of considerable debate 10 years ago during the phase of liberalisation, which was not supported by the Labour party—has increased. There are now more telephone boxes—most of which now work—and more people have a telephone. That is a tremendous success for a policy, which the Labour party could well reconsider—with guilt for not supporting it.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: How can the Minister be satisfied with Oftel's record when fewer of our citizens have phones in their homes than those of France and Germany? Why do British customers pay higher connection charges than most of our competitor countries, and should not the regulator be given powers to reduce connection charges to the French and German levels of under £30?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman makes unreasonable comparisons with other countries' telephone systems. [Interruption.] Opposition Members should listen to what I have to say. I attended a European Telecommunications Council meeting last Thursday, at which Minister after Minister complimented us on the way in which liberalisation had given the British public an excellent telephone network based on competition.
    Each of the cases that Oftel is investigating contains detailed proposals backed by reports, and another report in December will propose protection for the consumer. As a result of liberalisation, the British public has received a better quality of telephones and lower prices. Where there are problems, BT and the other new companies have offered special bargains such as the low-pay tariff. Those are excellent moves by a competitive market that is responding to customer demand.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that this country now has more digital links than France or Germany, that long distance and international phone calls are cheaper here than in France or Germany and that—to
    588
    be precise—less than 30 per cent. of call boxes worked before privatisation, whereas now more than 95 per cent. work?
    Mr. Taylor: Britain is the best place in the European Union for international businesses to conduct their business. It is interesting that, from Paris, it is cheaper to phone somewhere else in France via New York than it is to use France Telecom. That is a remarkable fact, and it would not occur in this country. We have just found a United States equivalent for telephone purposes, and there is now the possibility of extremely cheap lines across the Atlantic. That again will assist British business.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts concerning pricing policy in the steel industry.
    Mr. Eggar: The Government have had no such discussions with Community member states. Decisions on steel prices are a matter for the commercial judgment of the companies concerned.
    Mr. HughesDoes the Minister recognise that the problems of state subsidies and unfair practices have temporarily abated because of the upturn in demand for steel? Nevertheless, when the downturn comes we shall be back to square one. Is not there some justification for the widespread feeling among steel workers that the Government have put up only a sham fight on their behalf?
    Mr. Eggar: I simply do not accept that. I pay tribute to the management and work force of British Steel and of the other steel companies for the dramatic change that has been achieved since privatisation. I know that the hon. Gentleman's constituency has been through a period of change. He now has a world-class plant in his constituency that is producing a record amount of extremely high quality steel.
    It is well known that the Government strongly opposed a number of European Union proposals. Last December, however, we accepted, a package of six article 95 cases. We are discussing a particular article 95 case, the EcoStahl case, with the Commission and the German and French Governments, and at the same time we are keeping British Steel and the British Independent Steel Producers Association—BISPA—closely informed of progress. It is a difficult issue. We are aiming to achieve equivalence between the present article 95 proposals and the December 1993 proposals.

    Gas Bill
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much the average domestic gas bill is likely to fall as a result of the effects of the Gas Bill.
    Mr. Eggar: Janice will be happy to know that she is likely to be able to benefit from about a 10 per cent. cut in her gas bills as a result of competition.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that since privatisation gas prices have fallen by 23 per cent.? I know that my hon. Friend likes to have instant control of himself, but does he agree that Bambi has already lost control of the lot opposite? Does he also

    589
    agree that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".]—we have not heard much about the 50 per cent. pay rise that Bambi got when he became leader of that lot on the Labour Benches?
    Mr. Eggar: I can answer yes, yes, yes and yes.
    Mr. Harvey: When the Government introduce a competitive market into the gas supply industry, what protection do they intend to offer small-volume consumers in areas remote from the sources of supply against the higher economic costs of supplying gas to them? Upon whom will the cost of restructuring the industry fall?
    Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a number of issues lie behind that question. In the coming months, a regional differential in prices will be introduced that will differentiate region by region as opposed to urban area as against rural area. We therefore do not expect transportation charges to differ to the extent implied by the hon. Gentleman. We will publish full details in the proposed Bill and in the accompanying licence of the various obligations that will be placed on the competitor companies to British Gas. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by that information. I know that his party is in favour of gas competition and I look forward to working with him.
    Mr. Wilson: The country is now well aware that the chief executives of British Gas have awarded themselves grotesque pay rises. The chief executive has been awarded an increase of £205,000 a year. Will the Minister confirm that, by remarkable symmetry, in the current year his Department has cut the grant to the Gas Consumers Council by £209,000? Will he further confirm that there could be no more eloquent commentary on the concern felt by his Department and the Government for the consumer as opposed to their worship of private greed?
    Mr. Eggar: Why does not the hon. Gentleman pay credit to British Gas for a reduction of 23 per cent. in real gas prices? Why does he not follow the line taken by the shadow energy Minister, who has welcomed the Government's announcement about ending British Gas's monopoly, which will therefore increase the benefits of competition that will be enjoyed by consumers?

    VSEL
    Mr. Mans: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the proposed takeover of VSEL by GEC.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): It is for the Director General of Fair Trading to consider this proposed merger and to advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade under the Fair Trading Act 1973 whether the merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. All representations received by the Department of Trade and Industry are being forwarded to the Office of Fair Trading.
    Mr. Mans: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being appointed to his new post. Bearing in mind the near monopoly that would result if this bid were allowed to go
    590
    ahead, will my hon. Friend give serious consideration to submitting it to the MMC, should the Office of Fair Trading consider that that is the right way to proceed?
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the warmth of his welcome. At this stage, it is the job of the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate those cases, but he is willing to receive views from all interested parties and I am sure that my hon. Friend will pass his observations to him.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister accept that people are anxious about the possible takeover of VSEL not only by GEC but by British Aerospace, particularly about the impact that it might have on Yarrow's on Clydeside? Would not it be far better for the Government to make it clear now that they will refer neither bid or both bids, but will not discriminate in favour of one bid as opposed to another?
    Mr. Evans: As I have already said, at this stage it is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading, but I am sure that the competition authorities will pay close attention to all the views expressed. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will join my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) in making representations to that quarter.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I wish to advise the House that Avro International, the regional jet division of British Aerospace, is located on the periphery of my constituency and is therefore a vital employer in the Macclesfield borough. If GEC succeeds in taking over VSEL, it will create a virtual monopoly in shipbuilding, which cannot be good for the defence pound and its purchasing capacity. Will my hon. Friend take on board the fact that many Conservative Members are strongly opposed to GEC's bid and will do everything possible, in representations to the Government and the Office of Fair Trading, to point out the problems that would result if GEC were successful?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is an experienced Member of the House and will therefore appreciate that, at this stage, I cannot discuss specific issues raised by the merger. He will have heard the observations that I made to other hon. Members and I am sure that the strength of opinion that he has expressed will be made clear to the Director General.
    Dr. Moonie: Surely the Minister is aware that the bid has considerable repercussions for other parts of the defence sector and that there must be a question mark over whether a successful company like VSEL should be taken over by either of the potential bidders. My hon. Friends and I find it incredible that his Department is prepared to make no recommendation whatever to the Office of Fair Trading, nor to say that it will refer both bids to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission if the need arises. Is not there a role for the Government, other than holding their jackets?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's question shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the process of considering these matters. The Director General of Fair Trading makes a recommendation to the President, rather than the other way round. Once that recommendation has been made, the matter will fall for decision within the purview of my right hon. Friend the President, but not until that time.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated size of the United Kingdom manufacturing industry measured by its contribution to the gross national product in the current year; and what it was in 1991.
    Mr. Heseltine: The share of manufacturing in GDP was 21.9 per cent. in 1991 and 21.7 per cent. in 1993. Since 1991, manufacturing output has increased by 5.7 per cent.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Notwithstanding earlier comments made in the Chamber, will he join me in congratulating GEC-Alstom on its outstanding success in winning overseas orders, often in the face of intense competition? Will he further congratulate GEC on the quality of its management, its well-trained and well-motivated work force and the quality of the products that are made in my constituency of Rugby?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to draw the House's attention to the excellent products that are made in his constituency. He will understand if I do not go too far down the road that he invites me to take because, in the context of the dialogue in the House this afternoon, I should not want to indicate that I am in any way prejudiced in matters that might come to my attention.
    Dr. Cunningham: Instead of comparing 1991 with 1993, why does not the right hon. Gentleman tell the House about the contribution of manufacturing industry and its decline over the past 15 years? Why does not he admit that, in 1979, manufacturing industry contributed 28.5 per cent. to our gross national product whereas, by last year, its contribution had fallen to 21.7 per cent.—a fall of almost 25 per cent.—while at the same time the manufacturing industries of our competitors in Germany, Japan and the United States of America were all growing? That is a measure of the failure of his policies.
    Mr. Heseltine: When the right hon. Gentleman has had time to do some more homework, he will find that manufacturing, as a share of the economy in this country, has been falling for the past 40 years. He will also find that it has been falling consistently in our competitor economies. If he really wants to understand what is happening in some of the world's most successful economies, I should tell him that in Hong Kong manufacturing now makes up only 15 per cent. of the economy. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that the arcane ideas that one can fossilise an economy of yesterday's industries are totally out of date.
    Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend not find it strange that the Opposition are incapable of paying compliments to people who work in British industry? I understand that the British machine tool industry has announced that it has achieved an 18 per cent. increase in its exports and that we shall have a favourable balance of trade in machine tools. Should not the Opposition be pleased about that, rather than attacking us?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right that Opposition Members do not give the support to British industry and British commerce that they deserve. In order to help them on their way, perhaps they will join my right hon. and hon. Friends and I in welcoming today's excellent news
    592
    for Humberside—that, as a result of a £10 million grant from my Department, Courtaulds has announced that approximately £100 million will be invested to develop a new textile fabric based on tensel, which is one of the most exiting innovations that has taken place in that industry for many years.

    Telecommunications
    Ms Church: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the validity of the asymmetry principle in relation to telecommunications policy.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: There is no asymmetry, as explained in the Command Paper on creating super-highways in the United Kingdom, which was published yesterday.
    Ms Church: Does the Minister agree that the decision that was announced yesterday means that it will be difficult for British Telecom and Mercury to carry out the Government's proposals on competitiveness and investment? How will they be able to compete internationally, how will they be able to invest the £15 billion that they will want to invest and how will they lead Britain into the 21st century in that sector?
    Mr. Taylor: BT, Mercury and the other public telephony operators are allowed into the household to supply video on demand, home shopping arid home banking. They are allowed to take all services into small business and all services of a fibre-optic nature into institutions of health and education. They are not restrained. I was delighted to welcome yesterday BT's statement that it will continue massive investment in those sectors.
    The hon. Lady should understand that the success of the revolution in optic fibres has been achieved partly through competition, and that has been established by giving the cable companies a secure period in which to invest and to lay cables. We are now halfway through the cycle, and I have no intention of uprooting the investors before they have even had a chance of obtaining a proper return.

    Exports
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support he is giving to north-west industries wishing to export to former Soviet Union countries.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: North-west companies wishing to export to former Soviet Union countries are eligible for the full range of nationally available services provided by my Department and overseas posts. That national support includes the use of export promoters, subsidised attendance for businesses at trade fairs and on sponsored missions and the provision of a wide range of other intelligence gathering and promotional activities.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer.
    On a recent visit to Russia, I spoke with our ambassador and was delighted to see the efforts that staff are putting into assisting British companies to export to Russia. Will my hon. Friend congratulate a company in the north-west called Thwaites Brewery, which recently exported some of its excellent product to Russia, and will he say what proactive action the Government are taking

    593
    to ensure that more companies in the north-west and other regions know about the potential of countries such as Russia?
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's invitation. Being someone who is aware of the products of the Daniel Thwaites Brewery, I am sure that consumers in Russia will have the opportunity of taking advantage of the produce of that company on many occasions in future. I congratulate the brewery on its export success this year.
    A number of north-western companies have been engaged in trade missions that have been supported by the DTI this year. I am aware of three north-west companies that are due to participate in another mission undertaken by the British Baltic chamber of commerce early next year. Five export promoters have been seconded from industry and are working with the DTI actively to support overseas trade, particularly within the former Soviet Union.
    Mr. McAvoy: When considering what support he can offer companies in the north-west, what weight has the Minister given to the difficulties suffered by small and medium-sized businesses caused by the late payment of debt? In the light of that, why will not the Government introduce a statutory right to interest for late payment of debt?
    Mr. Evans: The Department is keen to do all that it can to encourage businesses of all sizes. That is why it has been actively engaged in the activities that I have outlined. If the hon. Gentleman is unaware of the specific action undertaken by the Department, it is important to say that the various schemes run, not just by the DTI but by the Foreign Office and the Export Credits Guarantee Department, are explained in a helpful publication that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has placed in the House of Commons Library. It is entitled "Overseas Trade Services—Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union" and I invite the hon. Gentleman to read it.
    Ms Gillan: Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations—to add to those from businesses in the north-west and throughout the country—on the DTI's excellent initiative in appointing export promoters? Does he agree that those export promoters have contributed in no small way to the golden, export-led recovery? Will he give our businesses a firm assurance that the posts of export promoters will remain firmly within the DTI?
    Mr. Evans: I can certainly say that it is our intention that they will remain so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying tribute to the work undertaken by export promoters. I am aware that Mr. Robin Forrest, who is responsible for the north-west area, has visited a number of companies in the region.

    Holiday Safety
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further discussions his Department has had with representatives of the major package holiday operators about the need to maintain and inspect safety levels at foreign holiday destinations.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: I have had no such discussions and none have been requested. All major tour operators in the
    594
    UK observe guidance drawn up by the International Federation of Tour Operators, and endorsed by the Association of British Travel Agents.
    Mr. Etherington: The Minister must surely be aware of the growing concern about the lack of adequate safety standards in holiday resorts in Spain and Tenerife. This year alone there have been three deaths in Spain due to faulty heating appliances, which have led to carbon monoxide poisoning. Will he therefore ask the major tour operators why they continue to send people to places with inadequate standards? If he does not receive a satisfactory answer will he do something about it in the same way as Dick Spring did when one of his constituents in Ireland was killed in similar circumstances? Will the Minister ask the Foreign Secretary to display the same zeal as that displayed by Mr. Spring?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member should be aware that the tragic cases in Spain, which he mentioned, led to a joint Foreign Office and Irish Foreign Office initiative because two of the couples were, I think, of joint nationality. The hon. Gentleman should not try to distinguish between the Irish effort and the British effort. There are problems related to carbon monoxide poisoning and travel firms are well aware of them. As the campaign in the UK shows, the problem does not occur only during holidays—there are between 30 and 40 known deaths from the same problem in the United Kingdom each year and we are talking with travel agency groups about that. They are not irresponsible, but are doing their utmost to check reports of faulty installations, which often involve cheap methods.
    Mrs. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Rytlewski case in my constituency, in which a young girl fell to her death from a low window in Spain? Are there any proposals for the compulsory insurance of all travel companies or compulsory registration with the Association of British Travel Agents? Are any discussions being held in the Council of Ministers to promote standard safety procedures throughout the Community?
    Mr. Taylor: I am very sorry to hear of the tragic case of my hon. Friend's constituent. Travel companies take out policies and inspect all the hotels that they list in their brochures. They also have guidance covering fire safety, swimming pools and public hygiene-and buildings too, I think.
    The European Union has made several attempts to draw up a common system of regulation, particularly for fire safety in hotels. I am not aware of the point that my hon. Friend has made. The difficulty is always that we must ensure that the regulations move up to the highest, not the lowest, common denominator. I shall have to look again at my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    Shipbuilding Industry
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about state aid to the shipbuilding industry.
    Mr. Heseltine: The European Community's seventh directive on shipbuilding regulates state aids to shipbuilding within the Community in 1994 and is likely to be extended to cover 1995. The Government support

    595
    the OECD shipbuilding agreement which provides for the elimination of shipbuilding subsidies, on a multilateral basis, from 1 January 1996.
    Mr. Hutton: I thank the President for that answer. What will be the subsidy for 1995 under the shipbuilding intervention fund scheme? Has he given any consideration to extending the period applying to guaranteed loans under the home shipbuilding loan guarantee scheme?
    Mr. Heseltine: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer that he requests. We expect the European Commission to announce the rate of subsidy; for 1994 it is 9 per cent. The moment I have updated information I shall make it available to the House.
    Mr. Gallie: Given the pleas of Opposition Members in respect of the referral of both bids for VSEL to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, can my right hon. Friend advise me on how on earth the British Aerospace bid can be referred to the MMC, as it has no shipbuilding interests at present?
    Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not get drawn on that matter.
    Mr. Beggs: The president must be aware of just how difficult it is for any United Kingdom shipyard to win orders or successfully tender bits for new business against European yards. The obvious conclusion is that some hidden subsidy or support is given to shipyards in Europe—support that British yards, and Harland and Wolff in Northern Ireland, cannot obtain. That is damaging their chances of gaining new business—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Is everybody sitting comfortably? [Laughter.]
    Mr. Beggs: Now that that cargo has docked, I shall proceed. I call upon the President of the Board of Trade
    596
    to endeavour to establish whether hidden subsidies are being given to European yards, and to secure a level playing field for our own industry to compete on.
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point. If there is any evidence of the sort of hidden subsidies to which he refers, I shall take it extremely seriously and seek to have them withdrawn.
    It is important, however, to realise that the situation is not as bleak as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Vosper Thornycroft's turnover is up 22 per cent., and more than 90 per cent. of its business is in exports—a commendable achievement.

    Trade Balance
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the most recent figure for the balance of trade in manufactured goods.
    Mr. Needham: In the latest three months the trade deficit in manufactured goods was £1.5 billion, down from £2.2. billion in the previous three months.
    Mr. Grocott: That was a poor answer to a question I did not ask. Can the Minister confirm that our £8 billion deficit in 1993 was the clearest possible illustration of how our industrial base, especially in the west midlands, has been vandalised by the Government? Does the Minister share my nostalgia for those heady days in the 1970s under Labour when the surplus in manufactured goods rose to £5.8 billion? Will he confirm that not in his wildest dreams would he expect either the jobs or the apprenticeships that existed under Labour ever to come back under this Government?
    Mr. Needham: Let us just recall those heady days in the 1970s, shall we—the strikes, the appalling productivity and the trade union restrictive practices? The hon. Gentleman obviously does not recall that in 1979 it took 13 man hours to make a tonne of steel, whereas British steel now does it in four hours. Obviously he does not know, or did not bother to find out, that since 1981 the export volume of British manufactured goods has increased faster than those of France, Germany, Italy or Japan. Instead of knocking that the hon. Gentleman should look at the facts.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 25 October, I put an oral supplementary question to the Prime Minister in which I asked him to provide me with a list of the salaries of the chief executives of the next steps agencies, together with those of the civil servants whom those chief executives have replaced or succeeded. The Prime Minister replied to me on 15 November, providing me with the material about the chief executives of the agencies, but informed me that for the salaries of the civil servants I should table questions to Ministers. The Prime Minister's letter stated:
"This information will only be available from the Minister concerned."
As the Prime Minister suggested, I therefore tabled questions to all the Ministers with responsibility for the next steps agencies, including the Secretary of State for Defence. My question to the Secretary of State is listed on page 133 of the Votes and Proceedings for last Friday and it asks
"if he will list the salary and other emoluments of the civil servant who did the work of or work comparable to that of the chief executive of each next steps agency established by his Department before the agency was established."
Yesterday afternoon, I received a letter from a person called G. H. Wilson, headmaster and chief executive of the Duke of York's royal military school. It stated:
"The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your parliamentary question."
By the second post this afternoon, since I gave notice of my intention to raise this point of order with you, Madam Speaker, I received a letter from the headmaster of Queen Victoria school, Dunblane, Perthshire, stating:
"I have been asked to reply to your Question".
I ask you to rule on two matters, Madam Speaker. The first is that persons who are not Members of this House have no right or status to answer parliamentary questions, should not purport to do so, and should be directed not to do so.
Secondly, whatever the role of a chief executive of a next steps agency may be, it is not to account for the salaries of civil servants, who are directly employed by Ministers who are responsible to the House; that the only people who are properly equipped and have the duty to answer those questions are Ministers; and that it is therefore unacceptable for Ministers to hive off to these deplorable agencies not only the work that they have done, but responsibility which the agencies do not have and on which they have no right to answer questions by a Member of Parliament.
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman raises not only a point of order but matters of a debating nature which I cannot enter into. For all that, I am grateful to him for giving me notice, to some extent, of his point of order. I have made inquiries into the matter, and have been informed that the letter to which he refers was sent to him in error. The headmaster was asked to provide information so that the Ministry of Defence could put together a comprehensive reply to the right hon. Gentleman. Instead, the headmaster misunderstood the
598
request and wrote directly to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that a full reply to his question will be given by the relevant Minister tomorrow.
Mr. Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance on whether it is improper for an outside body to influence the appointment of an adviser to a Select Committee? It is clear from a letter I have here that Unison has attempted to force Labour members of the Select Committee on Health to appoint a Unison member as an adviser to that Committee. That is exactly the sort of behaviour by the Chairman of a Select Committee that was condemned in the House yesterday by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).
Madam Speaker: I have not seen the letter, and I am not aware of the matter. [Interruption.] There is no point in waving it at me; I have good eyesight, but I cannot read it from that distance. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me have the letter, and I shall see what I can do about it.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. My question to you yesterday was whether it was normal practice for the Chair of a Select Committee to report on such a sensitive issue when she had a one-to-one meeting with the manager of a advertising agency, and when the Committee had previously conducted a report into tobacco advertising—a very sensitive issue. On the issue raised in Committee, I, along with other Members, suggested that a member of Unison could advise us on a particular inquiry. It was openly done, and agreed unanimously by Conservative Members on that Committee.
Madam Speaker: I think that two points arise from points of order yesterday. The first concerns whether a Chairman or Chairwoman of a Select Committee should report to the Committee any approaches that relate to the work of that Committee. As I told the House yesterday, there are no rules that are relevant to the issue, but let me give the House my own views and a little guidance, if I may. It would be a matter of common sense and courtesy for such approaches to be reported. I am not seeking for rules and regulations to be engraved in tablets of stone. We have to apply common sense to our dealings with each other in the Chamber and in Committee, and I leave it at that.
The second issue is the notification that should be given by hon. Members who intend to refer in the Chamber to other hon. Members. It is a clear convention, again based on courtesy, that notice should be given where such reference is intended to be made, but clearly there will be cases where the reference arises on the spur of the moment—during a point of order or at Question Time, when advance notification is unlikely to be practical. Of course, hon. Members should consider whether reference to a colleague without notice is fair. We all understand when it is on the spur of the moment, but we must consider whether it is fair to behave in that way.
Ms Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a serious matter. As you know, yesterday the Select Committee on Members' Interests met to consider the very sensitive and important matter of a complaint against the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). As a member of that

599
Committee, I was astonished when I realised that a Government Whip was present as a member of the Select Committee. Of course, it would be wrong to me to reveal anything that went on in the Committee hearing, but I think that he made an influential—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should be very careful about what she is reporting to me. If she has something to report about a Committee, she should come and see me and not report it in this way. I would be glad to see her, but at the moment she is reporting something that took place in a Select Committee of which I have no knowledge.
Ms Eagle: With respect, I want to ask you whether there is any precedent for a Whip, who is a member of the Government and takes the Crown payroll, to be a member of a Select Committee. I have been approached since the meeting by journalists who know of this, and they are astonished. This has set a very serious precedent, which threatens to breach the independence of the Select Committee system.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Lady has not considered the matter carefully enough. I do not know the individual the hon. Lady is talking about. That is why I would rather she came to discuss the matter with me. It could well be that the House appointed the individual.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) is of immense constitutional importance. A Government Whip has been appointed to the Select Committee on Members' Interests at a time when a series of sensitive inquiries are under way.
There is a precedent of which you should be aware. The Leader of the House of Commons is a member of the Broadcasting and Privileges Committees, but he has a remit, in that he has to steer changes through the House. The Attorney-General gives legal advice to the Committee on Privileges. That is his remit. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, although he has never attended it. I was a member of that Committee for 11 years, but the Financial Secretary did not attend.
What we have here is a precedent where a Minister, because that is.what.a.Treasury Whip is, is attending a Select Committee meeting—
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:—with a view to fixing its findings—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his.seat—[Interruption.] Order. I have heard sufficient to know that it is what I first suspected. This House has appointed the hon Member concerned. The hon. Member for Workington, (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and anyone else who wished to object to that should have done so at the time.
Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, with the support of several hon. Members, I sought to table an early-day motion which contained reference to the famous Maples
600
memorandum and the word "yobbos". The Table Office has informed me today that you might object to an early-day motion containing the word "yobbos".
I would like your ruling on three points. First—
Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman guidance now. There is a procedure by which, if early-day motions are refused by the Table Office, they come to me. I am therefore waiting for the early-day motion to come to me, and I will look at it in that light.
Mr. MacShane indicated assent.

BILL PRESENTED
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK
  Mr. Secretary Mawhinney, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Gummer and Mr. John Watts, presented a Bill to provide for the construction, maintenance and operation of a railway between St. Pancras, in London, and the Channel Tunnel portal at Castle Hill, Folkestone, in Kent. together with associated works, and of works which can be carried out in conjunction therewith; to provide for the improvement of the A2 at Cobham, in Kent, and of the M2 between junctions 1 and 4, together with associated works; to make provision with respect to compensation in relation to the acquisition of blighted land; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 3.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING LEVY
  That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1995 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1995 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Bunts.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Debate on the Address

    SIXTH DAY
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Dunn.]
    Question again proposed.

The Economy
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Also, in accordance with Standing Order No. 32, I shall call the amendment standing in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrat party.
3.43 pm
Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:
But note that living standards for millions are falling and that election promises are being broken again with seven tax rises to pay for Government economic mismanagement; humbly regret that the Gracious Speech excludes positive measures to remove the fear of unemployment, to tackle the unacceptable and clumsy reforms of the NHS and to cease treating education as a business rather than a service; regret the absence of legislation to tackle executive share options and to deal with the excesses in the privatised utilities; regret the absence of a strategy for employment, skills and industry including measures to assist the Post Office expand in the public sector; and call for a reconsideration of the further cuts in vitally important public services and the abandonment of the increase in VAT on fuel for domestic and charitable purposes to 17.5 per cent.
The amendment identifies what is wrong with this country, and what should have been tackled through the Queen's Speech. What is wrong is that living standards are falling; fear of unemployment is widespread; the health and education reforms of this Government are unacceptable; the gap between rich and poor is too wide; the VAT rise on fuel is simply wrong; and the excessive executive pay packages, especially in the privatised utilities, are causing real offence throughout the country. Those are the terms of our amendment, and, by identify those problems, Conservative Members should find it possible to support it.
All those proposals are contained in the memorandum of advice from the vice-chairman of the Conservative party to the Government, which was published only a few days ago. That memorandum shows that even the Conservatives now admit what is wrong and that the Labour party is right. It shows that, when there is consensus throughout the country on what needs to be
602
done, the Government are seen as out of touch, ineffectual, unable to deliver on their promises, and having no conception of the public interest.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I shall make progress.
Mr. Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who says that there should be a £4.05 minimum rate per hour, and that that should become the policy of the Labour party?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has said no such thing. The hon. Gentleman should address what I read out from the Maples memorandum. In particular, the hon. Gentleman might take account of his own constituency party in Ayr, which has said that it is afraid for the welfare of the elderly if VAT is increased. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will seek to join us when we try to have the VAT issue reopened.
What does the Maples memorandum say needs to be done? The first thing that it says is that we should stop the implementation of the second stage of the VAT increase. It says that changes must be made in the national health service, because the reforms are not working. It also says that the Government should end tax subsidies for executive pay—something which is Labour policy and which should have been done years ago by the Government.
Even some Conservatives now understand that what the Government are doing is not in the national interest, but purely in the interests of a few factions in the Conservative party. One reason why the Government are unable to do what is right for the country is that the Conservative party is so divided, from faction to faction. It is so divided on Europe that the best summary of its approach is isolationism tempered only by the occasional visit to the Ritz hotel in Paris.
As we see again today, the job of chairman of the 1922 Committee is now at risk. How do we defend the situation in which the real crime of the chairman of the 1922 Committee, in the view of Conservative Members, is that he is too loyal to the Prime Minister of this country? No doubt the next chairman of the 1922 Committee will have to pass a new test—a disloyalty test. The governing party is so paralysed by the tyranny of its factions and the impotence of its leadership that it is unfit to govern.
Dr. Robert Spink: The hon. Gentleman is giving much peripheral information at the moment, but he is avoiding policy. What is his anti-inflation policy? Is he prepared, as well as to lower interest rates, to raise them if that is necessary for the economic good management of this country?
Mr. Brown: The reason that interest rates have had to rise is that the capacity of the British economy is now too small. Whenever the economy expands, there are now inflationary pressures as a result of the mismanagement of policy.

603
As for policy, does the hon. Gentleman agree that I have asked him to support three specific policies already? They were, first, to abandon the VAT rise in respect of fuel; secondly, to deal with the health service and the reforms that have gone wrong; and, thirdly—I hope that he will agree on this—that tax subsidies should be withdrawn from the executive share options and the perks for the privatised utilities that nobody now can defend?
Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
Mr. Gyles Brandreth rose—
Mr. Brown: I shall make progress for a minute, and then I should be very happy to allow both sides of the Conservative equation to state their views.
There is nothing in the Gracious Speech to deal with the problems of industry and skills. There is nothing on employment, except penalising the unemployed. There is nothing to build social cohesion or modernise the welfare state. There is nothing to tackle the causes of crime. There is nothing to do what the Maples memorandum admits to undoing. He admits to treating education "as a business" and to market reforms in the health service to which doctors and nurses are, as he said, "universally hostile".
The whole interest of the Maples memorandum and of Conservative Members is not in changing policy to respond to the needs of the country, not to do what is right either for the unemployed or for the rest of the country, but simply to manipulate public opinion to win a further term of government. The Government's election strategy, as revealed in the memorandum, is not a shift in policy but a move to control the press, issue black propaganda and propagate dirty tricks. Every decision to be made by the Conservative party must relate not to what is good for the people of this country and for its long-term future, but to what will help the party in its current predicament.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Brandreth rose—
Mr. Brown: Let me make a little progress, and illustrate my point.
We learn from the memorandum that identity cards are now to be considered. There is to be a Green Paper; a decision was announced on 13 October. We knew yesterday that a Cabinet Committee has just been set up, but we now learn from the memorandum that the decision was made not because the Home Secretary thought it necessary, right or good for the country, but simply because the Government believe that it could embarrass Labour into opposing the introduction of the cards.
As for the economy, yet more anti-trade union legislation is being contemplated, not because it is in the public interest but simply because the Government think that it could divide the Labour party. Nothing is done in the public interest; action is taken only in the narrow interest of the Conservative party's desperate tactics to bring about its re-election.
We must ask how much of the Gracious Speech was written not with a sense of what is needed for the country, but simply with an eye to the fortunes of what is—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted—an increasingly panic-stricken Conservative party.
604
What about the presentation of economic policy, according to the memorandum? The Conservatives say that they need help from the few remaining Conservative supporters outside the Conservative party. The memorandum states:
"Third-party endorsements are key, and infinitely more reliable than Ministers."
That is a fine comment on the integrity of colleagues.
Let me quote the full list of potential helpers—the range of people who could offer third-party endorsements of the Conservatives' economic and social policies: "the police"—well, perhaps 10 years ago, but not now; "the CBI"—well, they are not all that keen, as the Chancellor well knows. The memorandum also says:
"We must avoid antagonising them if we can help it."
The memorandum then refers to the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Are we seriously to imagine that spokesmen from the IMF and the OECD could turn out and vote to save the Conservative party in the Dudley by-election? After those organisations, all that is left is the Institute of Directors. When their last remaining supporter is the Institute of Directors—and its support for the Conservatives is ebbing away—the Government have problems indeed.
What else does Mr. Maples say in the memorandum? We should remember that he was hand-picked for the job by the Prime Minister. He is chairman of Saatchi and Saatchi, and the Prime Minister wanted him to stand as parliamentary candidate for the Newbury seat. The proposals in the memorandum are very close to the Prime Minister's thinking. Dealing with the question of the Labour leader, Mr. Maples asks:
"Could we set some Back Benchers on to this? Maybe a few yobbos of our own to try and knock them out a bit, and another team to operate more subtly on the changes of mind and differences of view."
There we have the Conservative party in the House: the yobbos on one hand, and those acting more subtly—the intellectuals—on the other. That is the new Tory parliamentary hierarchy: the Prime Minister, Ministers, junior Ministers, Whips, parliamentary private secretaries, yobbos and, finally, the intellectuals. If someone cannot make it into the House, of course, he can always become vice-chairman of the Conservative party. If a company wants a question to be raised in the House, does it go to the yobbos or the intellectuals—or must the two groups compete on price?
So there we have it: the modern Conservative party, no longer divided only between wets and dries, Euro-enthusiasts and Euro-sceptics, but now divided overall—yobbos versus intellectuals.
Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman a yobbo or an intellectual? Could the country ever tell the difference?
Mr. Marlow: At least I am not a soundbite.
The hon. Gentleman waxed poetic on the subject of factions. We are, of course, the party of power, and it is therefore quite proper for debates to take place within the party of power. Are there no debates in the hon. Gentleman's party? Are there no factions? Can he tell the

605
House how his party will vote on Monday in regard to giving more money to Brussels? Will every member of his party do the same?
Mr. Brown: Compared with the Conservative party, the Labour party's debates reach conclusions. There are not interminable divisions that cannot be resolved in the Labour party. Before the hon. Gentleman casts his vote in the great election for the 1922 Committee, I should also tell him that on Monday, as he would expect, the Labour party will be proposing a reasoned amendment to the Bill, and I hope that he and others will join us in the Lobbies. One thing is clear: that is that the country has no confidence in the Government's approach to the European issue.
What does all that mean for economic policy? Despite all the boasts about what is happening to the economy—we shall hear them again from the Chancellor this afternoon—despite all that he will say about this figure and that figure, figures that he will pluck out of the air from here and there, the central fact stands out in the Maples memorandum—real take-home pay, he says, is falling this year, he says that it will fall next year, and he adds:
"We will have to see this rise in real take-home pay soon or we will have had four or even five years of recovery with no rise in living standards."
He is aware of the impact of the tax rises on ordinary people. He is aware now of the impact of the interest rate rises on people's mortgages. No matter how much bluster there is from the Chancellor this afternoon, he must face up to the fact that millions of British people are seeing their living standards fall.
But what else does the Maples memorandum tell us about economic policy? It says:
"It is no use"—
this is important for the Conservatives' election strategy—
"to pursue fiscal and monetary rectitude if there is no rise in living standards and job opportunities until too late."
What Mr. Maples means by "too late" is after the general election. In other words, he is prepared to admit in private, as the Chancellor seems to be admitting as well, that he will sacrifice all claim to rectitude to achieve a pre-election boom, even when it is not in the long-term interests of the economy.
I challenge the Chancellor to condemn the Maples memorandum, which suggests that a pre-election boom will be manipulated by the Conservative party; because all talk of firmness, of sustainable growth, of commitment to low inflation, irrespective of politics, is hypocrisy if the Government are prepared to manipulate the economy in the way that is being suggested by Mr. Maples.
Mr. Brandreth rose—
Mr. Gary Streeter rose—
Mr. Brown: Is it a yobbo or an intellectual? I will take the yobbo.
Mr. Streeter: Speaking as an intellectual, may I ask the hon. Gentleman how he feels about his prediction in March 1993, when he said that unemployment would rise
606
month after month after month when in fact unemployment has fallen since that date month after month after month?
Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, what I said was said the day after the Budget, reading from the Budget statement, after it had been said that it would be some time before unemployment started to fall again. That is what the Chancellor of the day said. That is what the Budget statement said. If the hon. Gentleman wants to condemn me, he had better condemn the Treasury and those on the Conservative Front Bench.
The hon. Gentleman also has a question to answer. Why did he say to his electorate in Plymouth, Sutton at the last election, "We will get taxes down even further"? Should he not be apologising to the British people?
Mr. Oliver Heald rose—
Mr. Brown: I shall give way once more, and then I will have to make some progress.
Mr. Heald: The Labour party is committed to the European recovery fund at a cost of £77 billion. Will the hon. Gentleman give us a bit of rectitude now and tell us whether he confirms that the Labour party will go ahead with that programme and what it will cost the British taxpayer? Yes or no—a clear answer, please.
Mr. Brown: That was not the question of an intellectual. The hon. Gentleman is presumably not talking about the European recovery fund but what is called the European investment fund. One of our complaints is that the European investment fund has not been set up expeditiously enough to deal with this recession, and presumably can only be in being, because of all the delays, to deal with a future recession. As the hon. Gentleman knows, what is costing this country billions of pounds is not acting against unemployment; what is costing £25 billion is the failure to take action to remove our present unemployment. When people realise that every ordinary family pays £20 a week to deal with the Government's failure to combat unemployment, they will join us in calling for action.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: In the light of what he has just said, will the hon. Gentleman explain why every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came into office?
Mr. Brown: Unemployment was falling when Labour left office. Under the Conservative Government, in every year since 1980 unemployment has been 1 million higher than it was under Labour. The Government have been prepared to live with unemployment at more than 2 million—it is now 2.5 million—as an instrument of economic policy.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) what could be done about unemployment, and what the Chancellor could do next Tuesday if he were prepared to take the action. First, he could release local authority capital receipts and let local authorities build. Secondly, as we have proposed, he could invest in a small business expansion scheme, as existed previously under the present Government and under a Labour Government. That would allow the economy to expand.
Thirdly, the Chancellor could create an environmental task force for the young people in our community so as to engage their energies in dealing with the problems of

607
the environment. Fourthly, there could be a tax rebate for employers prepared to take on the long-term unemployed. If Conservative Members ask me whether all that would cost money, I tell them that yes, in the first year it would. But it would enable us to deal with the problem and then reduce public spending on unemployment.
Let me tell Conservative Members how that could be paid for. We have already made our proposals. First, there could be a windfall tax on the excess profits of the privatised utilities.
Mr. James Clappison: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to live with the consequences of such a windfall tax? Imposed on industries that are already regulated, it would inevitably reduce their cost competitiveness, capacity for innovation and, more than anything else, their ability to invest. Is he prepared to live with a return to the sort of customer service that we had from those industries when the Labour party was in power?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should be clear with the House; he is defending the profit levels of the utilities, profits of £45 billion during the—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. David Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a claim to be an intellectual, and we should give him a chance. I shall give way to him first and then answer his hon. Friend's question.
Mr. Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the figures that I have from the Library, which show that the sum of £45 billion that he has mentioned represents the total pre-tax profit for all the privatised utilities since they were privatised, and that part of pre-tax profit is paid to the Government in corporation tax and to pension funds in dividends? How many pension funds does he think should be denied dividends? Does he also accept that pre-tax profits are used to fund investment that will help this country?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong, and I hope that he will withdraw his comments.
Mr. Shaw: I got the figures from the Library.
Mr. Brown: The question is not whether the hon. Gentleman got the figures from the Library but whether he can understand them. The £45 billion represents profits earned between 1989, the year before the recession started, and now. If the hon. Gentleman wants to correct me on that, I shall happily give way to him again.
The utilities' profits have risen by 50 per cent. during a recession. I can think of no other company in the country that could justify a 50 per cent. increase in profits during a recession in which others are having to cut back. I believe that the Energy Users Council, whose secretary is a former Conservative Member of Parliament, has now put the case for a windfall tax on the privatised utilities.
Government Members will come to recognise that, as the water companies have been afforded tax allowances of £7.5 billion, the British Rail privatisation contains extra tax allowances of £1.5 billion, and the National Grid is
608
about to be demerged from the electricity companies—giving a windfall profit, over and above those about which we are talking, of nearly £4 billion—the case for action on behalf of the consumers of this country is now overwhelming.
The Government are not prepared to act in relation to the privatised utilities or to take the advice of the vice-chairman of the Conservative party in relation to competitive share options, because too many people in the Conservative party benefit from those profits and from those share options.
Let us remember that, on the board of British Gas—we have been talking about the company this week—is the person who privatised British Gas, Lord Walker; on the board of BT is the person who privatised BT, Lord Tebbit; on the board of National Freight is the person who privatised it, the former chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler); and on the board of Cable and Wireless is the person who used to regulate Cable and Wireless, Lord Young.
I believe that people in this country are increasingly disgusted by the fact that the people who are defending excessive salary rises are also the people who want to deny a decent income to pensioners during these winter months. It is time we had a Government which will do something about that.
When there is a consensus in the country about what needs to be done in relation to unemployment, there is also a consensus about what needs to be done in relation to industry—to end short-termism in relation to dividends, to introduce commercial finance into the Post Office, to further public-private partnership with the task force which we have proposed, and to create a university of industry for skills education.
Why does the Queen's Speech not contain one measure to deal with the problems on which consensus now stretches from the trade union movement through to most people in the business community? It does not, because the Cabinet and the Government—our entire political leadership—are paralysed by bitter entrenched factionalism. That is why they cannot act on Europe in a way which is sensible for party policy. The Maples memorandum makes it clear that the key issue is not what is good for Britain, but party unity. The memorandum states that the Conservative party must remain more Euro-sceptic than Labour.
They cannot act on the Post Office because of the bitter entrenched factionalism in the Conservative party. The left vetoes privatisation, and the right vetoes public-private partnership, so nothing is done. The memorandum from the Lord Privy Seal made it clear that the reason private finance for a publicly owned Post Office was rejected was not because it was against the interests of the country or taxpayers, but because it would seriously undermine the Government's whole approach to privatisation. Factionalism is again rampant. Private funds were rejected for the Post Office not because they were unhelpful, but because they would have revealed the limitations of privatisation as a dogma.
What of industry policy as a whole? We know that dividends have been too high for the levels of investment which we need in the economy. We know also that a new industry policy was favoured by the President of the Board of Trade before he came to the Department of

609
Trade and Industry, when he advocated an English development agency, research and development incentives, tough monopoly and merger legislation, and a training level for skills. But why is Britain denied an industry policy such as other countries have? Again, bitter entrenched factionalism in the Conservative party has dictated that there should be no industry policy.
The industry budget, as we know, was the subject of an acrimonious dispute between right and left, and between the President and the Secretary of State for Employment, this summer. The President wanted to continue the regional incentive, and the Chief Secretary—as he was then—wanted to get rid of it.
Bitter entrenched factionalism has also paralysed policy on investment and the City. We know now that there will be no full publication of the review on dividends for the City. It will not be published because of what we know now was opposition, not from the right or left of the Conservative party, but from outside this House, from a sponsor of the Conservative party, Lord Hanson. He told the Prime Minister that the proposals were socialist, the Prime Minister dropped them, and the review will now not be published.
The right wing vetoes a competitiveness review from the President of the Board of Trade, Lord Hanson vetoes a dividend review, and nothing is done to deal with the problems we face in relation to industry.
It is factionalism which explains why there is no agreement in the Conservative party and why there is a yawning gap growing between what needs to be done in the interests of the public and what the public are getting from the Government. It explains what is happening about Europe, industry and the economy. That is why, as the Maples memorandum showed, the people find that they have a Government whom they cannot trust and do not believe to be telling the truth.
Nowhere is the betrayal of the Government greater than on taxation. It is not an accident that we are soon to face a Budget just when the Conservative party is trying to tell us that tax cuts are on the way at some point, but when everyone knows that we face seven tax rises over the next few years.
Let us be absolutely clear about VAT. The same Chancellor who has been asked by some Conservative colleagues to abandon the rise in VAT to 17.5 per cent. is the person who wrote a letter to one of his constituents saying:
"I have always thought we exempt too many goods and services from VAT in this country."
Let us also be clear that he is the same Chancellor who said:
"With hindsight it would have been politically advantageous to go to 17.5 per cent. straight away and bring it in this April."
Far from wanting to leave it at 8 per cent. next year, the Chancellor wanted VAT at 17.5 per cent. this year.
If anything shows how out of touch and insensitive the Chancellor and his colleagues at the Treasury are, it is that they are prepared to impose VAT on fuel at 17.5 per cent. At the same time, the Chancellor has made clear his
610
commitment to impose VAT on food, transport, including rail fares, and on children's clothes, if he could get away with it, because that is the principle in which he believes.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Given that the hon. Gentleman now believes that taxation is too high, does he therefore believe that public expenditure is too high or too low?
Mr. Brown: We are wasting huge amounts of public money on paying the bills of unemployment.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Answer the question.
Mr. Brown: I will tell the hon. Gentleman how he could reduce public expenditure—by tackling the long-term problems of unemployment that the Conservative party has failed to do. He could cut out waste in the public sector by taking up some of our proposals concerning tax reliefs on executive share options and private medical insurance.
Today, the Dudley—
Mr. Duncan Smith: How about an answer?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his intervention. I will not tolerate remarks from a sedentary position.
Mr. Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked a clear question in my intervention. You said, quite rightly, that I had had my opportunity. I asked whether public expenditure was too high or too low, but the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) failed to answer my question.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to put his question, and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) responded in the way he wanted. That is not a matter for me. I will not have barracking. I am sick and tired of barracking from both sides of the Chamber.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) interrupted me during my discussion of VAT, but he might have reminded the House that, despite all his right-wing views, his own constituency association put a motion before the Conservative conference urging the Government to abandon VAT on fuel as a matter of urgency.
Today the Dudley by-election has been called. The promises on VAT have been broken; the promises made on national insurance have been broken; the promises on income taxation and on allowances have been broken. A new tax has been introduced on home insurance, and taxation on mortgages will rise despite the Government's promise at the election to "maintain mortgage tax relief." Ministers even promised:
"We will raise the tax threshold for inheritance tax",
but then failed to do that. They are a Government who not only break their promises to the living, but are even prepared to break their promises to the dead.
Taxes will rise because of bills of more than £25 billion a year to pay for unemployment. Those tax increases are a direct and inescapable consequence of economic mismanagement. What does the Chancellor say now? Does he admit that the Government misled people and betrayed their promises? Does he apologise or confess his

611
mistakes? In words that will haunt the Chancellor throughout the Dudley by-election, he told us that promises did not really matter. He said:
"I am less impressed by out-of-context quotations from stray remarks in speeches in Dudley on a wet Wednesday night during a general election campaign".
His defence is, "Read my lips, but not in Dudley on a wet night".
May I remind the Chancellor what was said in Dudley during the general election campaign? The manifesto of the Tory candidate for Dudley, East said:
"We will get taxes down"—
[Interruption.] The Chancellor seems to think that the Dudley by-election was last year. It is about to happen, and the Chancellor had better face up to the fact that what he said last year will be repeated this year, because it has significance for the Dudley by-election and what people there think about the country.
The manifesto of the Tory candidate for Dudley, East said:
"We will get taxes down further, building on the new 20 per cent. rate … Tax is the dirtiest word in the Conservative philosophy, unlike the socialists who are going down the disastrous pathway of higher taxation and national insurance contributions, taking money out of your earnings".
Which party has put up taxation and national insurance contributions? The Conservative party did so, in the biggest tax rise in history. Although promises were made throughout that election campaign in Dudley, the Chancellor says that we need not pay them too much attention, because there are promises, electoral promises and promises made in Dudley.
We know what the Chancellor thinks of the people of Dudley. We shall soon hear what the people of Dudley think of the Chancellor. Let any Minister go to Dudley and outline his plans for the next few years. I assure him that no-one will believe a word he says.
Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown: I shall not give way again. I had to educate the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) to make him something that he is not—an intellectual—after the last intervention, and I do not propose to do it again.
As the Chancellor admits, there is no feel-good factor in Britain today. There is a feel-angry facto, and a feel-betrayed factor caused by broken promises, which the Gracious Address does nothing to answer.
I have a final warning for the Chancellor before his Budget. A fundamental review into social security expenditure is currently taking place. The Chancellor's policies and those of his Government have already undermined sickness pay, maternity pay, invalidity benefit and unemployment benefit. He now seems to be out for industrial injuries benefit, and even help for the disabled and the unemployed. If the Budget does nothing about abuses at the top, continues to impose VAT on fuel and yet cuts into vital services for the sick and disabled, the country—not just people in Dudley—will never forgive the Chancellor.
Allegations of sleaze are but one manifestation of a breakdown in this Government. They are symptoms of a deeper malaise—a breakdown in ethics at the heart of government: the £1,000 questions; the visit to the Ritz; top salary rises that go uncondemned; public funds, according to the Maples memorandum, to be used for
612
party advantage; public servants to be fingered; the media to be suborned; the news to be controlled; and opponents to be shouted down or, if they are public servants in the health service, to be menaced. The Conservative party's desperate scramble for survival is the only thing that unites it.
The Government have long since abandoned the interests of country as a whole, and have retreated into the interests of the party. They have now abandoned even that, and are continually retreating into factionalism and greater division. They can no longer speak for Britain. They must go, and they must go soon.
4.18 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, took the Chair, Madam Speaker made a ruling on a point of order in which she asked the House to have regard to common sense in its proceedings. It was a bold attempt to overturn the tradition of centuries in our proceedings. If we were to follow common sense, it might be an idea not to hold a debate on the economy about a week before a Budget. However, those are the only debates that we ever have on the economy nowadays, because of the choice of the Labour party. Debates on the economy are few and far between. After this week, we shall not see much of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) before this time next year, when he will come back, as he came back a moment ago, with some of the same passages from the speech that he gave at this stage last year.
I remember times past, when the International Monetary Fund ran this country, when Mr. Healey kept having to change his mind, and when we had frequent Budgets and frequent debates. Those days are behind us, but they are behind us because the economic news is steadily getting better, so the Opposition no longer want to debate the economy. They choose a week before the Budget because they believe—
Mr. Gordon Brown rose—
Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment.
The Opposition choose a week before the Budget because they know that Budget secrecy restrains Conservative Members, and they speak on the Budget because they have to speak on the Budget. When we ask any questions in between, all is silence.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East used a great deal of his material from what he called "the Maples memorandum"—a survey that was targeted at a section of the population that is not voting for the Conservative party. Bill Clinton's team probably used many similar surveys. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) probably has many such surveys. The difference between the Conservative party and the Labour party—which used to believe in socialism, and used to have an economic policy—is that Labour uses such surveys to try to find out what its ideas should be. However, when, in reply to an intervention, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East told one of my hon. Friends that when the Labour party has debates, it comes

613
to conclusions, we realised all over again that conclusions on economic policy there are none, and there will not be, from the Labour party.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths rose—
Ms Angela Eagle rose—
Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a second, if either of the hon. Members persists.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will produce a shadow Budget. Today he has the Floor of the House of Commons, and he could have produced that shadow Budget. He is not doing so. He will produce it tomorrow; and he will produce it tomorrow because he knows that its hollowness, its emptiness and its list of meaningless slogans would not bear scrutiny in the House.
Earlier, the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East rattled on for a time about some public expenditure by local authorities on capital projects and new environmental schemes for young people. When insistently questioned about how he would pay for it, he made evasive and all-too-familiar noises from the past about, "You would not have to pay for it because we would get unemployment down," without saying how he would ever get unemployment down.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East did not mention the loopholes that he mentioned last year. Last year, the loopholes were revealed to be taxes on legitimate business that would have damaged business, as Howard Davies said. This year, he has come up with the so-called "windfall tax", which will, apparently, produce millions of pounds for a Labour shadow Budget.
The purpose of the windfall tax is to revisit successful businesses—which have modernised themselves, invested heavily and reduced costs to their consumers in the case of electricity and gas—to obtain a second price for privatisation, at the expense of shareholders, at the expense of investment, and at the expense of the prices that those industries would charge consumers.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has no understanding of a market economy. He dare no longer say that he would renationalise those industries; he produces a windfall tax to return to them for a second tranche of money to finance the Labour party's spending programmes, at the expense of the consumer and of the people who invested in the companies.
Mr. Brown: Now that the Chancellor has ruled out action in relation to excess profits of the privatised utilities—and presumably he is ruling out action in relation to the demerger of the National Grid, where a £3 billion windfall will be made by the electricity companies—will he also tell us whether he unequivocally condemns the 75 per cent. pay rise for the chairman of British Gas?
Mr. Clarke: The National Grid was taken into account when we sold the company. The hon. Gentleman suggests returning for a second tranche on top of the price that the market has already paid for it. The improved efficiency, including the possible next steps for the National Grid, has already produced reductions in prices for consumers. The hon. Gentleman is going back to deceive the country into believing that taxing those companies will somehow
614
do no damage to the falling prices, the improved efficiency and the greater effectiveness of our electricity industry.
Ms Eagle: I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his courtesy in giving way. Will he admit that the precedent for a windfall tax on any type of industry comes from a Tory Government, who introduced a windfall profit tax on banks in 1981?
Mr. Clarke: In 1981 there was a windfall tax because the banks were making profits, not as a result of their actions, but because of the monetary policies of the then Government, which were producing a windfall for the banks. The monetary policies of the then Government produced a hugely successful decade—the 1980s. The Labour party is proposing new and unexpected taxes on successful private companies that are improving the efficiency of our public services. When the Labour party sees success in the private sector, it instantly thinks of taxation. The hon. Lady's example was not a precedent.
Mr. Denis MacShane rose—
Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
Mr. Rhodri Morgan rose—
Mr. Gordon Brown rose—
Mr. Clarke: As I see only one intellectual rising, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Brown: If the Chancellor condemns new and unexpected taxes, perhaps he should condemn the tax rises for which the Government have been responsible. Will he now answer the question: does he condemn unequivocally the 75 per cent. pay rise for the chairman of British Gas?
Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about taxation policy, he should get rid of the rubbish about loopholes and windfall taxes, and answer the simple question about what he would do about taxation to finance the spending commitments that we hear from him every time that he makes a speech. On the salary increase of the chairman of British Gas, I disapprove of large salary increases for executives, in any company, which go far beyond those deemed reasonable for their performance.
The performance of the chief executive of British Gas has been extremely successful, which is why there has not been one gas price increase since 1991. Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we should look at what can be done to increase shareholders' ability to take responsibility for the pay and rewards of their company's chief executives. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is thunderstruck—I have just suggested where we might look for policy. All he does is to protest. Presumably, he has in mind higher rates of taxation on high earners at every level.
Mr. Brown: The Prime Minister did not say yesterday that he was proposing increased powers for shareholders to deal with that matter—that is a new suggestion today from the Chancellor. Will the Chancellor take up our suggestion to give the regulator the power to intervene

615
when excessive pay rises cannot be justified? If companies can afford excessive pay rises, they can afford to cut prices.
Mr. Clarke: Every time that he speaks, the hon. Gentleman reveals that he has no understanding of a market economy—even though he purports to be a member of a party that has suddenly undergone a St. Paul-like conversion to market economics in the past two years. The regulator is there to protect the consumer and control prices. The price record of those public utilities is extremely good. The idea that a regulator should regulate the salaries of the management of a private company is a throwback to the old Labour party—as is the proposal to introduce a windfall tax if a company is profitable. If that is Labour's policy—if we at least have an inkling of it—we see that it is not a new policy, but a throwback to the past errors that brought Labour into such terrible difficulties.
Mr. Brown: Does the Chancellor agree that the proposal to give the regulator power to cut prices when there were excessive salary awards came initially from Sir Bryan Carsberg—who was appointed by the Government to be the regulator in the first instance and who has now been appointed to head the Office of Fair Trading? Will the Chancellor answer my question? Will he unequivocally condemn the 75 per cent. pay rise awarded to the chairman of British Gas?
Mr. Clarke: The regulator is responsible for looking at the management, costs and efficiency of the industry and the profitability of its operations. He then has to set what he believes to be price regulations that protect the interests of the consumer. The regulator is not there—no agency should be set up—to start determining, at the behest of the hon. Gentleman, the salaries to be paid at each level of a company. When the Labour party was last in power, it nationalised many companies and was responsible for great trading companies such as British Leyland. It was precisely the sort of interventionism that the hon. Gentleman espouses, whatever fancy new academic theories he tries—unsuccessfully—to find to support it. He is returning to the old interventionism that ruined this country as a manufacturing economy when the Labour party was last in power.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Clarke: I will give way more later, but I hope that hon. Members will allow me to continue for a while. The persistence of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has held me up somewhat.
The reason why the hon. Gentleman dismisses the background to his shadow Budget and my Budget next week is that good economic news is extremely bad news for him—it was scarcely touched on in his speech. We can usually see that in his face. Like his leader, who has now departed, the hon. Gentleman often smiles, but he cannot be accused of smiling all the time. When unemployment falls, as it is falling, he positively scowls. When inflation goes down, he glowers. Output and productivity increases always bring a large number of frowns to his face. The hon. Gentleman reminds me of Eeyore in "Winnie the Pooh". When there is good economic news, we can rely on the hon. Gentleman for
"a loud roaring noise of Sadness and Despair".
616
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the peroration to the speech that he made on the Budget last year—not this half-quoted stuff about Dudley that he came out with again today. On 1 December 1993, he said:
"As a result of this Budget, we are worse off today without. the slightest prospect of being a great deal better off as a nation tomorrow … It fails even to appreciate that the problems of trade deficits, unemployment and inflation will return again and again as long as the Government do not tackle these basic and fundamental issues … We wanted a Budget for employment, and the Government cut the employment budget. We wanted a Budget for industry, and the Government cut the industry budget. We wanted a Budget for investment, and the Government cut public investment in our economy. We wanted a Budget for fairness, and the Government ended up penalising 95 per cent. of the population. This Budget does nothing for fairness, jobs, industry and investment in the way that the country needs"—[Official Report, 1 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 1071.]
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to his reference to the role of shareholders? Has he ever been to an annual general meeting to try to overturn a decision of a board of directors? Has he noticed that institutional shareholders—in the case of British Gas, probably large pension funds and other major institutions—can prove very difficult to persuade, the more so if one is an individual shareholder? In the light of the Prime Minister's comments yesterday, and of his today, is the Chancellor prepared to write to the institutional shareholders of British Gas and ask them whether they are able or prepared to exert pressure on the board of British Gas in the matter of the chairman's salary?
Mr. Clarke: Such shareholders are increasingly taking action of that kind in some companies. I should not be surprised to find that they are usually more persuasive than the hon. Gentleman would be if he turned up at a public meeting. The hon. Gentleman seems in any case more convinced than his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East that this is an area we should explore.
To return to the hon. Gentleman's speech on last year's Budget: he attacked cuts in public spending and was against controlling public spending. He attacked tax increases, and he forecast continued downward movement for jobs, industry and investment, and a deterioration in the trade deficit. He said that inflation would come back. He of course knows what has happened since then. He knows what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would say about that speech last year. I do not know whether Mr. Balls was responsible for drafting that peroration—but let us look at what has happened since the hon. Gentleman's attack.
Already we are the fastest growing of the major economies in Europe. Production is rising, unemployment falling. Exports are at record levels. Inflation is at a 27-year low. All in all, the country faces the most encouraging set of economic prospects for many years. It is a lasting recovery that will raise the living standards and improve the job security of men and women throughout the country, and lasting recovery is what I am going to deliver—and what the policies propounded by the hon. Gentleman could never deliver in a thousand years.
Mr. Bill Etherington: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is painting such a rosy picture

617
of the economy, and if it is as buoyant as he says it is, why are those least able to deal with it about to have more VAT on fuel imposed on them?
Mr. Clarke: The people who are least likely to pay VAT are those who have had help with VAT. For a great proportion of those people, the help has exceeded the change in price because of price reductions over the past 12 months.
I am speaking about the recovery, which gives real hope for the future for prosperity and jobs. Each and every necessary policy measure that the Government have put in place to achieve that hope of lasting recovery—whether it is freeing up the labour market, making British business more competitive, better control and targeting of public spending, raising necessary revenue or lowering public borrowing—has been consistently opposed by the opposition parties. Those measures are the cause of the present recovery. I do not think that the public realise just how obstructive in practice the Labour party has been to all our efforts to get the recovery under way and create the present promising circumstances.
Mr. MacShane: The fact that the Chancellor is wearing hush puppies does not make him an intellectual. On the issue of good news, why is inflation 50 per cent. higher here than it is in France, why are unit labour costs lower in Germany, and why did the Engineering Employers Federation say last week that 22,000 manufacturing jobs will go next year to add to the 400,000 that have been lost since 1990? Capital investment will go down by 1 per cent. next year. That is all good news for the City and the gentlemen at the Ritz, but it is bad news for industry and manufacturing.
Mr. Clarke: I do not know about the hon. Gentleman's judgment on footwear, but his international comparisons are bizarre. Unemployment in France is 12.5 per cent., inflation in Germany is higher than it is here, and unemployment here has fallen by more than 400,000. This is the only country in western Europe where unemployment is falling at all. The hon. Gentleman thinks that his selective quotations can obscure the fact that we have put in place the fastest recovery in western Europe and that we have the best prospects of any economy in western Europe. The hon. Gentleman is deceiving himself, and he also deceives himself if he thinks that that performance would be any better under a Labour Government.
I shall now deal with what a Labour Government would do and refer to the key aspects of economic policy upon which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is always in practice quite silent. The first issue is low inflation. The Opposition have argued at every stage over the period during which I have been Chancellor that interest rates should be lower. We have falling unemployment. The Opposition are committed to a social chapter and a minimum wage, and they would destroy jobs. We have falling Government borrowing. Labour's spending pledges run into billions. There were a few billions in the speech by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East today. We have record exports and rising investment, but the interventionism to which the hon. Gentleman is still totally committed would destroy the competitiveness of British business.
618
Since the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East last gave us his litany, we have ignored all the twaddle and obstruction from the Opposition. As a result and as the hon. Gentleman knows, in preparing for my Budget next week I do not think that I could have imagined a better economic background than that which we have achieved over the past 12 months. The combination of low inflation and sustainable growth has eluded us for years, but the signs are that it is within our grasp, and I am determined not to let it slip away.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I would not like the Chancellor to pass on without looking at some of the real problems facing the economy. The Engineering Employers Federation has shown that investment in manufacturing is down by 24 per cent. in volume since 1990, and that fixed investment in engineering has fallen every quarter since the end of 1989. We are being dragged along in the tailwind of the European recovery in the trade cycle upswing, but there is no fundamental improvement in our ability to compete with the economies of Europe.
Mr. Clarke: Selective years are being chosen, like selective features of foreign countries. Manufacturing investment is going up and the outlook for it is extremely good. The years chosen by the hon. Gentleman left out the investment boom in the late 1980s. None of that can obscure the fact that in the business world, in manufacturing, which is so vital to this country, prospects are now more attractive than they have been for a long time.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will not the Chancellor admit what his own colleagues have pointed out—that investment this year was lower than it was five years ago and that in the first half of this year, as a percentage of GDP, it was the lowest ever recorded? That does not give the impression that there was a confident boom in investment, which was laying the foundations for sustained recovery.
Mr. Clarke: Choosing particular years is easy.
Mr. Bruce: This year.
Mr. Clarke: This year the prospects are improving and are good for investment. Now, as we are talking, investment is rising. We have a healthy recovery led by exports, investment rapidly improving and modest levels of consumer demand.
The hon. Gentleman must look at what is happening now as a result of all our efforts over the past 18 months, which his party and the Labour party have consistently opposed. Of course, I know—it is the one hope of the Labour party—that the man on the Clapham omnibus or the man in the Nottingham video shop does not think that he is enjoying the benefits of growth.
That is true throughout the western world. A joy-free recovery—so far—is not confined to the United Kingdom. A survey last week in the United States showed that 70 per cent. of the population in that country thought that it was still in recession when it has had four years of growth. In Germany, Helmut Kohl won only a narrow victory despite German economic recovery.
People everywhere in the industrial world are still hurt by the recession and find it hard to give credit for economic progress to their Governments. That is because this recovery is combined with low inflation. People in

619
Britain are not used to low inflation; they are used to the money illusion that made their houses seem more valuable and wages seem to go higher when inflation was high. They later found that it was a illusion.
Although we have a slightly sustained fall in unemployment, job prospects for many people remain uncertain. I realize—we all do—that that is what gives the Labour party hope that it can sow the seeds of fear in people despite our healthy economic position. I have no doubt—and the Labour party knows—that those fears will diminish as the recovery lasts, as it remains strong, as it delivers prosperity and jobs to men and women up and down the country and as we get used to low inflation and a modern jobs market.
As all those things happen, fear will transfer itself to the Labour party as people realise that the sneers and doubts that it is so recklessly expressing now will not cover up the lack of policy when we have achieved economic success.
Mr. Morgan: Could one of the reasons for the muted public reaction to the land of milk and honey recovery that the Chancellor talks about possibly be the strange phenomenon that for every rise of one in the number of people in employment, there is a fall of two in the total number of registered unemployed? Does the Chancellor accept that that has been the case for the past 12 months, and can he cast some light on that rather strange phenomenon?
Mr. Clarke: The labour force survey shows that the number of people in work is growing. It is true that demography has accelerated the fall in unemployment to some extent, but there are more people in employment. Britain has 70 per cent. of those available in work—the second or third highest in western Europe.
Our falling unemployment is on the back of growth—the rise in industrial investment and the strong export performance that I have just described. That is why we shall persist with the course that we are taking. That is why I shall take no risks with inflation, despite the usual views of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East on interest rates. That is why I raised interest rates by half a per cent. at the first rumblings of possible inflation in September.
I shall certainly not be led by irresponsible views on inflation. That is why I shall take no chances with public finances and that is why I took the measures which reduced public sector borrowing and which were opposed by the Labour party. To take chances would put the recovery that we have already put in place very much at risk.
Of course, we must never forget who was in power when high inflation first became a fact of life. New Labour may claim no longer to believe in any of its own policies and principles, but the British people know in their bones that Labour would still be soft on inflation; it would be soft on strikes in support of inflationary pay claims; and it would be soft on public spending. The Government are determined to avoid boom followed by bust. Labour has only ever delivered bust in the past and it would deliver it again.
What of new Labour? Does it have a policy? Let us turn to inflation. There was no hint or mention of it in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Occasionally, the odd hint of Labour's financial policies slips out. There was a hint in
620
a speech that the hon. Gentleman gave a couple of months ago. I see him blush as he does not like to have the speech referred to, as it was the time when Mr. Balls tried to persuade him to give a serious speech on economic policy.
Tucked away among all the references to new academic theories that were actually justifying old-fashioned interventionism is the following bizarre sentence. I apologise to the House for its grammar; Mr. Balls does not appear to have proof-read the press release. Referring to the inflation target, the hon. Gentleman came out with the following profound remark:
"A nominal objective has clear operational difficulties and which many academics and practitioners is both inflexible and necessarily out of date".
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is relieved that attention was concentrated on other magic moments in his speech as he delivered his insights into where new Labour is going.
Can we at some stage—perhaps after the Budget—have some serious answers from the hon. Gentleman? Is our inflation target too high or too low? Would he keep an inflation target or would he have one at all? Does he or does he not believe in the use of interest rate policy to head off inflationary pressure, or would he abandon that?
It is one thing to set out Labour party policy in terms that were totally incomprehensible to an audience in the National Film Theatre. One day he has to come here and give in English at least one straight question to some of the answers that we have given—[Laughter.]or one straight answer to some of the questions that we have given. It was the mention of Mr. Balls that caused a momentary slip; I hope that nothing more is contagious.
People have to demand answers and then decide how sensible it would be for Labour to claim that it would have got underlying inflation down at all, let alone to 2 per cent., which is what we now enjoy.
Public finances have never been touched on in any serious way by the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, I shall have plenty to say about that next Tuesday in my Budget.
The Labour party is said to be no longer the party of tax and spend, but again there are elementary basic questions which in every speech the hon. Gentleman fails to answer. Is Government borrowing at the moment too high or too low? Should we be spending more or less? Should we be taxing more in total or should we be taxing less? Those are simple questions. No one who claims to take even a passing interest in economic policy should fail to have an opinion on any of those questions, but the Labour party has no answers to any of them, in either English or gobbledegook.
The Leader of the Opposition was quite unable to answer any of those questions. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is quite unable to answer any of them at Budget time this year. It is rather like someone bidding to be captain of the English cricket team when he does not appear to know which end of the bat the batsman is supposed to hold.
We in Government have answered all those questions; we are delivering steady, substantial economic recovery in which the financial and business world have full confidence. We are faced with a collection of sound bite merchants who do not have a idea in their heads.
Mr. Marlow: I am grateful for the courtesy of my right hon. and learned Friend. There is a depressing story goi[ng around the Lobby that our contribution to the European

621
Community for this year is being revised upwards by a massive £850 million. Could my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether it is just an unpleasant rumour or whether there is any truth in it? If there is any truth in it, can he say what the impact is likely to be on his estimate that next week's Bill, if it is passed, will increase our net contribution by yet a further £250 million?
Mr. Clarke: We have today produced a comprehensive document seeking to explain and improve the level of debate on the subject in the House and outside by a comprehensive explanation of our net contributions to the European Community both now and in the future. The total net contribution is notoriously difficult to forecast, but we have given the best forecast we can. We have also produced the trend of expenditure—which no one has ever denied is a rising trend-because, under the arrangements before Edinburgh, it is tied to 1.2 per cent. of our GDP. The GDP growth that we are enjoying now, and even our present modest inflation, keep taking up the cash total.
The figures that I gave for the Edinburgh settlement—£75 million next year rising to £250 million by the end of the century—are incontrovertible. The complex document to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) referred makes it completely clear that those are the only consequences from the Edinburgh agreement. To give an example of the scale of that particular additional contribution, it amounts to seven ten thousandths of the entire GDP of the European Union.
Mr. Marlow rose
Mr. Clarke: With the greatest of respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, no doubt he and I will return to those matters next Monday when there is other business before the House—
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose
Mr. Clarke: Perhaps the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has an insight into such matters. He may have expertise that he would like to give to the House.
Mr. Skinner: The Government may well be in difficulty in respect of the budget increase and we will have to see how events pan out. However, in view of what has happened on the international money markets over the past few days, what are the prospects for a 1 per cent. increase in interest rates before Christmas?
Mr. Clarke: As we wait to see how things pan out, it will be interesting to see how the hon. Member for Bolsover votes because his party—
Mr. Skinner: I have no problem there. I am against the Common Market.
Mr. Clarke: Could there be divisions in the Labour party on that matter? At the moment, the Labour party is waiting for my hon. Friends to tell it whether to vote and, if so, on what amendments. The Labour party may take no part in the debate next Monday. Labour appears to have no serious role to play. Labour will wait and see whether there is anything to vote against. However, if members of the Labour party Front Bench were to vote against the European Communities (Finance) Bill, they
622
would be voting against a proposition that they have consistently supported. Such matters of principle do not concern the Labour Front Bench.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Bolsover is a yobbo or an intellectual. He may be a unique combination of both. He might sort out the divisions with his colleagues. With regard to his point about interest rates, I have made it clear that, as he is aware, no Chancellor of the Exchequer speculates about interest rates. I have set out an extremely clear policy. Interest rates will be set according to a judgment of the prospects for inflationary pressures arising in future because if those inflationary pressures were allowed to run away, they would bring our recovery to a halt.
If I were to take advice from the Labour party, I should ignore all that. Interest rates would always be lower. As a result, inflation would rise and we should have to jack up interest rates much higher to regain control. Recovery would then begin to grind to a halt. That is the truth that lies behind the jokes, hollow rhetoric and fraudulent use of economic theories that passes as Labour party economic policy.
Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor confirm that he has issued an updated forecast of the United Kingdom's contribution since the debate began? Will he confirm that his forecast shows that the Government have underestimated our contribution to the European budget? Will he confirm that the underestimate is, as the figure suggests, £732 million?
Mr. Clarke: The figures that I have produced are the latest estimate. The outturn compared with estimates for years gone by has never been reliable. However, they are the best estimates that we can make and those are estimates compared with the last estimates that we made. I have produced the figures today because I did not want to debate the Bill next Monday and produce the figures on Tuesday at the time of the Budget.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will be aware that the trend revealed by the figures is the trend that we have always described. It is the trend that he knows follows from our membership of the European Community. It is a trend that he always supported. The addition from the Edinburgh ceiling is the £75 million next year and the £250 million or thereabouts by the end of the century. The Edinburgh decision has precisely the consequences which he has always supported and which no one opposed at the time of the Edinburgh deal.
However unpredictable may be the vote of the hon. Member for Bolsover, I hope that the vote of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will not change in respect of something that he has always supported.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Clarke: We shall debate all those issues next Monday once hon. Members have had an opportunity to see the forecast. As ever, the debate about European finances is breaking out among a collection of hon. Members who seem merely to have picked up one figure from a 12-page booklet and who are anxious to transform that as if it has something to do with next year's bill, which it has not.

623
We must approach the economy seriously—
Mr.Morgan: With regard to Europe—
Mr. Clarke: No, we shall debate that next Monday.
If the markets seriously believed that I was about to be replaced by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East or by another Labour Chancellor, the pound and bond markets would fall, long-term interest rates would rise and capital would flee the country. The British people would feel the hard practical consequences of those fears if they delivered the economy into the hands of a reckless party without beliefs or policies.
However, the British people will not be fooled at the next election. The thought of economic improvement towards the next election makes Labour Members' blood run a little colder and the hairs prickle on the back of their necks. Without the markets telling them, the public know that their job prospects would be worse under a Labour Government. The public know that from the evidence of their own ears.
Labour does not have a credible policy on taxation, public spending, unemployment or inflation. Labour's minimum wage would destroy thousands of jobs. The social chapter would drive businesses out of the country. Labour claims to be the party of partnership with business, but its regional development agencies and the windfall taxes are not partnership; they are old-fashioned state intervention.
Post-classical neo-socialism is all Labour has on offer. Labour speeches are either sound bites or meaningless econobabble. Sound bites, econobabble and good jokes do not deserve to win the trust of the British people at the next election when it is prosperity and jobs that are at issue. Labour will not win that trust in the face of substantial economic achievements and the steady confidence that is being restored month by month by this Government.
4.56 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: I am glad that the shadow Chancellor did not refer to me in respect of the group of intellectuals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) is aware of the identity of an ambitious young man in my constituency who, when told in the year I was elected, "You've missed the boat, chappie" said, "No, not at all: Molyneaux, with his very limited ability, will be only a short-term caretaker"—that was 24 years ago.
The Queen's Speech commits the Government to
"continue with firm financial policies designed to support continuing economic growth and rising employment, based on permanently low inflation."
We on this Bench welcome that pledge to continue a policy which has, for example, produced a drop in unemployment in Northern Ireland of around 5,500 in the past month, thus continuing a welcome downward trend throughout the year which has resulted in the lowest unemployment figure in Northern Ireland since 1990.
That trend is guaranteed throughout the United Kingdom in the wording of the next paragraph of the Queen's Speech:
"Fiscal policy will continue to be set to bring the budget deficit back towards balance over the medium term."
624
Last year, in his usual forceful way, my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) expressed his and our dislike of public deficits. He looked forward to the time when we could resume repayment of the public debt. My hon. Friend doubted whether a nil deficit could be achieved before the end of the century, but I know that he would be happy—as would the Chancellor—if that objective could be achieved ahead of time.
It is always popular to advocate a reduction in interest rates, but in my view the Chancellor and the Bank of England may have to take the opposite course—particularly in view of last week's growth rate figures, which were the highest for six years.
I venture to tender further advice to the Treasury team. Schedule 2 to the Finance Act 1994 permitted gains on disposals after 30 November 1993 to have roll-over relief on reinvestment, but that provision does not cater for held-over capital gains to qualify for reinvestment relief, particularly in private limited companies. The effect would be that holders of such funds would be encouraged to invest in qualifying companies, and thus make badly needed seed capital available in regions of the United Kingdom such as Northern Ireland—and one can think of other relevant regions in the kingdom.
I wonder whether consideration could be given to making the whole of Northern Ireland an enterprise zone. The existing experiment has not been entirely happy. In the Ulster business and industrial community there has been a tendency for undertakings to move to what is simply the other side of an imaginary chalk line on a street and thus denude adjacent areas. Companies on the wrong side of the chalk line which are excluded from the enterprise zone then find it difficult to compete with companies within it and take themselves to locations outside Belfast where rates and overheads are much lower, taking with them much-needed city jobs.
A total Northern Ireland enterprise zone would create a dynamic economic driven by the private sector, not by Government, and would have an immediate effect on employment, especially in construction.
The Treasury team, I hope, will be glad to hear a no-cost suggestion. It is directed mainly at international business men who have been invited by the Prime Minister to his international investment forum next month. I understand that a great many of them have already accepted. Of course, we hope that investors will be convinced that the high standards of education, the Ulster work ethic and the infrastructure in Northern Ireland combine to make Northern Ireland an ideal place in which to invest and to put down roots.
Perhaps trade is more important than aid. Those who come to our Province for that forum in December might consider a three-year or five-year package whereby Great Britain, United States and European Community companies might each voluntarily agree to place, say, —250,000 a year of new trade with Northern Ireland companies. In the short term, that would be a terrific boost to the Ulster economy. It would be up to the Ulster community, by the wholehearted co-operation of all of us as individuals, groups and public agencies, to persuade those customers to become permanent clients of Northern Ireland companies.
Small and medium-sized enterprises—SMEs—could be dramatically boosted by what in Eurospeak is called "tax environment", without doing violence to the principle of

625
unitary taxation in the United Kingdom. There could be proposals aimed at reducing job losses during the transfer of prosperous SMEs. There is need for the further simplification of administrative procedures for SMEs. We really must improve SME access to European funding. There is much scope for job-creating programmes in sectors such as local services and the environment.
I now refer to what must be the main theme—trade, not aid. In the years to come, we must move in that direction in Northern Ireland. That is the challenge that we must meet.
The December joint declaration empowered the two signatories—the two Prime Ministers—to establish conferences and forums in their respective jurisdictions. Mr. Reynolds has established, within his jurisdiction, a forum for reconciliation, which has already had quite a few sittings. I gather that there might be plans for another session this week in an effort to reconcile those now at variance within the Dublin Parliament. Reconciliation with God and fellow deputies might be a worthy objective.
Within his jurisdiction, our Prime Minister, with the support of the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, is convening the international forum to which I have referred. The Prime Minister has also convened a Downing street conference in January for all 26 council chairmen and chief executives in Northern Ireland to consider how better use could be made of the economic development units which we find in practically all 26 council areas.
Those two initiatives demonstrate the commitment of the Prime Minister and of Northern Ireland Ministers—I am glad that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is present—to advancing the work of restoration, of reconstruction and of rewarding what I persistently describe as the greater number of all religions and none who have proved conclusively that democracy will always win. I say "will" win because there is some way to go. The first step, and only the first step, has been taken by various paramilitary organisations.
When parliamentary colleagues ask me what will happen, I point them with some confidence to an assessment by my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) who on 11 July provided me with a paper before my meeting with the Prime Minister. It contained a prediction which has now been validated by events. It states:
"To keep them happy the hard men will be allowed to infringe any ceasefire after the end of the 3-month period and once talks have commenced, on the pretext of taking 'only that defensive action necessary to protect the Catholic community'. Sinn Fein will of course, while understanding the provocation, regret such occurrences."
The validating events were the murder of the Newry postman and the nauseating excuses of a Mr. Adams who has not yet washed the blood stains off the hands he now holds out to the world as a man of peace. Although we may have to endure further terrorism, the victory of democracy cannot and will not be cancelled out, nor can the surge of constructive determination ever be extinguished.
In the context of this debate I sincerely convey Ulster's gratitude to all Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, of all parties, who have sustained us for 25 long
626
years. In return, we shall discharge the debt that we owe you—I think that I am entitled to include the Chair in that—by taking our responsibility to make Ulster a place of which we all can be proud.
5.7 pm
Sir Thomas Arnold: It is always a pleasure to follow the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, with whom I have always had very friendly relations ever since I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Northern Ireland Office many years ago.
In the 12 months since the previous Gracious Speech, we have seen a startling increase in transparency in the making of economic policy in this country. I refer, of course, to the decision of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish the minutes of his monthly meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England. Nobody should underestimate the importance of that development. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for a future Government to go back on that decision and the consequences of that decision, which will increase as time goes by.
It is not simply that the minutes themselves are published; it is not simply that, the decision to increase or reduce interest rates having been taken by the Chancellor, the timing is then left to the Governor; it is the knowledge and the pressures which arise from that knowledge, in the markets and elsewhere, of the nature of the debate and the discourse between the Chancellor and the Governor which must have a profound effect on market perceptions of what the Government, in the broadest possible sense, intend.
I welcome that transparency, which I consider wholly consistent with the modern world, the political system in which we live and the many decisions taken in recent years with the aim of opening public life to much greater scrutiny. I hope for further progress in the same direction. I also welcome the greater autonomy conferred on the Bank of England; I hope that the majority of hon. Members support that decision, and will continue to do so.
In the context of transparency, may I draw attention to the continuing controversy—I think that that is the right phrase—surrounding the reports, and indeed the activities, of the panel of independent forecasters? I shall not comment on the panel's membership, which is none of my business, but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will allow it to continue to exist. So far he has indicated that that is his wish, and that he will not be put off by suggestions in the press and elsewhere that the existence of differences of opinion—to put it mildly—between the forecasters is a reason for winding up the panel.
I believe that, on the contrary, the fact that we can have access to the wide range of advice given to the Chancellor is itself a welcome contribution to economic debate. It can only add to understanding of economic policy-making and the options open to policy makers, and to an increase in general knowledge of contemporary economic policy issues. I personally enjoy the existence of such a divergence of views: I think that it makes the panel's reports both lively and—dare I say it, given the somewhat arcane subject matter—extremely entertaining reading. The fact that forecasters disagree with each other is not something to be deprecated, but something to be pondered and, indeed, debated in the House. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will retain the panel and be

627
patient with the more obvious disagreements; we can then try to pick our way through the arguments and find a sensible way forward.
Economics, after all, is an imperfect art, or science. No one can pretend to absolute knowledge, least of all the Bank of England itself. In the conclusion to its latest inflation report, dated November .1994—a further welcome exposition of the transparency to which I have referred—the Bank states:
"The greatest uncertainty concerns the continuing difference between retail and producer price inflation. It is not clear how far price pressures will be passed down the production and retail chain."
I think it very sensible of the Bank to admit in that important report that the transmission mechanisms are imperfectly understood, and that there are nagging uncertainties. Its approach is far preferable to that adopted in the days when the Governor—or the Governor's eyebrows—supposedly told us everything that we needed to know about economic policy. The admission that all is not known is worth while in itself.
I thank the Governor for arranging for me to visit the Bank of England's Manchester branch on Friday. I have passed the building many times during the past 25 years, but have never set foot in it; I look forward to doing so. The Bank's agent in Manchester, like agents in other large provincial cities, is responsible for finding out what is going on in the local economy, and reporting his findings to the Governor and his colleagues in London. The connection between retail and producer price inflation mentioned in the report—on the basis of surveys, statistics and anecdotal evidence from, in this instance, the north-west—is clearly important, and I look forward to exploring the issues with the Manchester agent.
My experience of the economic recovery leads me to a view that I believe to be shared, in some respects, by the Chancellor, but I want to probe the Government further. I believe that deflationary pressures are still at work in the economy, and that there are few inflationary pressures. Our labour market has undergone huge changes in recent years, partly as a result of the supply-side changes of the 1980s and early 1990s; I do not think that, when we debate economic policy, we always pay enough attention to what is going on in what I would describe as the engine room of the economy—the labour market. There has been a huge structural increase, for instance, in the amount of part-time earnings, especially those of female workers. We should take account of such changes when registering our view of what is happening.
At any given moment, a snapshot of the economy will be imprecise. Members of Parliament must therefore rely on knowledge and experience of local circumstances, as well as what we can glean from the official statistics. My conclusion from observation of life in the north-west is that there is still excess capacity in the economy. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) say near the beginning of his speech—at least, I thought I heard him say it—that he thought we were running up against capacity constraints. I find that very odd; how can the hon. Gentleman berate the Government for not lowering unemployment fast enough, pointing out that regrettably 2.5 million are still unemployed, and in the next breath say that we are running up against capacity constraints? It does not add up.
628
As I have said, I believe that there is still excess capacity in the economy, and the Chancellor admitted as much during his last Question Time. I should like to hear this evening whether that is still the Government's view. If there is still excess capacity, we should not be panicked into altering interest rates by a neurotic obsession with one day's events. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his cautious handling of monetary policy, which I consider admirable; I sincerely hope that he will maintain his stance, taking account of the mixed signals that he is receiving but recognising that we are living in a generally deflationary world. He should resist any knee-jerk temptation to raise interest rates simply because he receives a signal from the markets on a particular day suggesting that such a move is called for.
We should also take account of the huge increase in productivity, and the huge change in the inner workings of the labour market. The deflationary pressures at work in the economy are reinforced by further deflationary pressures from overseas. Our country, together with the other OECD countries, is now under severe new pressures from the emerging markets, particularly—although not exclusively—in Asia. Low-cost producers in those countries can exert on our manufacturers competitive pressures that we have not experienced hitherto. We are moving into a new world, and it is most unlikely that those pressures will go away: that is why the supply side changes of recent years are so important, and why it is also important not only to recognise the existence of greater flexibility in the British economy, but to welcome it.
Our economy has shown a remarkable ability to adapt to changing circumstances in the past few years. We should not be ashamed of that, or defensive about it; we should realise that the pressures from the far east and elsewhere with which we are now having to cope are likely to be with us for a long time.
I would welcome an expression from the Minister today of whether, broadly speaking, the Treasury supports my analysis of what I have referred to as the deflationary pressures which are still at work on our economy, and whether it believes that the inflationary pressures referred to in the financial press and elsewhere may have been exaggerated.
The Bank of England inflation report is optimistic on inflation. The current prospects for inflation are better than we have seen for many years—low inflation, a situation in which we can continue to look forward to a steady recovery of a non-inflationary kind and the firm financial policies to which the Gracious Speech refers are, I believe, the best possible bases for sustaining our recovery up to the next general election.
5.20 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I was interested to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer's insistence that he was extremely prudent and very cautious, and would do nothing whatever, regardless of the political fate of the Conservative party, that might be considered risky in advance of the election. But no hon. Member believes a word of it. We all recognise what the Government's agenda is.
There is no doubt at all that at the moment we are enjoying a recovery which is welcome, even if tit is somewhat shallow. But I find it a little strange to hear Ministers, and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T.

629
Arnold), speaking about the need for low inflation and sustained growth as if they had just come to power and were sorting out the mess of the previous 15 years. It is because they have failed to deliver on their economic policies for the past 15 years that the country is fundamentally fed up with them.
In 1979, we were told that all that wOas needed was to cut public spending, cut taxes and deregulate, and that that would create an engine for growth which would make the British economy the most competitive in Europe. But if one takes the main long-term indicators, all the problems that the Government analysed in 1979 are fundamentally still there. Perhaps the one change, a cultural one, has been within the reforms in the trade union movement, which are now generally welcomed on all sides.
In an exchange with me, the Chancellor said that the level of investment was rising, but it is rising from the lowest level of investment as a percentage of GDP in our entire history. If it is not rising now, for heaven's sake, when will it ever rise? But it does not strike the right chord when the Chancellor says that there is underlying long-term sustained confidence.

Inflation is low, and that is welcome. We do at least have a semi-independent Bank of England, which can pursue policies to try to keep inflation under control. But there is some disagreement even about the inflation target. There is a target range and a target within a target, for which the Bank of England seems to have chosen a figure slightly different from that chosen by the Government. That does not at this moment make for a particularly tidy working arrangement.
In reality, it is too early to say that we have the foundations of long-term low inflation. One of the consequences of that low inflation—it is an incidental one, and I am not sure that there is anything that the Government can do about it—is that many people, particularly business people, are rooted in a finance structure based on the security of property which has fallen sharply in value and which has little prospect of recovering its value in the short term.
That should be used as a cultural opportunity for rethinking how we secure investment and finance in Britain in future, and perhaps, as suggested to me by some German industrialists last week, persuade people in Britain that it is a good idea to invest in business, and that perhaps that should sometimes put priority on investing in bricks and mortar. There is scope for much cultural rethinking in Britain which is long overdue, the impetus for which does not appear to be coming from inside the Government.
There are, as the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and my hon. Friends says, a number of serious omissions from the Government's economic strategy. There is no strategy for promoting sustained long-term investment, and investment is too low. It is our contention, and has been now for a considerable time, that the most important single investment needed in Britain is in our people-in education and training. That is the one thing that can lay the foundations for competitiveness. Our relative performance on education and training is well behind that of all our major competitors.
630
There is also scope for doing something to narrow the gap between rich and poor, which has become so much wider under the Government. Because they have failed to create the climate for the growth they promised, they have had to raid one section of the community in order to finance their election promises to another section. The division between rich and poor has been increased, without any fundamental increase in the welfare of the community as a whole. We need some radical changes in those areas.
Britain needs political changes that can remove us from the kind of spat we saw tonight, when there is simply a scoring of party political points about what should be Britain's national interests. [Interruption.] It is interesting that that should cause ripples of mirth on both sides of the House. But when one speaks to leading players in the economies of other countries, one finds, despite political differences, an underlying commitment to what constitutes the real well-being of the economy. It is a sad admission that such a constructive consensus cannot be found here. Rather, it has been positively attacked during the past 15 years.
There is room for changing the structure of the Bank of England. We propose that it should become a United Kingdom reserve bank, drawing its policy makers from a much wider base than now. It should be given operational independence and a clear, coherent, simple range of inflation targets, set by the Government but pursued independently in an operational sense by the reserve bank.
It is also important to point out that the situation in our balance of payments is not quite as good as it appears. First, it is still in deficit, so that is not too healthy. But if one takes out the £2 billion extra oil surplus we enjoyed in the first half of this year, and the overseas net property income, one sees a deterioration in our non-oil balance of trade.
It may be reasonable to say that we have sold that oil and it has created revenue, but it has always been accepted that that is a special factor, and the reality is that we are pumping oil out of the North sea faster than we ever did before in order to try to maintain an economy which is not making enough of other things of real added value—it is, after all, only a raw material—and that will lay the foundations of long-term competitiveness.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, perhaps unbeknown to the Chancellor, said, in reply to a question on 27 October:
"Total business investment is up by more than 30 per cent. since 1979, totalling about £60 billion in the past year, of which investment in manufacturing is currently running at £11 billion a year compared to £13.6 billion in 1979."—[Official Report. 27 October 1994; Vol. 248 , c. 999–1000.]
There has been a clear, continuing decline. I do not want to enter into the argument about whether we need goods or services. We need both, but our manufacturing sector is not performing well enough to deal with our balance of payments problem or our long-term competitiveness. Added value requires goods that can be traded round the world.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) referred—I was unsuccessful in intervening—to windfall taxes. The first interesting point was that, at the end of that exchange, there seemed to be agreement on both sides that there could be something called a windfall profit.

631
Windfall taxes were originated by the Conservatives, who now find themselves being beaten by a Labour shadow Chancellor—
Mr. Streeter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bruce: Let me finish my point first.
It was argued in 1981 that the banks had made excessive profits because of the prevailing rate of interest rather than any performance of their own. I do not notice Chancellors intervening when excessive losses are made because of changes in circumstances and offering to reinstate windfall profits.
But the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is saying that, because the privatised utilities have a privileged position in the market, because they have a monopoly, they should be taxed on their excess profits. He is right to identify that something should be done about those profits, but I do not agree with his solution. If there is agreement on both sides that excess profits have been made, the question that then arises is, from whom? The answer is that they have been made from the consumers, and the money should go back to them. They should be returned to those from whom they were made.
Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is talking about windfall profits and tax thereon. Has he calculated the excise duty that might be raised on the legalisation and sale of cannabis, which I understand to be Liberal Democrat policy? Is that how the hon. Gentleman would fund his excessive spending plans?
Mr. Bruce: I shall not waste time talking about the costings of a hypothetical situation that does not accord with my party's policy.
Ms Hilary Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bruce: I shall not give way on a point relating to the intervention of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter).
If the Government recognise that there are such things as windfall profits because privatised utilities are not operating in a genuinely competitive market, surely such profits should be returned to the people who enabled them to be made—the consumers—and genuine competition should be introduced into the market, so that the regulator is not left as the last resort to intervene to ensure that that happens.
Ms Armstrong: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is precisely because the Labour party considered to whom the profits should be returned that it proposed a windfall tax? The taxpayer provided and built capital for the industries to which the Government extended excessive capital tax allowances on privatisation. We believe that the taxpayer was done out of a great deal of important money because of the manner in which the Government privatised industries in the first place.
Mr. Bruce: As someone who instituted a debate on the money resolution on the Bill that led to the privatisation of the electricity industry, which the Labour party was willing to allow to go through on the nod, I do not need lectures from the hon. Lady on the circumstances in which privatisation took place.
632
My argument is that, fundamentally, the profits that are now being generated are at the expense of gas and electricity consumers. They are the people who should benefit from the windfall. I hear nothing from the Government on electricity, or from the Labour party on gas and electricity, about making the markets genuinely competitive. That concerns me.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): The hon. Gentleman makes a fair debating point, but perhaps it is also fair to ask him to explain exactly what he means. Is he supporting the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mrs. Armstrong) and the Labour party generally? If he says that windfall profits should be taken hack and redistributed to the consumers, ES he supporting the case for a windfall tax—yes or no? if he is not, is he suggesting a price mechanism or another structure for redistribution?
Mr. Bruce: That is a helpful intervention. Liberal Democrats are not supporting a windfall profits tax, for the reason that I have put before the House. If one believes in a market economy, that sits rather uncomfortably with picking and choosing the industries that are thought to be making excess profits and imposing excess taxes upon them. My party suggests that the moneys should be returned to the consumers. The regulator mechanism was set up by the Government, and it could be amended by the Government to ensure that rebates were given to those who generated excess profits initially.
I move on to the competitiveness, or lack of it, of the United Kingdom internal economy. The issue arises from the Government's privatisation programme. It is interesting that the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, Mr. John Maples, suggested that the programme had been a dismal failure in terms of popularity. It appears that it has not struck a deep chord with the people, and that it is not one of the things they want.
Large corporations that were in the public sector have been transferred to the private sector without the corresponding development of a genuine free market mechanism. That must be recognised and understood if the privatisation process is to be completed in a manner that will give people confidence. That will mean that the chairmen of the industries involved will not secure massive increases in their salaries.
They are doing so at present because their industries are not operating in a genuinely competitive environment. At present, it is too easy for them to make the sort of profits that keep shareholders happy without displaying the same degree of enterprise that would be necessary if they were operating in a freer, open and rnore competitive market.
The Government seem to have no drive in resisting takeovers or in examining concentrations of economic power within the market place. The past six references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have emerged from that body without further action being taken. Those involved are beginning to wonder whether the MMC is prepared to operate in a way that will ensure that people who are trying to consolidate their position within the marketplace will be faced with a genuine analysis of whether what they are doing is anti-competitive.
The consequence of the build-up of competition is a greater distortion between large and small businesses within the domestic market. The performance of the small

633
business sector needs to be dramatically improved if the overall performance of the economy is to improve. Small business formation has increased, but the survival rate has deteriorated. There is not much purpose in founding small businesses if they do not live to be successful, profitable and established.
Several actions need to be considered to ensure that we have a much more vigorous and successful small business economy. Small businesses constantly complain of their inability to gain access to competitive finance on the same basis as many of their larger customers, on which they depend for their business.
A small company business man came to see me recently—this is a simple anecdote—who is in the plant hire sector. He told me that he had had his best business year for five years but had laid off three of his five employees because he could not afford to pay their wages. That was because his customers were taking three or four months to pay him. He was aggrieved because his customers, almost without exception, were receiving money from their creditors on cheaper terms and with less security than he was forced to offer to extend his overdraft even to fund his basic working capital. That is something that should not be allowed to continue.
My party would support measures to deal with late payment, along with legislative enforcement. It would like to see the creation of regional investment banks from which business men could gain access to finance on competitive terms, as well as advice on how to manage their businesses and training to enable them to run businesses successfully.
There are many people with skills who do not necessarily have particular skills to run a business in a way that ensures that it does not fall into financial difficulties. They must be made aware of how to meet their commercial and legal obligations. Other countries provide this training rather better than we in the United Kingdom and, as a consequence, have a much more successful business environment.
I ask the House to accept that the Government cannot rely on statistics that relate to the past 12 or 18 months as a justification for the failure of the past 15 years. They do not amount to evidence that we have finally achieved a fundamental turnround in the performance of the British economy. If that were the position, investment would presumably be at a record high, not a record low. We would then see a situation in which the country was beginning to lay down the foundations of economic wealth, which would enable us to achieve what I believe would command support from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—lower taxes while maintaining funding to the public services.
As long as the Government fail to deliver the economic cake, the stronger is the case that it is time for them to go. The answer is not to raid one part of the cake to provide for their supporters. They, and their supporters, have found that that is not a sustainable strategy. It has not carried the Government through even the first half of a Parliament, and it will not be accepted that it is the foundation for the next general election.
5.38 pm
Sir Edward Heath: We all listened with great interest and understanding to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneux) when he turned to the section of the Gracious Speech that relates to Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has acted with great skill in his handling of the matter. He has been absolutely right in his timing when dealing with the various proposals that have been made. He has displayed caution, and that is surely essential in such a situation.
So we watch the process with great interest and hopefulness. At the same time, we all realize—at least I hope we do, and I am sure the Prime Minister does—that a very difficult situation could arise as the talks progress. That would happen when they reach the question of the unification of north and south. We have had to face that problem before, as we did in 1973, and it is inescapable that those at the conference will have to face it again.
When it appears that unification is not possible, what will be the reaction of those who have been the cause of so much strife and distress in Ireland over the past 25 years? That is the crucial question. I do not doubt the capability of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) to handle that and to handle his party, but I hope that the British Government recognise the immense dangers that could beset us when we reach that point.
If the hard core of the IRA decide that they have been holding their fire to see whether their aim can be achieved and they see that it is not being achieved, what will their reaction be? We have to be prepared for that, and I hope that the Government, especially the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Northern Ireland, are taking all possible precautions. That is why I believe that the Government must act with skill as well as with caution.
On the economy, I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the course that he is following. He too is displaying great skill as well as steadiness. The Queen's Speech as a whole shows that the Prime Minister and the Government want a period of stability rather than constant change; they have learnt the rather painful lesson of recent events in our country.
The Chancellor has been successfully following that policy, and has stood out against the various proposals put to him. In particular, he has stood out against giving undertakings to reduce taxation. In that he is absolutely right. I have said before that no Chancellor of the Exchequer should ever give undertakings about raising or decreasing taxation, any more than he should give undertakings about increasing or decreasing interest rates.
I found the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Thomas Arnold) fascinating. I agreed with a great deal of it, but where I disagree, of course, is on the public examination of such matters with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was landed with that; he did not choose it himself. To have the committee discussing its views with him and advising him, and then telling the press exactly what its views are and what it has advised, is most undesirable. Those people have plenty of ways of advancing their views and taking part in discussions, without their being given the official sanction that they now have.
I believe that having those people around weakens the Chancellor's position. The same applies to the publication of the minutes of the meetings between the Governor of

635
the Bank of England and the Chancellor. That will lead in time to speculation about who will win the battle. If there is a battle of various schools over interest rates, people will ask whether the Chancellor or the Governor will win. That too increases speculation, and that is undesirable.
If, as has been suggested, we had an independent Bank of England as a regional part of a European bank, that would be different. None the less, an independent bank would not call in the press all the time and say, "These are our views," any more than the Federal Reserve Board in Washington or other independent banks do. The Bundesbank does not call in the press in and say, "We have been thinking about this or that"—not for a moment. However interesting such things may be to the specialists, they should be kept inside. The Chancellor should be allowed to reach his own conclusion, and people can criticise him afterwards.
I do not believe that the Chancellor should accept views put to him in that way, especially on the level of taxation. He is under great pressure from some of his hon. Friends to say that he will reduce taxation, and he is wisely resisting those pressures. I hope that he will continue to do so. Similarly, today he was pressed to say what he intended to do about interest rates, but rightly he resisted. The action that he has taken so far on interest rates has been strong and he has stood by it, as I hope he will continue to do.
That is especially important now because of the indecision—I almost said "tumult", but let us reduce that to "indecision"—in the United States. A new situation has arisen there with total Republican control of Congress. What will the Republicans' attitude be to internal affairs—interest rates, inflation and so on? What will they press the Fed to do? I believe that they may be rather more in tune with it than the Democratic Congress was. All that will affect the rest of the world, including us, and the Chancellor will have to take that into account in making his decisions. I am sure that he will do so.
The Chancellor rightly said that he could not deal with questions about the Budget today, and I do not want to try to give him lectures on that subject.
One thing that has always worried me is the Child Support Agency. In our constituencies, we all hear about the agency constantly. Many people arrived at my advice bureau last week with problems relating to it. The Government have said that they will review it and try to remove the impediments, but meanwhile the agency is causing agony to many people, and we know that its effects have included some suicides. There is a feeling of great unfairness.
According to the figures produced by the Child Support Agency for 1992 to 1994, £418 million saved in benefits has gone straight to the Treasury, and only £15 million has gone to help in any way those affected. That is an extraordinary relationship. I do not think that, when we passed the legislation, we realised that, with almost 90 per cent., if not more, of the money raised, it was a question of putting funds into the Treasury. I admit that I did not know that. The matter needs a fresh look and speedy action.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend not accept that it is the parents who should be looking after their children, not the parents of
636
other children, who have their own responsibilities? The money has to come from taxpayers who are themselves parents, so the position seems to me perfectly fair.
Sir Edward Heath: I do not think that the way in which things have been done is fair. For example, I take great exception to the fact that parents who have settled their affairs in a court of law, have been told to pay a fixed sum and have carried out their obligations right from the beginning now find themselves suddenly landed with paying a very large sum.
I heard of a case last week in which the father had been notified of the amount that he had to pay. The agency said that it wanted an answer from him within a fortnight, and he sent his reply back immediately, in March. Although the agency promised to reply, it did not do so until October. It told him what he had to pay and then, a week later, he received a letter saying, "This is what you owe in arrears since we first wrote to you in March." That is intolerable, and I do not understand why the Government cannot deal with it, and at least stop such things happening. I cannot accept that that aspect of the agency's work is fair.
I was most interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove said about the conditions of the market and the situation that has arisen concerning the head of British Gas. I say openly that I condemn the chief executive, for a number of reasons. I once had to use the phrase
"the unacceptable face of capitalism"—
or at least, I did not have to use it, but I did. It is one of the two quotations from me in "The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations".
To me, what is now happening is the unacceptable face of post-privatisation. I condemn it because it shows that the chief executive has no understanding of the relations between his corporation and the public. He did not understand the reaction that it was going to produce in our fellow citizens, the press or elsewhere. First, he said that he was going to go ahead with it, but I have seen reports that he is now going to give it back, or to somebody or other. That shows a rather delayed recognition that he was in the wrong.
The other reason why I condemn it is that it does great harm to private enterprise as a whole. Those who want to cause harm to private enterprise are given an immediate weapon which they can use, and he ought also to have recognised that at the time.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend not accept that he himself has just used that weapon against the chairman and chief executive of British Gas who, far from taking a 75 per cent. Rise—as we have read in the papers—have recognised that, in a monopolistic company, there is no particular link between risk and reward for chief executives and that, in a spirit of openness, they have done away with lots of perks which they previously had and rolled them up into one open cash package, and have therefore pioneered openness in the way in which these salaries are set? Has not my right hon. Friend fallen for the mass of propaganda against what is the fair treatment of a chief executive?
Sir Edward Heath: I do not accept that, and the chief executive ought to have realised what was happening at the time.

637
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) mentioned that gas is not in a free market economy and that it is not up against all of the competition. We all know perfectly well that people who have gas supplies cannot afford to start switching over to other supplies of energy. In fact, British Gas is very largely a monopoly organisation and we must take that into account, as must the regulator.
The other question which has been raised is labour in the economy. The Chancellor has rightly emphasized—I think he has used the phrase "a modern workhouse"—that the modern situation for the labour market is quite different from what it was. The question is, what should be done about it?
One sees that people who were formerly in established positions, and who accepted them as such when they started their careers, are now entirely insecure. In my constituency, bank managers who thought that they were there for life and who are very skilled have been sacked at the age of 48. How do they make a fresh future in the labour market? That is a practical question, and it can only be answered by a Government, and a Department of Employment, who are prepared to think it through and organise solutions.
The solutions will not come from private enterprise. It is not in their interests to do so, and, in any case, they will say that they cannot afford the training which is necessary if we are to expand industry as we want. I hope that the Chancellor will succeed in persuading Government organisations to analyse the change, and see how it can be dealt with satisfactorily.
It is said that anybody leaving university in the United States can reckon on having three careers, and at each stage he is trained for the next one. There may be a considerable amount of truth in that. We cannot do anything of that sort—we hardly have any provision for it—but we ought to be thinking in those terms in the long term.
In saying that, I ask myself what the television viewer is thinking about the debate this afternoon. He could not really find anything about the debate to satisfy him. We sit in the Chamber, and we jump up constantly. Nobody on the Front Bench can any longer deliver a speech, as there are an enormous number of interventions. Hon. Members who intervene are not trying to find a solution, but are trying to find some way of knocking the other chap down.
The most distressing thing about the present situation is the loss of confidence of our citizens in this Parliament as an organisation and as a system, and the only people who can put that right are ourselves. I hope, therefore, that we can perhaps give some thought to the way in which we behave in the Chamber. People want to know what ideas we have, and not hear us constantly throwing back what happened in 1938 or 1949 to try to make capital out of the other side.
We have had the publication of Mr. Maples's manifesto. I do not want to say too much about it, as I no longer get mixed up in party affairs. [Laughter.] I have great admiration for those who are now responsible. The only thing I would say is that I do not understand how a deputy chairman can be appointed who is such a
638
simpleton as to think that he could put all his views on paper and nobody else would ever see them. He must be an absolute simpleton.
We live in an age of leaks. The press used to complain to me that the trouble with my Government was that nobody ever leaked, and that they could not get stories. I was told that we had to change it. We did not, but now everything leaks, and Mr. Maples's views have all come out. He stresses in his analysis that people everywhere are suffering fear—fear of unemployment coming to them, fear of their health going when they get old, and fear about housing and whether they will be able to complete their mortgage and if they will be thrown out. If they are thrown out, where will they go? All aspects are governed by fear.
In support of Mr. Maples—and he needs support—I would say that I hope we take notice of his analysis. The views of the party's former supporters up and down the country were taken. Let us take notice of them, face up to them and say what we will do about each aspect of that spread of fear. That fear cannot be countered by contrary debate in the House, which will not give the citizen any release from his fears. He will go to sleep tonight, if he can sleep, with exactly the same fears he had before we began the debate.
When it comes to Mr. Maples's solutions, I repudiate them absolutely. I am disgusted with some of his proposals for inter-party warfare, yobbos and trying to trick people into positions. Those views are completely unjustifiable. I hope that the Prime Minister and the chairman of the party will repudiate all that as quickly as possible.
The fact that those views have been put on paper is already doing us immense harm in the country. I know that my supporters—such as I have—are disgusted by the idea of how we should play the party game. It has never been our case before, and I hope that it will not be in the future. It will be a big task to deal with the removal of fear, and whatever party is in power must tackle it.
My final object in this speech is to connect the economy briefly with other aspects of the Queen's Speech—defence and foreign policy. I believe, that at the moment, there is a big gap between the departmental approach and Government thinking. In a speech last night, the Chief Secretary said that we must emphasise a worldwide approach. We can no longer carry on a worldwide approach. We do not have the economy to do that. We cannot compete with other organisations which have a worldwide approach, and not many organisations have that approach. Unless we are in the European Union, and playing a full part in it, nobody will take any notice of our worldwide approach anyhow.
We must look today at the situation in the former Yugoslavia. Are we gradually being dragged further into an active war? If so, what are the justifications for that? One may say that NATO is involved, but organisations which are there for a purpose always feel that they should be carrying out that purpose. That is not what we want from NATO, and the situation must now be watched carefully. How much further are we to be dragged into this conflict?
On defence, we must have a much clearer idea, through Europe and NATO, as to our defence purpose in this new world. In defence terms, this is not the old world of the two super-powers and the nuclear threat—perhaps by

639
carelessness that threat is still there—but a new world. We cannot think that we can run the Pacific and the Atlantic, dab in Africa whenever we feel like it, and maintain our position in Europe. That is completely unrealistic. It is sad that it has taken our country longer than any other since the second world war to recognise that change in the power structure of world affairs. We must recognise it.
That change has its impact on the economy because of the cost of defence. If one tries to do everything all the time, the costs are tremendous. I hope that the Chancellor will face up to that when dealing with those who want us to have a worldwide defence role to show how important we are.
We must not forget the trade implications of foreign policy. We must make some radical changes, because we are losing out. We can say that our exports are going up, but if the Chancellor's predecessor had accepted the advice to go into the European exchange rate mechanism in 1985, when the rates of exchange for the mark and the dollar were almost exactly what they are today, we would not have had so many of the problems that we have encountered in the past 10 years. He was, however, overruled by the Prime Minister of the day—a ghastly and expensive mistake.
We can say that our exports are going up: well and good, but in comparison with what is happening in other countries, that rate of growth is small. It is not enough for us to maintain our position. If one looks at the rest of the world, we are dabbling in foreign policy at the expense of our trade and our economy. That must stop.
Let us consider the People's Republic of China, with which our relations are the lowest they have been since 1972, when I established full diplomatic relations. That country is flourishing and is expanding at the rate of 12.5 per cent. every year. It is attracting enormous investment. The Chinese will not accept any technological investment unless it represents the latest technology. Last year, I opened a plant in China for one of our biggest firms. The chairman took me to one side and told me that that plant was far more up to date than our own at home.
We must recognise what is going on there, but, alas, too few of our people do. Japan, the United States, Germany and France therefore conduct far more trade with China than we do, but we were the first in. Our trade with China is almost insignificant. People may argue that that trade is increasing, but it is increasing from such a low level that it will never reach anywhere near comparison with the trade conducted by those other countries.
What about more controversial trade, such as that with Iran? People may say that Salman Rushdie had the right to write a book, but I do not believe that it is necessary for us to damage our trade and our relations with Iran because the Iranians took offence at a religious book. They are entitled to take offence, and their religious people can do so.
It is a complicated issue, so I will not go into at the moment, but there is no point in just saying that we should do nothing, because we could do valuable trade with Iran. The trade that is done now is nothing like what we could
640
get. The same argument applies to Libya. Two suspects live there, but no one can be absolutely sure that they are guilty, yet we have no relations with that country.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: This is a modest intervention, as is the intention behind it. I find the characterisation of the situation in which a British author, a British citizen, finds himself a very unhappy one. I accept that much, if that is what my right hon. Friend is saying, but it is intolerable that, as a result of a fatwah, a United Kingdom citizen is under threat of death. We expect the instruments of our Government to defend our citizens in such circumstances.
Sir Edward Heath: That means that he gets the protection that the Prime Minister and others get. He can be protected—
Mr. Shepherd: Absolutely.
Sir Edward Heath: But that does not mean that we must stop our trade. That is my point—we go too far in such matters. In any case, Salman Rushdie has the answer; he could give an apology quite simply, and say that he did not mean to insult the Muslim faith. That would have settled matters, but he did not offer that apology. Now we have a situation in which the death decree was laid down by the head of the religion; he is the only person who can remove it, and he is dead. That must test the ingenuity of the Foreign Office a little.
Apart from Libya, we also have the continuing problem of Iraq. Iraq is now complying with United Nations resolutions in turn and that compliance should be recognised, just as it has been recognised in Serbia. If people start to accept UN resolutions and that is confirmed by a UN organisation, we too should accept that and say, "Okay, you are moving on the right path."
The obvious cause of the problem with Iraq is that the Americans can never forgive themselves for not having got rid of Saddam Hussein. They had no authority from the UN to do so—no one had—but that failure governs American policy all the time. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the problem, because the more Iraq is attacked, the more Iraqis will support Saddam Hussein.
We are in the position to learn the lesson of Nasser and Egypt. We were determined to get rid of him, but we failed, and he remained in power for another 18 years. Look at the damage he did to us. Everyone else went in and took all the trade and the business. We should learn from such events.
We should continue to get the Iraqi resolutions carried and show the Iraqis that, when they accept them, things will change, particularly for the people of Iraq. I feel for them most strongly, because millions in that country are suffering enormously. The children are not getting properly fed, and the hospitals do not have the medicines to deal with sick people.
People may argue that that is their fault, because they should get rid of Saddam Hussein, but that is completely unrealistic. How can they get rid of him? They cannot say that they will have a general election in six weeks' time and vote for another person. They cannot possibly do anything like that. The more that Saddam Hussein is attacked, the more the people will dig in and support him. We should think about the people of Iraq.

641
I have always supported sanctions, right from the days of the Italian invasion of Abyssinia. One must look carefully at the whole business of trying to bring about results through sanctions, without any regard for the impact on people of the country, and consider whether that policy reinforces that attitude or not. We should take a good look at our policy.
I hope that the Foreign Office will take an entirely fresh look at the world from the point of view of how we support trade and investment for our industry and all the facilities that industry requires. The petty carping about the amounts spent by embassies on entertaining should stop. In 30 years' connection with the foreign service, I have never yet met an ambassador who wanted to entertain for the sake of it. All ambassadors entertain to support some national cause; the last thing they want to do is indulge in private entertaining for its own sake. They are only too glad to get a night off. Such carping does us no good, and does infinite harm among people who understand such things. We must support that Foreign Office policy.
We will be able to discuss Europe on Monday. We have already had a typical outburst tonight in which an attempt was immediately made to falsify the figures. The Chancellor has already cleared up the amount that goes to Europe.
Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Edward Heath: No, I am sorry.
Mr. Marlow: What was the falsification?
Sir Edward Heath: My hon. Friend can read Hansard tomorrow.
We are hypocritical, and that is what infuriates our fellow members of the union. We damn extravagance and waste, but those partners then read the British press and see that the Government put £40 million into a private hospital which has gone bankrupt, so the £40 million has been lost.
Mr. Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Edward Heath: No, I am sorry. We can discuss the European Union on Monday, and after that we can discuss the Budget.
I conclude by congratulating the Chancellor. He has been very steady. I hope that he will remain firm, because that is how he will best produce the results for us.
6.9 pm
Mr. John Cummings: I am pleased to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in order to make a brief contribution to this afternoon's debate on the Gracious Speech.
I am also pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). During the miners strikes of 1972 and 1974, which we fought bitterly, I never imagined in my wildest dreams that I would face the right hon. Gentleman across this Chamber. The battles of 1972 and 1974 were fought honourably and the miners gained tremendous benefits, one of which was a free pit
642
helmet and free pit boots for the first time in our lives. I shall discuss that later when I deal with my local economy.
Much has been said this afternoon about the global, European and national economies, but to the people whom I represent the most important is the economy in the district of Easington. Since 1979, we have lost about 15,000 jobs and 10 collieries have closed. We have seen the demise of the coal mines and of the Peterlee and Easington coal mines development corporation, the only development agency in the area with direct access to central Government funds to build and manage huge industrial estates. It succeeded in attracting some 9,000 jobs into the area. Unfortunately, the Government, in their so-called wisdom, decided to abolish the corporation six years ago.
In the past 18 months, Ministers have proposed the establishment of 235 acres of enterprise zone within Easington district. During that period, we have seen the closure of collieries at Easington, Dawdon, Vane Tempest, Seaham, Murton and South Hetton, but no decision has been made about the enterprise zone. I appeal to the Minister to make a determination immediately. Our superb east Durham task force, the county council, the district council and East Durham development agency have fine teams of men committed to regenerating and strengthening the local economy.
Vane Tempest colliery closed in 1992. A report prepared by the Coalfield Communities campaign, an all-party organisation, stated:
"The survey carried out at Vane Tempest shows that 52 per cent. of the men are still out of work over a year after the closure was announced. Only 28 per cent. are in paid employment or have set up in business for themselves. Moreover, the majority of those men who are now working have experienced a drop in their earnings, often a very substantial one. Only a handful of the men who left Vane Tempest have found better paid work outside the mining industry. But more than 90 per cent. of former miners are worse off. The picture is not therefore a rosy one for the local economy around Vane Tempest."
A "substantial drop" in wages means a drop of between £50 and £75 a week. That alone is having dire consequences on local trade, shopping centres and shops not just in Seaham, the location of Vane Tempest, but throughout the Easington area.
To regenerate the economy we must quickly get to grips with disposing and reclaiming the hundreds of acres attached to redundant colliery sites. Some 263,000 tonnes of coal have been stocked on a site in Easington. They are surrounded by several hundred former colliery houses that are in a deplorable condition. The miners were prepared to live with coal heaps on their doorsteps so long as the mine was providing work and reasonable wages to allow them to live a reasonable existence. Now, however, the mines have gone but the coal stocks and deplorable colliery housing are still there. Unless we are prepared to tackle the problem of decaying housing, coal heaps and a decaying local economy, I fail to see how we can attract investment into the area.
The area has many qualities. We have a fine, skilled work force, who may require retraining to prepare for modern industry. We have good means of communication, such as the east-coast railway, a dual carriageway and international airports to the north and south of my constituency. But unless we are prepared to tackle decay from within, I doubt whether we shall attract investment.

643
I question the value of jobs that are coming into the area. For example, the terms of engagement for temporary workers—packers with a minimum pay of £1 an hour—employed by ABC Contract Services Ltd of 5, Great Queen Street, London, which has a plant in Newcastle and is now acting as a third party providing labour for modern industrial units in Peterlee, say:
"Unless specifically agreed to the contrary, The Temporary Worker is not entitled to payment from the Employment Business or its clients for time not spent on Assignment whether in respect of holidays, illness or absence for any other reason."
In 1994, those are the terms and conditions for workers in sophisticated industries located in Peterlee. Former mine workers, who have given a lifetime's work to the industry and the country, must expect a minimum wage of £1 an hour. Conservative Members cannot manage on £31,000 a year with a clutch of directorships thrown into the bargain and react vehemently against Labour Members who want a minimum wage of £4.05. We now have an example of a minimum wage of £1 an hour, and it is not unique. We must consider the morale of a work force that has always had the dignity of real jobs earning real wages in a real industry. That matter must be dealt with if we are to have a buoyant economy in the north-east.
I recently read a report in the press, which may have been leaked by Ministers, that the Government intend to examine the old workmen's compensation legislation of 1948. I shall read a letter from a gentleman who, in 1946, when he was 14 years old, lost a leg at Vane Tempest colliery. It says:
"My … colleagues took a pithead collection and raised six pound five shillings and sevenpence"—
there were no large sums before the workmen's compensation legislation.
"I never at any time received a lump sum from the coal owners or British Coal insurance. You may recall (or have been told) men would lose life and limb and receive nothing prior to the National Insurance Act … I make no claim to a lump sum nor do I wish to do so. I have no axe to grind but never the less I do feel that the `Old cases workmens compensation' are a forgotten cause."
He is not alone in being a forgotten cause: 5,000 people in the Easington constituency are dealing with Peterlee and Seaham officers in relation to workmen's compensation. I am sure that the figure can be multiplied many times over throughout the country.
If the Minister wants a buoyant, mobile, motivated, skilled work force, the correct ingredients must be present to enable them to respond positively. Ministers should not seriously contemplate removing any aspect of the workmen's compensation legislation. The ordinary operative will find it beyond his means to prosecute a case in a civil court. I therefore ask Ministers to consider that very carefully.
In conclusion, I have enjoyed making a brief contribution to the debate on the Loyal Address—perhaps not very gracious to the people whom I represent—but perhaps I shall have another bite of the cherry when the Chancellor presents his Budget next week.
6.21 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: Having witnessed the amazing footwork of the Chancellor and enjoyed the tour de force of the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E.
644
Heath), it is embarrassing to have to make a speech, but I shall not sit down. I shall make one or two observations about the Loyal Address.
The Loyal Address makes it clear that the Government believe that the economy is strengthened by privatisation and that they want to increase competition. I was confused, therefore, about why they confined competition and privatisation to the gas industry, rather than finishing the job in the aviation industry.
There are three legs to the aviation industry—airlines, airports and airspace. The Government privatised British Airways and got the best out of it, after which they privatised the airports and got the best out of them. They failed to privatise the Navigation Air Traffic Control Service to obtain the best from airspace management. NATS has a turnover of £500,000 million a year, employs 5,500 people and has spent £350 million on its new traffic control centre in Hampshire.
Although NATS was not ready for privatisation in the 1980s, when it had out-of-date organisation and was riddled with restrictive practices, today, thanks to the charismatic chairmanship of Christopher Chattaway and its director general, it is ready to benefit from the involvement of the private sector. We shall be able to give more incentives to staff, achieve better productivity from them and manage airspace more efficiently to absorb the capacity that will inevitably increase as new terminals are built.
Too often, nationalised industries become a haven for mediocre management who are protected from the disciplines of the marketplace, whereas in the private sector the ethos is one of achievement. If shareholders are not happy, the management goes. By delaying the privatisation of NATS, which is not mentioned in the Gracious Speech, the Government are holding back the full potential of our airline industry, which is one of the most successful in Europe. By keeping one facet in the public sector, they will reduce available airspace and, as a result, slow opportunities for expansion.
The crucial lubricant for the airline industry is the privatisation of NATS. In turn, money for additional investment will not be forthcoming because NATS is still in the public sector and is confined by Treasury rules on the public sector borrowing requirement.
You may ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the relevance of that to the country. It has serious economic consequences. Heathrow is the hub airport of the world; the importance of allowing it to develop and expand is all too evident. However, because of our tortuous planning processes, the fifth terminal will not be on stream for a decade or more to handle the ever-growing traffic, which instead will be diverted to Schipol in Holland or Charles de Gaulle in France. Holland and France have recognised the significance of airports to economic regeneration, because airports attract not simply more tourists but highly important imports and exports of cargo. No wonder France and Holland have special arrangements for planning inquiries and funding arrangements for airports.
Britain will maintain its share of international air transport only by ensuring that minority pressure groups, who often have little interest in the economic regeneration of an area or the nation, are not given too much influence to them to disrupt and delay the planning process.

645
Although environmental damage and noise nuisance are important, they should not be allowed to become buzz words for extended delay and procrastination.
I think that we all accept that there is a physical limit to the size of airports such as Heathrow. No one wants to build a third runway in Harlington or Staines but, in exchange for a commitment not to go beyond the present boundaries, the planning process must be relaxed so that new terminals can be built faster and use can be made of the increasing number of slots and movements that new technology will make possible. Let us not forget that the airlines have already made great investments in quieter aeroplanes, but, just as railway stations are noisy places and living near motorways is not peaceful, we must accept some noise footprint around the perimeter fences of airports. Often, people who buy homes near airports work at them too.
Why are the Government, who are committed to competition, committed to privatisation and committed to freeing up the market, not privatising the public utility, NATS?
I have identified three culprits. First, no doubt British Airways had something to do with it. It has done a complete U-turn from backing the idea to absolute disapproval, probably because it foresees new slots arising from deregulation reducing its dominance and increasing the competition. No doubt it is especially mindful that, on routes where British Midland Airways has a foothold and has competed, prices have tumbled by as much as 25 per cent. I must declare an interest as I have been involved in British Midland for the past 12 years.
Routes from Glasgow, Edinburgh and London are among the cheapest air miles in the world. We all know that, where there is competition, prices come down; where there is no competition other than from other state European airlines, one will find that fares remain unnecessarily and uncomfortably high. Competition reduces air fares. By not privatising NATS, air fares are kept up because independent airlines cannot get the slots to compete with the main carriers.
In addition to British Airways not wanting to loosen the slots, the air vice marshals are opposed.
Dr. John Marek: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Steen: I shall give way in a minute.
The air vice marshals of the Royal Air Force are involved in the management of NATS. They say that the Royal Air Force should not be prejudiced as its slots would be at risk. The RAF has 5 per cent. of this country's airspace. Surely some arrangements could be found to accommodate the air marshals.
Finally, a chorus of voices uses the deregulation buzzword "safety" and believes that things are safe only when they are in the public sector. British Airways is a privatised airline that is very safe and has a good track record. Those responsible for safety at airports are even more vigilant following privatisation. The fact that something is privatised does not mean that it is less safe.
646
We all know the benefits to this country's economy of privatisation and competition. We all know how consumers have benefited. The Government need to free the third leg of the aviation tripos and allow the airline industry to be liberated.
6.30 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). I do not know whether he has lived near an airport, but there is an airport in my constituency. One of the biggest problems with all airports is noise. The hon. Gentleman did not touch on that subject.
I also understand that the Secretary of State for Transport has promised to introduce legislation that could go a long way towards controlling noise. I should be interested to know when he will stop procrastinating and bring the legislation before the House so that we can debate it. The control of airport noise does not necessarily mean threatening competition. The bulk of the noise comes from old piston engine aircraft. The hon. Member for South Hams should take a good look at airports before he says that we should let private enterprise rip and should not worry about anyone who is kept awake all night by noise. The Secretary of State has not even provided grants outside London so that people can insulate their homes from aircraft noise. I thought that the hon. Member for South Hams would make an issue of that, but he chose to talk about something else. His fifth problem in relation to airports is the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East—me.
Listening to the Queen's Speech, I wondered whether perhaps, instead of increasing Ministers' salaries, they should be cut. This year's Queen's Speech and many others have been about Ministers taking less and less responsibility for their actions and those taken on their behalf. Today, if I ask a Minister a question about an outside quango, he or she refers me to a quango. The quango has to answer, not the Minister, but the Minister proposed the legislation in the first place—a sorry state of affairs. Perhaps we do not need so many Secretaries of State and Ministers, and could save the taxpayer some money by reducing the number.
I was disappointed that, in his speech, the Chancellor only touched on the general agreement on tariffs and trade and Pacific rim countries. I take GATT seriously, as I do the fact that, as a country, we must be involved in the Pacific rim trading area. We have not received much information from the Government about those two specific subjects.
In relation to those two issues, I am concerned that it is not clear how the American Senate and Congress will react. There have been many signals about GATT and the Pacific rim agreements from the Republicans and it seems that they may well start to hold up the agreements. One must wonder exactly what that would mean for Britain's trading position in those areas. It is vital for the Government to give us more answers to the questions on that subject and to monitor the position closely.
Another element of the Queen's Speech that gave me cause for concern was the hint that public expenditure was to be cut. The Government may think that that is wonderful, but I do not. Will local government once again be used as whipping boy? Will the Government knock local government about? They can certainly cut local government expenditure by deducting grants to it. If the

647
Government do that this year, more and more services will be affected. I have no doubt that the Government will say that they have not yet prepared the Budget, so we shall have to wait and see what happens when it is announced.
Over the years, the Government have subtly cut local government expenditure. They have cut about £300 million, one way or another, from Coventry city council over the past 15 or 16 years. There was not much on that subject in the Queen's Speech—only a small hint of what might happen. When we try to push for more information, we are told that we had better wait until the Budget, when all will be revealed. That will be interesting.
Last Monday, colleagues and I presented a petition with a quarter of a million signatures to No. 10 Downing street. Many people from the Coventry region signed that petition, which referred to the public's revulsion at increases in VAT on fuel. I am sure that if Conservative Members have taken soundings in their constituency associations or surgeries, they will know that the public want the second phase of VAT dropped, as they did the first.
Over the weekend, Conservative Members were saying in the press that the Government's financial objectives had been achieved and they should perhaps consider dropping the second phase of VAT. I hope that those Conservative Members will use their influence with the Chancellor to persuade him to drop the second phase. There is no justification for it—the Chancellor keeps saying how well he is doing in balancing the budget and how wonderfully the economy is doing under his stewardship.
My city has a major industrial base, which has been eroded. Coventry has two large aircraft factories—in fact, it has one and a half, as one has been run down. When I talk to people involved in the aircraft industry, it becomes clear that their concern is that money and Government assistance for research and development are not forthcoming. We do not need to talk about the aircraft industry alone but can consider the broad spectrum of British manufacturing, including the car and electronics industries and other technologies. One of the biggest cost factors, apart from labour, is research and development. I was disappointed that that subject was not mentioned.
It is interesting that the richest people in our country pay only 8 per cent. of total VAT, whereas the poorest pay about 20 per cent. So the rich do very well and are well protected and, once again, the poor are penalised.
I am sure that many hon. Members would agree that pensioners who have taken out private pension schemes—there are about 6 million pensioners—have every right to be worried. The proposals at which the Government have been hinting notwithstanding, pensioners are still concerned about the lack of accountability for such schemes, which have not delivered what was promised in the late 1980s when these people left the state earnings-related pension scheme to join private pension schemes. There have been too many scandals and it is about time the Government did something to end them.
I note that the Government have been using underhand methods when it comes to the so-called assistance for poorer families and pensioners who have to pay the increased VAT. That help is taken into account in DSS calculations of their grant eligibility. In that way, the Government give with one hand and take away with the other.
648
When hon. Members supported the legislation that set up the Child Support Agency, they intended to go after absent parents who never paid a penny for their children. I shall not rehearse the arguments against the CSA tonight. Suffice it to say that all the fears that were expressed about it have now come home to roost. The Government publish figures to show how successful the agency is, but once again it is the innocent people who honoured their court commitments to their families who have discovered that they will be the ones to be penalised.
As a matter of urgency, the Government's proposals to change the operation and formulae of the CSA should be brought to the House, and parliamentary time must be found to debate the issue. It is no good condoning press leaks stating that the Cabinet have been discussing this or that idea for the CSA. Why do not the Government show a little heart and introduce legislation as soon as possible to stop the misery that they are inflicting on first and second families alike?
The Queen's Speech also failed to mention the problem of homelessness and how to deal with it. The Government seem to be hinting that they will do something to control drugs, but many young people in Coventry in shelters such as Norton house, run by the Cyrenians, now rely on charities to raise large subscriptions because the Government have steadily reduced their grants in recent years. While the problem has multiplied, grants to deal with it have been reduced.
I have only skimmed over the surface of some of the omissions from the Queen's Speech. The Government may claim to want a steady ship and no more controversy: "Let's see how the economy develops." That may be the Government's view, but while they await events, events may overtake them. They must realise that, by their inaction and failure to put matters right, they are inflicting more and more hardship on the most vulnerable people. They must reconsider their so-called steady course and introduce some humanitarian legislation, just for a change, based not on greed but on human need.
6.43 pm
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not want to enter into a lengthy argument with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) because I have the honour of serving with him on the Home Affairs Select Committee. Politically speaking, he is decidedly an improvement on his predecessor. I should point out, though, that the VAT compensation scheme does protect pensioners and poorer households, to the extent of £2.5 billion. Added to that are other benefits, such as cold weather payments and energy efficiency schemes, to say nothing of granny bonds, and so on; thus are the Government protecting people who would otherwise have to pay more VAT on fuel.
I should have liked to tell the hon. Member for.Easington.(Mr.Cummings)—he is not here now—that, much as I was moved by his speech, I hope that he will not mind my observing that if the president of his union, the National Union of Mineworkers, had not led the miners into a long and crippling strike, demand for coal

649
would not have transferred to gas and the six collieries around Easington about which he was worried might still be open today.
Mr. Etherington rose—
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I was directing my observation to the hon. Member for Easington. If the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene on another topic later, I shall certainly take his intervention.
I came into the Chamber because there were rumours of a rare sighting of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in the Lobby. I hurried in to hear so great an intellectual expounding his post-neoclassical symbiotic relationship endogenous growth theory. I was sadly disappointed. Apparently, his speech about Labour's economic policy and Labour's pledges is to be made outside the House. It is perhaps not too cynical of me to suppose that the reason for that is known as Brown's law, which the hon. Gentleman expounded for the first time on the "Today" programme 10 months ago. When challenged about an absurd pledge, he answered:
"Unless you can quote me chapter and verse about commitments made in the House of Commons, then they were not made."
So we shall no doubt hear all sorts of commitments in tomorrow's economic speech, but they were actually not made because the hon. Gentleman did not make them in the House.
I hope that the Chair will allow me to deal with that part of the Gracious Speech which declares:
"My Government will play an active part in tackling drug misuse, drug trafficking and organised crime at home and abroad."
Drugs and organised crime have become so serious in some countries that they pose a threat to economic stability as well as to democracy and political stability.
Most people in Britain today are rightly worried about law and order and are finding it a little difficult to accept the truth: we are at last beginning to reduce crime. I think it particularly alarming that most people who feel so strongly about crime do not have the faintest idea of the extent or potential of the organised crime that is coming to us across national boundaries. As George Staples, head of the Serious Fraud Office, told an international symposium on organised crime held in Cambridge in September, three of the fraud cases in his office at the moment exceed by several hundred million pounds each the entire proceeds of burglary in England and Wales in one year.
Most fraud is simply never investigated and its perpetrators are never caught, let alone brought to trial and convicted. Millions of pounds can be moved out of one country's jurisdiction to another's in the twinkling of an eye along the electronic highway, without any police force being aware of how, where, why or when it happened—until long after anything can be done about it. Many international banks have investigators running around like headless chickens, yet they are keeping quiet about what is happening lest confidence in those banks be diminished. It is clear, therefore, that we face a very serious problem.
It is not just the computer and modern technology that are to blame. International barriers have broken down in other ways. There is easy international travel, burgeoning international trade, and the disintegration of the
650
communist-centred world. That results in vulnerable, confused systems in small new countries which seek a fast track to economic success, stability and recognition. There is a growth in gangs which exploit the vulnerability of confused systems in which there has been a breakdown of law and order. We do not know how many of the 2,000 banks which, I am told, have been set up in Russia are properly supervised and controlled.
We can add to that the spread of the drugs culture which, through money laundering, is responsible for much international economic crime. It is almost impossible to be too cataclysmic in one's assessment of the potential for international crime.
Massive drug addiction is causing terrible human suffering, but we must also consider the financial aspect of such a drug culture. In Bolivia, the total profit from the illicit sale of 56,000 tonnes of coca products is $750 million a year. Peru produces 60 to 75 per cent. of the world's entire supply of cocaine, which yields $1,000 million a year. Colombia, the world's main processor of cocaine, yields profits of $300 million. In those countries, most of the total exports and gross domestic product are drug related. A third of the best agricultural land is owned by drug barons, who have private armies, form their own political parties and use terror gangs to intimidate politicians, security forces and judges, and operate by bribery and murder.
By the time the drugs are processed and distributed, the world value of the cocaine trade alone is put at several hundred thousand million US dollars. That is as much as the entire gross national product of countries as big as the United Kingdom. With that money, land is bought and developed, factories are bought or constructed and businesses, including banks, are set up to process and launder the money. It is invested in legitimate businesses where it grows to become a significant part of national economies.
I have not so far mentioned the organised crime in the countries of transit such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay and Venezuela where processing takes place and drug consumption grows and destroys young lives. I have not mentioned the United States, where 5 million people use cocaine and crack, or the Caribbean. Some 80 per cent. of the heroin seized in Britain comes from south-east Asia—the golden triangle of Burma, Laos and Thailand, or from the golden crescent of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.
There are millions of opium and heroin addicts. There are 2 million heroin and 1 million opium addicts in India. Pakistan has 1 million heroin addicts and there are 2 million in Iran. Other centres are in China and Hong Kong. Then there is the herbal cannabis of west Africa and Jamaica and the cannabis resin of Lebanon and Morocco. Millions of addicts and billions of dollars are being created by drug trafficking operators who are looking for financial systems to infiltrate, Governments to buy and economies to undermine.
It has been authoritatively estimated that at least five countries are known to be under the control of their crime syndicates, and that others in eastern Europe and elsewhere are becoming sitting targets for future attack. Some of that activity is bound to come our way. Already, we are told that 50 to 60 per cent. of all crime in the United Kingdom is drug related. Some people even want to legalise cannabis, and that would lead to more young people getting the drug habit. As Governments control

651
supply and demand rises, even more gangsters will reap the rewards of drug trafficking. It is a relief to us all that the Government have set their face against any move to legalise drugs.
Although drugs are certainly the largest field of activity of organised crime in the United Kingdom, there are many others: the dealing in and supplying of firearms, the theft of cars and lorries, the smuggling of illegal immigrants, forgery and counterfeiting of currency, the pirating of goods, the theft and disposal of works of art, illegal gambling, prostitution, extortion, blackmail, protection rackets, benefit fraud, computer fraud, credit card fraud, fraud against the European Union budget, bootlegging, tax evasion and violence in support of those activities and terrorism. Whatever else we know of those crimes in Britain, we know that by their very nature they will be substantially under-reported.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs is looking into organised crime, and public evidence to the Committee has shown that the nature of organised crime in the United Kingdom has changed. There is no longer a British "Mr. Big"; nor are there large gangs of domestic organised criminals. Now our gangsters are the tentacles of international organisations.
Much of the United Kingdom's serious crime is based on overseas cultural or ethnic groups such as the mafia and the Jamaican and Caribbean yardies who distribute drugs, employ violence and set themselves up as role models for the young. The Chinese and Vietnamese triads are involved in drugs, fraud, extortion and intimidation. There are the Colombians, and I have been told that there are about 40,000 illegal Colombian immigrants in Britain, most of whom are connected in some way with the drugs trade. There are Japanese, Turkish and Kurdish gangs and middle east terror gangs. Only last week the Jewish community was warned by the police to take extra care, even though a middle east peace settlement is in the making.
Now there are eastern European gangs. The national criminal intelligence service told the Home Affairs Committee that up to 40 per cent. of Russia's GDP may be controlled by organised crime. Mr. Giacomelli, the director of the United Nations drugs commission, told us that law was breaking down in Russia and that countries around it were threatened. That has spread to Germany, and we were told that there are already about 200 money laundering cases with Russian connections. An estate agent has said that a significant number of houses and prime sites in London are bought using Russian money. Much of that international activity is facilitated by our still tolerant immigration laws and, of course, by the 20,000 to 40,000 refugee asylum seekers who come to this country every year or who seek asylum when their studentship expires.
How are we to control crime? We educate, or we should, those who are most susceptible to infiltration or attack. It was heartening to see in today's issue of The Daily Telegraph. fan article about an education committee that invited an ex-junkie to tell sixth formers about the terrifying consequences of taking drugs. We can prevent crime by stimulating awareness, vigilance and close monitoring. We must develop our means of gaining intelligence about drug activities through international co-operation and perhaps by changing the law to allow greater access to tax records.
652
We target organisations and individuals who are known to be at criminal work. We bring offenders to trial where there is sufficient evidence, convict them, if we are lucky, and deprive them of their assets. We should impose deterrent sentences as well, because depriving such people of their assets is not enough to deter them. They will just try again.
During all that, we co-operate with all the internattonal agencies using all the international conventions—with the United Nations drugs control programme, the G7 financial action task force, the chemical action task force and the European Union ad hoc working group on organised crime. We co-operate with Interpol, Trevi, CELAD, MAG—and with Europol, when it comes about—and with individual countries sharing our problems. All that is good, necessary and likely to prove helpful.
The one blot on the horizon of effective international co-operation and national control, the one positive obstacle to our campaign to control international crime, would seem to most of us here in Britain to be the proposed dismantling of formal border controls in accordance with the Single European Act. That Act, as everyone knows, amends the European Community treaty on measures to establish a internal market.
On the face of it, anyone from a European Union country can come to the United Kingdom without check, bringing goods without check, providing services without check and using capital without check. Anyone who has managed to get into a European Union country from outside Europe and become a citizen can also do those things.
On the face of it, the Single European Act drives a coach and horses through all the necessary preventive controls on potential economic crime coming into Britain. The consequences to us are too horrific to contemplate. Already, we have reduced customs checks on persons and goods travelling between member states and entering the United Kingdom, hence the blue channel at our international ports of entry.
We have to ask whether and to what extent this concession to the aquis communautaire is making crime prevention potentially more difficult for us. In his evidence to the Select Committee, Mr. Neil Dickens, the national co-ordinator of the Regional Crime Squad, thought that it had, and that international criminals from outside the European Union—never mind those within it—had only to enter the European Union at its weakest part to move freely around as they wish.
Of course the Government has retained some important defences and I welcome that. We do not concede that the Single European Act requires any reduction in immigration controls. We argue sensibly that we retain the right to require inspection of the status of all persons entering the country, whether or not they are from another member state. As we have the right to control entry by non-EC nationals, we must be able to see whether they are genuine EC nationals by inspecting them.
We also argue that the qualifying words of article 7a—that the free movement of persons, etcetera, should be in accordance with the provisions of the treaty—mean that the other treaty articles allow us to exclude persons or restrict the export or import of goods where public order, safety or security are threatened.

653
There is also a general declaration attached to the Single European Act which gives member states the right to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries, combating terrorism, crime, the traffic in drugs and illicit trading in works of art and antiques. We retain the discretion to apply such measures as we consider appropriate.
Having said all that, it is clear that a majority of our European Union partners take a literal interpretation of article 7a and want nothing less than the complete abolition of internal border controls, although they are prepared to allow some compensating measures. The European Parliament has started formal legal action against the European Commission over its failure to ensure that we dismantle all our border controls, although that case is unlikely to be heard until the latter part of next year, and I understand that we are intervening to put our case.
I am sure that the British Government are quite determined to defend our frontier controls. That is because, unlike the rest of the European Union, we are a island, we do not have continuous borders with other countries and our borders are themselves a control. I hope that the Government will continue to hold out against such intervention in our protection because I am sure that that would be consistent with the wishes of the people whom we represent. That is why we have not signed the Schengen convention. We believe that border controls are more effective than any internal checks, even if we had compulsory identity cards, which we do not. The Government must not weaken in that resolve.
Regardless of the argument about border controls, even closer co-operation, particularly with our European partners under the third pillar of Maastricht, title VI, which the Home Affairs Select Committee monitors, is absolutely vital if we are to continue to contain the international crime wave which otherwise will come to us.
I know only that if the threat of organised international crime is anything like that which I have supposed it to be in the course of my remarks, it is absolutely vital that we do not erode any of our powers to keep out criminals, illegal immigrants, drug traffickers and terrorists and that we ensure that the external frontiers convention, on which we are working with our European Union partners, is an effective weapon to protect our borders.
Our free society is under sustained attack. We must not be defeated by technology or by unacceptable laws that bind us and are imposed on us by others. I, for one, do not accept that crime is the necessary price we pay for a free society and I hope that everyone in the House and the Government agrees.
7.6 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I am pleased to follow the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), but I found his opening remarks about the mining industry rather disappointing. If he looks at the historical record, he will see no evidence to support his remarks. However, his overall contribution was interesting.
654
The Gracious Speech was less ambitious in comparison with previous years; nevertheless, it takes us in the same old economic and social direction. It is an approach that has caused a great deal of suffering for a substantial minority of our citizens and it has severely restricted the manufacturing capacity and competitiveness of British industry.
The warning in the Gracious Speech that there is likely to be a further reduction in the share of national income going to the public sector signals another assault not only on the minimal welfare state, but this time on the workplace. Established working practices are now under attack. Those include the 40-hour week, rising real wages, paid holiday leave and employers' contribution to pension funds.
The assault arises because the Government's analysis of the problem facing the United Kingdom economy is seriously flawed. It is clear that the blame for the United Kingdom's ills is being put at the door of the welfare state and the burden that it places on employers and the state budget. That is patent nonsense. The growing cost of unemployment and the ill health that results from unemployment is a cost that is directly attributable to economic mismanagement over the past 15 years.
The complete surrender to the concept of the unfettered market has released forces that can destabilise entire social systems. We are already experiencing the impact of that negative side in the United Kingdom—growing poverty, high unemployment, increasing crime and drug abuse.
Markets can help direct resources and maximise their use, but if the mitigating influences are dropped, the worst effects can win over the best. By driving down wages and terms and conditions in industry, the Government are unwittingly creating the conditions for the United Kingdom's industrial demise.
The United Kingdom can hope to compete only at the higher-value end of the market; we cannot compete at the lower-value end of the market with the newly industrialised countries. If we are to equip our industries so that they can compete, we need an industrial strategy to ensure that we are keeping our lead in the industries in respect of which we have an advantage. We must also strengthen and encourage the industries in respect of which we are weak. That means more spending, not less, on supply-side factors such as research and development, education and training.
A major problem is that the markets are now global in their character. Bringing the forces that have been released back into a framework will not be easy, but it can be achieved. Many new industrial countries have a competitive advantage precisely because they can exploit their labour markets outrageously by paying poor wages and avoiding spending on social provision.
The way forward is to improve living standards for all, not to worsen them. Therefore, in exchange for the western world keeping its markets open to the new industrial countries, they should be called on to agree and recognise trade unions and collective bargaining as part of a social package of rights for working people. That could be extended to include an environmental code to protect the world against further pollution. Without that, it is inevitable that the world will divide into trading blocks. Protectionism will be inevitable. America's drift down that road can already be detected.

655
Those were part of the conclusions of the participants in a seminar at the International Labour Organisation headquarters in Geneva a fortnight ago. The participants included the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. Is not it ironic that the one thing that the Conservative party likes to hate most—the social chapter—is a concept that could save European manufacturing industry?
When the Minister replies to the debate, perhaps he will tell us whether he would agree to a social and environmental clause being added to the constitution of the World Trade Organisation. That would create a world trade policeman and the effect would be to increase the quality of life of people in the new industrial countries. It would also protect the environment and stimulate further world growth.
Without those measures to mitigate the worst effects of the market and to create a new global code of world trading practices, it is unlikely that we shall increase permanent jobs in the European Community. However, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton said, we can be sure that we shall experience more of the already creeping economic and social decay.
I want to consider the United Kingdom in relation to jobs. Most of the jobs created between September 1993 and September 1994 were, according to a Trades Union Congress report, white collar, insecure and low paid. The report was based on Department of Employment figures, which showed that 130,000 new temporary jobs had been created, but over the same period 26,000 permanent jobs had been lost. The latest research on pay undertaken by the Library for my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) reveals that 10 million workers in the United Kingdom are living on earnings that are less than the European Community decency threshold.
Clearly, we need a more positive response from the Government than that which is contained in the Queen's Speech. They must recognise that job security and full employment, to which they claim they are now committed, go hand in hand; and perhaps the Minister can tell us later whether the Government still accept the commitment made by the previous Secretary of State for Employment when he visited the TUC.
The Government must do three things. First, public sector-led investment must be increased. At the moment, investment is 20 per cent. below its peak in 1989 before the recession. It is well below that of our major competitors. Secondly, greater investment in research and development is called for. Again, we spend less on research and development than our major competitors.
Finally, there should be an end to the unfair discrimination against the public sector. In that respect, the Government could make a start by freeing the Post Office from the straitjacket of the external financing limit. That would allow the Post Office to compete on an even footing with other commercialised but publicly owned postal services such as the French, German and Swedish services.
According to what the Post Office management told the Trade and Industry Select Committee, no other successful Post Office in the world has divided its post and parcel services from its counter services, as was proposed by the President of the Board of Trade. The Post Office can remain public and profitable.
656
We must be clear that the gas Bill proposed in the Queen's Speech is not about creating conditions for cheaper gas prices; it is about making a national private monopoly into a series of smaller monopolies. It is really about sharing out the spoils. That point was made clear by the announcement that gas prices are to rise by 3 per cent. while the management has awarded itself fat increases. That is one of the things which people find obscene about Tory Britain.
It would have made more sense and been more helpful if the Government had declared their intention not to increase VAT on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. in 1995 and if they had announced a planned extension of the gas transportation network to rural areas of the UK, to end the existing situation of haves and have-nots.
My constituency is partly rural and many of my villages, such as Stainborough, Wortley, Greenmoor, Crow Edge and Dunford Bridge, have no natural gas supply. That must also be the case in many other rural constituencies. Many of my constituents must pay 30 per cent. more for liquefied gas than users of natural gas, or they must buy more expensive smokeless fuel. The inclusion of VAT means that they are paying more tax per unit of energy used than people on natural gas. That inequality in the access to domestic energy should not be tolerated in a modern industrial society. When the Minister replies, I hope that he can tell us whether there are plans afoot to deal with that situation of haves and have-nots in respect of people living in urban areas as opposed to those in rural areas.
In the energy economy, large amounts of gas are now being burnt to generate electricity. According to The Financial Times Coal UK there is currently 7,380 MW on stream and another 6,380 MW under construction. Another 3,300 MW are planned before 1995. That capacity, together with the 6,500 MW that have been given section 36 approval, means that by 1999–2000, we shall be burning the gas equivalent of 55 million tonnes of coal. That is an inefficient way of using gas. I do not believe that any hon. Member believes that we can continue to use it at that rate without it impacting on prices and, ultimately, on British competitiveness.
At the same time, a great amount of coal has been locked into the ground by colliery closures. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) said, mining communities continue to suffer from the effects of the unwarranted colliery closure programme. When referring on Monday to unemployment rates in mining communities, the President of the Board of Trade used the travel-to-work statistics. He should have considered a recent report, which shows that male unemployment in some mining villages is as high as 60 per cent. That occurs because mining is generally a rural occupation and unemployment tends to be in pockets.
Villages such as Woolley in my constituency seem to have been forgotten since the colliery was shut. The community hall has closed down, and so have the school and the last shop. The causeway that links the village with Darton and crosses British Coal property needs resurfacing, and the derelict land that British Coal owns around the village needs cleaning up.
Dust from substantial coal stocks still on the stocking ground is a nuisance. Life for the mainly elderly residents worsens day by day. My representations to British Coal and to the Minister for Energy and Industry and requests

657
for assistance have met rebuffs. The regeneration package of £200 million for areas affected by pit closures was clearly insufficient, and more needs to be made available. The Government have failed miners and mining communities.
Another regrettable omission from the Gracious Speech was a proposal to replace the outrageous regulation that currently prescribes chronic bronchitis and emphysema as industrial diseases in relation to deep coal mining. Of the 43,827 claims received by September 1994, there have been only 4,469 awards. Some 13,995 cases were rejected on X-ray evidence, and another 18,658 failed the so-called forced expiration value test—the FEV 1 test. That is a disgrace and it needs to be dealt with immediately. I hope that the Minister will impress on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security the need to tackle that outrageous regulation.
Even if a miner is diagnosed as suffering from that terrible debilitating disease, he cannot claim compensation from British Coal's pneumoconiosis scheme. That is despite the fact that, in order to succeed with a disablement assessment, he must show X-ray evidence of simple pneumoconiosis. The Minister for Energy and Industry will not widen the scope of the current scheme. No doubt the Treasury has a hand in that, fearing that the effects of such a move might influence the attitude of would-be buyers into the coal-mining industry. That is a disgraceful decision. It means that men who have made an enormous contribution to the United Kingdom economy, most of whom are elderly, have now to prepare for long, drawn-out court battles to try to win compensation.at a time of life when they could do without such worries.
The Gracious Speech offers the people only more of the same, and they have had a bellyful. It exposes a Government who have run out of ideas and a Government who have no vision. The sooner they make way for a Labour Administration, the better will be the fortunes of the British people.
7.22 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful for this opportunity to deal briefly with the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
Opposition Members ask us to
"regret that the Gracious Speech excludes positive measures to remove the fear of unemployment".
It goes on to suggest that we
"tackle the unacceptable and clumsy reforms of the NHS and to cease treating education as a business rather than a service".
I wish to demonstrate that that premise is false, and why that is so, especially in respect of education and unemployment.
One has only to look at page 3 of the Gracious Speech to see that the Government intend to deal with unemployment in very straightforward terms. The Gracious Speech states:
"My Government will continue to promote enterprise, to improve the working of the labour market, and to strengthen the supply performance of the economy. They will bring forward legislation to promote increased competition in the gas industry and to reform the agricultural tenancy laws in England and Wales. A Bill will be introduced to create a Jobseeker's Allowance, reforming benefits for unemployed people and giving them better help into work."
658
If that does not deal with those issues straight on, I do not know what does.
People in my constituency, which is both rural and urban, will be delighted to see reform of the agricultural tenancy laws as it will stop the leakage of people away from farms and will open farms to increased tenant farming. At present, landlords and farmers who are keeping their own land in hand are inhibited from providing land for tenants because they consider that the tenant and his successors will, in effect, be able to hold on to the land in perpetuity. The new tenancy laws and the more businesslike arrangements to be introduced in the agricultural tenancy Bill will provide greater flexibility and therefore better chances for young people, which had previously been denied them.
The employment picture in my constituency is extremely good. The Library figures for the past few years show that unemployment has gone down consistently and at a pretty good rate since July 1986. Unemployment in my constituency—which, as I have said, covers rural and urban areas and about a quarter of the area of Leicestershire—was 2,524 in July 1986. By October 1993, it had fallen to 2,070, and in October 1994 it was 1,863. There have been decreases of 26.2 per cent. since July 1986 and 12.1 per cent. from September to October this year. That evidence demonstrates inaccuracy of the implications of the amendment.
Harborough has the lowest unemployment in the midlands and the 10th lowest unemployment in England. I venture to suggest that my constituency is not much different from many others represented by Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. We have lower unemployment because business men and women do not allow themselves to be interfered with by local or national Government unless it is strictly necessary.
My local authority works hand in hand with the business community. Indeed, Harborough district council recently produced an admirable brochure advertising the good sense of doing business in Harborough. The cover states that Harborough is
"the right place for your business".
The figures demonstrate that Harborough is the right place to do business. The brochure proudly points out that
"The area is renowned for its engineering, shoe, hosiery and graphics sectors. Nevertheless the industrial base is very broad indeed. Market Harborough accommodates the head offices of HP Foods and Golden Wonder as well as manufacturing industry such as Tungstone Batteries, Crosby Valves and Harboro Rubber.
The area is rapidly becoming the `hub' location for many major UK concerns … There are approximately half a million working people within the 'travel to work' area around the district, a great recruitment advantage."
There are good schools and good universities in Leicester. I refer to Leicester university and De Montfort university at Loughborough, which is just outside my constituency. All those factors persuade business people at home and abroad to set up business in Harborough and thus to provide employment in the east midlands. Those figures and facts demonstrate to the Henley centre for forecasting that Harborough is one of the top 25 local authority areas in respect of future economic prospects. If local authorities in other parts of the country, including those saddled with Labour and Labour-Liberal Democrat authorities, would follow the policies of the Government and of Harborough district council, things would be a lot better in those areas as well. The Labour party wants to

659
introduce the social chapter and the minimum wage, and increase Government intervention, all of which would be deleterious to the economic strength of my constituency and others like it.
Business men in my constituency tell me that their order books are filling up in both the long and the short term. Only a couple of years ago, they wondered whether they would have any work to do in six months' time, or even in one month; now they are crying out for additional labour. The local papers are full of job vacancies, and businesses are finding it difficult to fill those vacancies with people of the right calibre and with the right skills. My constituents are beginning to reinvest their profits in their businesses.
As I have said, the local picture looks extremely good and is likely to improve further. That picture, however, is not confined to my area; it is replicated throughout the country, as people would discover if they could be bothered to look. We are now enjoying vigorous, sustainable export-led economic growth as a result of effective, comprehensive Government economic policy.
In the third quarter of 1994, British gross domestic product increased by 4.2 per cent. year on year—faster, I believe, than was predicted even by independent City analysts. Manufacturing output rose by 5 per cent. in the three months to September 1994 against the same period last year, and over that time industrial output rose by 5.9 per cent. In October 1994, retail sales were 3.1 per cent. up on the previous year; in the third quarter of this year, company profits rose by 5.6 per cent.—up 18 per cent. on last year. Both the IMF and the OECD expect Britain to be the fastest growing of the major European Union countries, and at least equal with France in 1985.
Where in that evidence is the basis for the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition? It does not exist. Let us examine the national employment figures, which reflect those in my constituency. Unemployment fell by 45,000 in October, and has fallen by 450,000 since December 1992. The stock of vacancies at job centres has risen for 12 consecutive months, with well over 200,000 new vacancies being notified every month and probably twice as many available from other sources. That reflects the good news in my region.
We are also seeing the benefits of low inflation. Inflation is firmly under control, with underlying inflation remaining at 2 per cent. in October for the second month running. If that is not good news, I do not know what is. Interest rates, at 5.75 per cent., are at their lowest since the 1970s, and their reduction from 15 per cent. in December 1992 means £13.75 billion a year off industry's annual interest rate bill. That is just what my local business men want, and what business men want throughout the country. The reduction also takes £150 off monthly payments on the average £33,000 mortgage. That is what my home-owning constituents want, along with those who hope to own a home. I trust that the Opposition will come to realise that, no matter how dismal the picture that they want to see, the facts tell a different story.
660
On top of that—
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Unit wage costs?
Mr. Garnier: I am glad that my hon. Friend is following my remarks; like me, he represents a manufacturing constituency.
Mr. Shepherd: I also have the same brief.
Mr. Garnier: We are singing from the same song sheet for once, and there is no harm in that. We must not keep these matters to ourselves: we must let the world know that the Government are doing a superb job, and that our party is leading the economic revival in this country arid, indeed, in Europe. I look forward to a strong and helpful Budget from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on 29 November, which will continue that trend.
The picture that I am painting, both locally and nationally, is of sustainable improvement. The Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, however, not only complain about the dismal unemployment picture—looking, as they do, through the wrong end of the telescope—but complain that we treat education
"as a business rather than a service".
On the contrary, the three grant-maintained schools in my constituency are leading the way in education. Moreover, they are not in the leafy suburbs of Leicester, such as Oadby, or the well-off parts of my constituency such as Market Harborough; nor are they in the rural villages. They are in the poorest parts of the constituency, in Wigston and south Wigston, where the so-called working class that the Labour party wishes to keep in poverty are crying out for the schools to change from state-dominated high schools to schools that they can run themselves. Indeed, they have elected to allow their own governors to run them for the benefit of their children.
I visited South Wigston high school yet again last week. It has recently installed a new workshop containing computer-aided manufacturing and computer-assisted design equipment, which is providing children aged between 10 and 14 with the latest technology—technology that is not only interesting for them to see and use, but highly relevant to the needs of the local economy and to their own needs as future employees in science, technology, engineering or manufacturing. That would not have been possible under local authority domination, but it is possible now that the school has been freed from that yoke and become grant maintained.
Opposition Members often say that the grant-maintained system is no more than a massive bribe to encourage perfectly good local education authority-run schools to move into the independent sector, and that once the so-called bribe money has run out the schools vial be in trouble. South Wigston high school has been grant maintained for some time; not only has it kept up its teacher numbers, but a long queue of parents are waiting to send their children to it. It has seen its neighbouring LEA schools having to cut teacher numbers and make other cuts, not because the Government have starved the education system of money but because the LEA is incompetent and cannot manage its affairs sensibly.
The Opposition amendment complains that the Government should
"cease treating education as a business rather than a service".

661
My constituents send their children to a grant-maintained school precisely because they are fed up with the way in which the LEA fails to provide a service because it is not conducting its affairs in a business-like way. There is nothing wrong with a state-funded business providing a service if it does so sensibly, but that LEA has gaily lost £6 million in the past year without even knowing where it has gone. The director of education has had to take early retirement owing to ill health.
Mr. Clappison: Does my hon. Friend's constituency resemble mine, in Hertfordshire, where many children in low-income families are choosing to enjoy the benefits of an independent education through the assisted places scheme? Will his constituents, like mine, wonder how the abolition of that scheme would enable them to receive a service, as the Opposition would have it? How would they feel if they were told that they could not have the opportunity to choose for their children?
Mr. Garnier: As always, my hon. Friend makes his point eloquently and forcefully. I cannot add usefully to what he has said, but he has backed up my argument and destroyed the argument that apparently underpins the amendment.
I have taken enough of the House's time to make the few points that I wanted to make about unemployment and education—
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Why not go on?
Mr. Garnier: I could go on much longer, but I must allow others to speak.
I trust that Conservative Members will demonstrate with renewed vigour that the Government's policies on employment and education are succeeding, and that the Opposition's ideas—such as they are—are vacuous and devoid of content. Nothing that we heard from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) suggested that he had applied his mind to anything of an economic nature this afternoon, let alone during the time in which he has held the post of shadow Chancellor. I trust that he will continue to hold that post for many years.
7.39 pm
Mr. Bill Etherington: I am pleased to be called in the debate. I was unlucky in the debate on Monday, which was my first choice. I was offered only five minutes, so I thought that it might be better to try again and I am grateful that I have been successful.
I start by mentioning the several measures that I welcome. I welcome the proposal to set up an independent criminal cases review authority. That is long overdue. It has been obvious for many years that there is a gap in the criminal justice system, which as a result has failed to address the problems of fairly obvious miscarriages of justice such as the cases of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, among others.
That measure is timely, coming as it does when we are threatened with the implications of reduced legal aid, which is a potential minefield for further injustice if people decide that they cannot afford legal advice and try to do things themselves.
662
I am pleased that, as befits a body of this nature, the review authority will be free of the courts and the Government. I look forward with interest to the debate on this measure when it comes before the House, and I hope that it will also be free of any influence from the police. I do not say that as an anti-police or a pro-police speaker, but one must recognise that many of the famous cases of injustice in recent years have involved the police either failing to disclose evidence to the defence or, on occasion, tampering with evidence.
There has been maladministration within the police force, and it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the review authority has its own investigative body which is independent of the police. If they cannot go that far, they should at least say that when there is any question of police probity in a case of an alleged miscarriage of justice, some independent system will be introduced.
I am also pleased to see that powers are to be introduced to curb dangerous mental patients. That issue has caused great public concern at a time when society is grappling with the Government's policy on care in the community which has replaced institutions and, on occasion, hospital places. The problem of dangerous mental patients has been exacerbated by the failures of the care in the community programme.
I sincerely hope that there will be some improvements. Care in the community is an excellent concept, but if it is not properly administrated—to date it has not been—or properly resourced, I fear that it will become debased and that the public will lose confidence in the concept, which would be a tragedy.
There is a proposal to abolish the regional health authorities. I do not feel strongly one way or the other on that, because I have had little to do with them. However, if the Government intend to abolish local health authorities and, in particular, the Sunderland health authority, I will welcome that with open arms.
I also welcome the monitoring of national health service trusts. That is not being done effectively at the moment through the purchaser-provider system. I give an example of something that has caused me great concern, which I am pleased to bring to the attention of the House.
Recently, a number of people in my constituency were collecting signatures on petitions against the Sunderland health authority's proposal to get rid of 400 hospital beds. During their endeavours, I saw four people who worked for the two hospital trusts, Priority Healthcare Wearside NHS Trust and City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust—the names are nearly always a mouthful; more words than deeds, in many respects—saying that they would like to sign the petition but they did not dare do so because there , could be repercussions and recriminations with their employers. That is scandalous.
Those people are not just employees of the hospital trusts; they are also citizens living in the area who are affected by whatever happens within the health service in their region, and in a democracy, they should be free to air their views. In the health service reforms, we are seeing the systematic gagging of employees. I hope that the more liberal-minded Conservative Members will support any argument against such activity. That is long overdue.

663
When I raised the matter with the chairmen of the Sunderland health authority and the Sunderland health commission, they both agreed that that should not happen, that it was immoral. I then asked what they intended to do about it, but they both said that it was nothing to do with them; it was a matter for the hospital trusts.
I may have a simplistic view of a market, but I always thought that, in a market, the buyer could control the seller. I should have thought that, if a buyer told a seller that he did not like what he was doing, and that if matters were not put right he would cease purchasing from him, he could carry out that threat. Therefore, I was not too convinced by what those two gentlemen had to say.
The fault within the NHS at the moment is the lack of democratic accountability. I hope that the Government's proposals will do something about that. It may be that the organisation would be better off run by civil servants rather than Government-appointed quangos. We may find in the long run that that is more democratic—something that I hope Conservative Members will consider.
I welcome the legislation for the Channel tunnel rail link. Like many hon. Members, I recently travelled from London to Paris on the new train. It was a wonderful experience but, paradoxically, from Waterloo to the Channel tunnel I felt as if were on a suburban branch line, but once the train hit the tunnel and from there on to Paris, one is talking about modern latter-day travel.
I recall three years ago when I was in France that the link between Paris and Calais was under construction. The French have done wonders to complete it so quickly, and it is disappointing to find that there was not the same enthusiasm and support from the Government for the line on this side.
One reason I look forward to that legislation is that, if we have a decent link between the capital and the Channel tunnel, we will also have better links between the regions, the capital and the tunnel. I should like more freight to go by rail—the potential is there. That would coincide with the views of the recent Royal Commission report on pollution and transport, which was not particularly in favour of road transport.
It is interesting that a country similar to ours—at least, it was before unification, but it has changed somewhat now—the former West Germany, sends 35 per cent. of its freight by rail, whereas we send 7 per cent-one fifth of what Germany sends by rail. If we tried to match the figures in Germany, we would have a much better life, a better environment and a little more relaxation for our citizens.
I was interested to read about the agricultural tenancies legislation, at present in embryo. It is interesting, but a word of warning. If the Government want it to be worth while, they may have to forget their paranoia about deregulation. Landlords always have more power than the tenant. That applies throughout Britain. It always has, and it has been exacerbated since 1979 by the Government's legislation.
Landlords will ensure that there is only enough land for tenancies to allow them to get a good price. There could be certain problems with that. If anyone doubts that, they should consider office tenancies. We are led to believe that there is plenty of office accommodation, but anyone who tries to negotiate an unjust lease with a landlord may
664
be told to stuff it. I hope that that is not unparliamentary language. Other landlords will have exactly the same type of contract.
It is clear that a cartel is being operated. Rent offic:ers point to clauses that allow rent increases but not to clauses that permit decreases. The market seems not to work in that respect. I hope that that will not be the result of the proposed agricultural tenancy Bill.
I welcome the Bill that will establish environment agencies, not least because I represent part of an area in which there has been great concern about the possibility of polluted drinking water because of the presence of mine water. It would be a good thing to bring all the relevant organisations under one umbrella.
The Bill is to be welcomed also because a recent report suggested that the United Kingdom does not come out too well when it comes to environmental conditions and protection of the environment. Our performance does not compare well with that of some of our European colleagues or competitors within the European Union.
Organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth do not have a political agenda in the sense of politics as we understand the term in this place. They say that, unless the Government tackle industry in an appropriate manner, their efforts to protect the environment will be meaningless. There is a widespread view that sometimes there is laxity when it comes to tackling industry, which is still the greatest polluter in the United Kingdom.
Domestic violence has always been a problem. To introduce worthwhile legislation would require—I do not say this flippantly—the wisdom of Solomon. Nevertheless, I am glad that the Government recognise that there is a problem. We cannot begin to solve a problem unless we recognise that one exists.
I am unhappy about the proposed Bill that will bear on evidence in civil courts. It is proposed, it seems, to allow hearsay evidence. Earlier in the century, Lord Justice Birkenhead said succinctly that, in civil cases, the burden of proof was not beyond reasonable doubt, as it was in criminal cases, but somewhat lighter, in as much as it was based on the balance of probability.
Surely hearsay evidence is the last thing that is wanted when the test is the balance of probability. I hope that the Government will think extremely carefully about that before they introduce their Bill. The admittance of hearsay evidence would have many ramifications and could lead to abuses as great as those that have flowed from the Child Support Agency. It could be unpopular with everyone, while benefiting no one.
We are told in the Gracious Speech that the Government intend to introduce a Bill
"to tackle discrimination against disabled people."
It is interesting that the Government said that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), would cost £17 billion. Not everyone agreed with that assessment, but that was the Government's view. The Government say that the cost of their Bill will be £17 million. They claim that it will cost only one tenth of 1 per cent. of the expenditure that my hon. Friend's Bill would have entailed. I do not accept that we can have an equivalent Bill that is reasonable and acceptable at a thousandth of the cost. The proposal is scandalous.

665
The way in which the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood was dealt with was a disgrace. It was a blight on the House, and an even greater blight on the Government. A Minister had to admit that he had been somewhat economical with the truth. A Conservative Member was rebuked by Madam Speaker for misleading the House. I hope that those involved will never forget that scandalous state of affairs.
One of the worst proposals in the Gracious Speech—it has not attracted much publicity, but it seems that there has been a softening-up operation for about 18 months to two years—is the equalisation of the state pension age. The position of women will be worsened, while men will have the same retirement age. That, of course, is equality. The dictionary is specific when it comes to describing the concept.
I would have liked to see—I think that my view is reflected by many milllions of our people—a common retirement age of 60 years. I think that people would have been prepared to pay for that. That common age of retirement would be popular. It might help people to live longer lives. It would create job opportunities for the young unemployed, who often have families to support. If a long-term view had been taken instead of the short-sighted expediency for which the Government are noted it might have been found economically beneficial to have that common retirement age in terms of public expenditure.
The Government could, at no real cost, have equalised retirement age at 62.5 years. Surely that is not asking too much. That equalisation would have benefited one section of the population while disbenefiting another, but there would have been a tangible result. The present proposals constitute a retrograde step. They amount to deprivation in the name of equality. The object is to save money. There is no concept of justice, equality or even decency.
There is to be a moral breach of contract between the Government and their citizens. I understand that women of about 45 years of age will be worse off. They have been paying national insurance contributions since they became employed. They will get a raw deal. If the same conditions were being offered by a private company, I am sure that they would not be acceptable to the Government or to the population generally.
The activities of the private pensions industry are scandalous, and will cost the taxpayer billions of pounds. A tremendous amount of public money has already been used to subsidise the industry and to try to get people to opt out of state earnings-related pension schemes, and in some instances occuptional pension schemes. If the Government are so concerned about the national insurance fund and future liabilities, and if they want to give people additional pensions, why do they not bring forward legislation to make occupational pensions compulsory upon employers?
I challenge Conservative Members to rise—I am willing to let them intervene—to state that they have opted out of the parliamentary scheme to go into a private pension scheme. I wait with interest. It seems that none of them has done so. That says it all.
Some people have reached retirement age and have then decided to go abroad to join their sons, daughters or other relations. They may have paid their various
666
contributions for 40, 45 or 50 years. They find that, when they go to live abroad, their pensions are frozen at the level that applied when they reached retirement age. That is scandalous. Any private company who tried to renege on a pension arrangement in that way would rightly be condemned, and would soon be out of business. It seems that the relationship between our citizens and the Government does not matter. There should be trust, but there is not. Instead, there is exploitation.
The retired people to whom I am referring do not live in the United Kingdom and do not have the benefits or disbenefits that flow from that, although they have the disbenefit of frozen pensions. At the same time, they are still allowed to vote in our elections. Even some Conservative Members may perceive that there is a paradox. I hope that they will speak to their Front-Bench colleagues or the Government Whips to ascertain whether something can be done to bring the scandal of frozen pensions to an end. It is a terrible injustice and an indictment of our country.
There is no mention of housing in the Gracious Speech, but in the various different debates many hon. Members have mentioned the problem of social housing in this country. We do not have much trouble with people who are fortunate enough to buy their own homes, although it has to be said that the stock of private housing is deteriorating in quality and there will be a problem in the not too distant future.
It would be wrong to say that we have a housing crisis, although there are increasing numbers of homeless people and homes considered unfit for habitation. I recently happened to read an interesting article by Patrick Minford—I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows him, because Professor Minford is one of his advisers. That article revealed two important facts, the first of which is that, since 1988, private sector rented housing has increased by 11 per cent.
As the Government's deregulation of rents has meant that, in general, private rented housing is about twice as expensive as equivalent council housing, with housing associations somewhere in between, one would have expected the increase in private sector rented housing to lead to more subsidy being paid for housing. We know that, as the private sector is getting more, the public sector is getting less. That must be so, because, according to Professor Minford, since 1979 subsidies for tenanted housing have fallen by 9 per cent. What an indictment.
I hope that, at some time in the future, when introducing a housing Bill, the Government will not try to tell us that they cannot afford to pay housing benefit. They brought the change about. They decided to transfer subsidy from the dwelling to the tenant, and now we are seeing the results, with high private rents having a , debilitating effect on the resources available—and heaven knows, those are few enough.
Every Queen's Speech that the Government have produced has shown that they are good at going back to policies with a proven record of utter failure. Bus deregulation is one example, and another is the obsession with trying to transfer tenancies into the private sector. The only time that we have had a good house building programme it was within the public sector, and we shall not get back to that position until the Government change their views.

667
Anyone who reads any history on the subject will find that, before the big house-building programmes of the 1920s and 1930s, which were carried on until 10 or 15 years ago, the private landlord was detested, because he provided substandard housing at outrageous prices. That is why we went in for public sector housing. That was a success, so, as one might expect, the Government decided to abandon it.
I tell the Minister that, unless something is done about the accommodation problem, the Government are sitting on a social time bomb. Less and less housing is being built and things are getting worse, yet the Government are not interested enough to suggest anything in the Gracious Speech to help alleviate the problem.
Finally, perhaps the worst, most spiteful and mean-spirited legislation that the Government propose is the persecution of the unemployed that is being introduced under the euphemism of the job seeker's allowance. I should be interested to know what the connotations of that term are. If we require people to be classed as "job seekers", there should be some jobs for them to seek. That does not seem unreasonable, and I do not think that anyone would disagree. People are being trained, often not very well, for jobs that do not exist.
That is not quite the worst thing. The meanest and most despicable aspect is the fact that, although Government economic policies have created unemployment, the Government now seek to shift the blame on to the people whom they have made unemployed. That is totally immoral, and I have no doubt that, as time goes by, people will become increasingly aware of it.
All that is happening at a time when employees' national insurance contributions have never been higher. Already, employees have to subsidise their own common law damages claims against employers, and then have to refund to the national insurance fund anything they have had in benefits—benefits for which they have already paid in their contributions. That is an absolute scandal, chicanery of the worst sort.
Now we find that unemployment payments have virtually been cut by 50 per cent. overnight, from 12 months' entitlement to six months. What a deplorable breach of faith. It should not be allowed in any so-called civilised society. However, I was pleased to notice that that cut will not be made until 1996, and by my reckoning we may be rid of this deplorable Government by then.
I am pleased that there is to be no denationalisation of the Post Office, but I warn my hon. Friends and any Conservative Members who may share my views about that to beware. People such as the President of the Board of Trade are never wrong; they always think that it is other people's fault when they cannot get their own way. Make no mistake about it; the Government will come back to the Post Office in some form or another.
We must be vigilant and wary. The idea has not gone away; we have simply had a stay of execution, as we did with the coal industry. About the coal industry too, apparently, the President of the Board of Trade was right and everybody else was wrong.
I had some sympathy with the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) when he explained to the House on Monday how he had been ill used by the press and the other media. I share his concerns, although I am talking not about the facts of the case but about the way in which they were presented. However, I should have more
668
sympathy for the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members who feel that they have been treated in the same way if they would press the Government at least to make a start and introduce a statutory right of reply. That does not seem unreasonable.
Individuals with no resources who have been attacked unfairly, unjustly, incorrectly and "unfactually" by the media should have a right of reply. So if the Government want to do something about the media, that is an idea for them to consider. It would also be better if we had an independent statutory press or media complaints council, if not both. Self-regulation seems to be all right for the City and for the media, but it is not considered satisfactory for the trade unions or for local authorities. Surely people must realise that that is inconsistent and deceitful.
The Government have had a rough ride from the media over the past two years, but I should have a little more sympathy for them if they had shown any sympathy when others were similarly attacked. We hear Conservative Members saying that it is deplorable how the royal family, the Prime Minister and certain other people are attacked by the media, but they did not say that it was deplorable when Arthur Scargill was being attacked by the Daily Mirror and the "The Cook Report". That was all right, apparently, but it is not all right now. There should be more consistency and more honour in dealing with such matters. I sometimes think that the Government are frightened to attack the media, whether because of the money involved or for some other reason.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has left the Chamber now, but I must refer to what he said about the demise of the coal mining industry. That affected me directly, because the last colliery in County Durham was in Wearmouth, in my constituency, but it has recently been closed, to everyone's regret.
It is totally unjustified to blame Arthur Scargill or the National Union of Mineworkers for the demise of the coal industry. There is no proof, and if that is some people's opinion, it is not borne out by the known facts. The people to blame are Lord Wakeham and Lord Parkinson, with their deregulation of the electricity supply and distribution industry, and the President of the Board of Trade for refusing to take cognisance of the most important parts of the Select Committee's report on the subject. They are the people to blame. The Conservative Government closed collieries, not the NUM or Arthur Scargill. I speak as a Member who is sponsored by the NUM, and I often wonder who sponsors the people who condemn the NUM—I will find out.
I was a little disappointed by the Chancellor's response to my intervention earlier this afternoon. I asked why, if the economy was doing as well as we were being led to believe, he needed to punish the less well-off and the , vulnerable in society by the increase in VAT on fuel.
I appreciate that I am not allowed to say that the Chancellor is a liar in the House, but he told me something which I have never heard from any economic source whatsoever. He stated that the poorest in our society were being more than adequately compensated for the increase in VAT. That is what he said, and it will be in Hansard tomorrow. There is not an economist in this country that I have read who comes to the same conclusion. Apparently, it is only the Chancellor who has the information. He should pass it on to all of the learned

669
bodies. I did appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman giving way, but I am afraid that his answer was totally unsatisfactory.
8.11 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: If the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) will forgive me, I shall not follow on from his remarks entirely. His was a tremendous performance which covered the entire Queen's Speech. We all write our own Queen's Speeches, and we try to commend those things which we wish to support.
I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) in his comments about the Ulster Unionists and their leader, and the role of the Prime Minister and those hon. Members from Ulster who have played a part in a process that is clearly of enormous importance to us all. This is almost the first autumn of my adulthood in which, through hard work and difficult circumstances, we seem to have had a tranquillity that has not been here in more than 25 years. I commend—as did my right hon. Friend—the recent winner of the Spectator award and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
I agree with what has been said, and these matters are difficult. I am, by instinct, a Unionist, and the thought of the United Kingdom breaking up is as antipathetic to me as anything in the political spectrum. Therefore, one is mindful of the work that the Prime Minister has done.
I know that the debate focuses on the economy, and I also refer to the remark by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that this is a country experiencing fear. The observation was made that it is not fear but anxiety, but we all know what my right hon. Friend meant by that. There is great uncertainty. The certainty of our youth—that we would have lifelong employment in one job—clearly is no longer the constancy that is faced by our constituents.
There have been tremendous changes, and a society in transition is having to address issues that have perhaps been postponed, set aside and forgotten. Not a lot has been said today in the context of the Queen's Speech about education, as one day was given over to the subject. In essence, we put our education system into tremendous turmoil and there was a time when it looked as if we were entirely dedicated to working against the grain. I have always believed in the principle—although the Whips do not agree—that we should try to work with the grain.
In the end, what are we seeking to accomplish with the changes? Are we improving that which we were before, and is that the end of it? What is the benchmark? I used to ask the former Secretary of State for Education that question, because it is important to know the objectives of the changes and revolution. We have not yet heard a Minister say that the aim of all the changes is that the standard of education and training for the average child, across all ability ranges, will match that for Denmark, Germany or any of our other major competitors. That is a formidable benchmark, because Ministers and the performance of Ministries can be judged by a more absolute definition.
670
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development relentlessly cites how poorly we perform, yet I see that we are not moving up the charts. I have the greatest faith in the present Secretary of State for Education and believe that, by working with the profession, we can identify the benchmarks and dates by which our children will be educated and trained to the standard of our competitors.
There are common outlooks across the Floor of the House, and we are from the same nation—our "ain folk"—and have common perceptions. One such perception is that improvement in training and education is essential, and another is that the level of investment is important. The Government are, of course, endeavouring to attract inward investment as a replacement for our industry's failure to generate capital and apply it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), a distinguished barrister, closely followed his helpful and prepared notes, and I heard all the things which we have done. All through my political career, we have cited the miracle of our management of the economy. Hon. Members on both Front Benches have cited it, and I am not making a partisan point. We say all the nonsense things, such as, "Between 12.30 and 12.45 on 1 January, we had the fastest-growing economy in Europe," or alternatively, "Between March 11 and 12, for one and a half hours, we had the fastest-rising rate of exports."
Those are, in truth, meaningless comparisons. They may stir up the press, and they may be points that we can score against each other, but in truth, our lifetime's history shows an almost relentless comparative decline. We are all engaged in a powerful endeavour to change that around.
I was a student in Italy in the early 1960s. If I had said to my fellow students, "I have a vision: one day, you Italians will be as wealthy and prosperous as people in the United Kingdom," they would have thought that that was perfidious Albion speaking sweet words yet again. However, I again refer to the OECD listings and projections which state that, by 1998, either our economy will be the same size as the Italian economy or the Italian economy will be slightly larger. That transformation has happened.
As we battle our way across the Floor of the House, scoring points against the other side and concentrating on the point that it was not 12.15 to 12.30, but 12.15 to 12.29, the nation knows that it has a task in hand. I believe that that rests on certain things which are, I would argue, conservative principles which are shared across the House—a belief in the community, in the maintenance of law and order and in the profundity of our institutions. In fact, the last—the aim of maintaining our institutions—is the most dedicated task of a Government. I touch only on those points because I do not mean to abuse the Government. They have embarked on an important task, and some of their plans are right, although not all by any means—that is the nature of things.
I reflect with some glee—it may be self-satisfaction—that both the shadow Chancellor and the present Chancellor must be joining the former Chancellor in their baths singing with relief at the release from the exchange rate mechanism. I take it that it was a political fashion that three great parties, dedicated to that one belief, were prepared to bring us the consequences of fixing our exchange rate with the third most-traded currency of this

671
nation, which comes after the United States dollar and our own currency. We linked into that currency which represents less than half our overall balance of trade.
I recommend to the House, although I am diffident about doing this, a course through Skidelsky's second volume of "The Life of Keynes". The arguments are not unfamiliar, even in the history of the House. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, there were debates on fixed exchange rates, how they were to be fixed and what mechanisms and tolerances would be allowed.
Our economy seems to follow more closely the cycles of the American economy. If we fix our parity to a currency, as we did with the deutschmark, in essence—although it was the exchange rate mechanism—it means that when we get out of kilter, as our economies were, either the exchange rate is propped up by excessive interest rates, because of the needs of the domestic economy, or the reverse happens, as we saw during the Lawson boom.
Constancy of economic management and a clear set of objectives, which are understood by all of us-for example, by small business men, such as I was before I came into the House—are extremely important. Therefore, I give a cheer that, having released ourselves from that burden, we seem to be following a consistent path. That sentiment is, it seems, shared at this moment by those on both Front Benches—they do not want to excite or damage anything that maintains a low level of inflation. Of course, that is set out in the Maastricht treaty, so they can all swear that they are merely acceding to the Maastricht conditions of convergency and that, therefore, we will be governed by that. I support the Government in that policy.
One issue of domestic legislation about which I feel strongly and which touches on another is VAT on domestic fuel. My opposition to it is not based on any grand philosophy, but as a Conservative I believe that the central theme of my party—borne out by the history of the House in the 20th century—is that there should not be regressive tax. That was explained in a rather long-winded way and I am sure that that explanation was more accurate, but, essentially, regressive taxation means that people on lower incomes pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than those on higher incomes. It is an abysmal concept.
That is why, in the early stages in the development of Community funds, budgets and VAT, those things that were absolute basic necessities, the purchase of which represents a higher proportion of expenditure for people on lower incomes, were excluded from such regressive taxation. That seems to be manifestly fair and obvious. We exempted food—I must declare at this stage that I am a grocer—because everyone has to buy it. The food bill represents a higher proportion of the family budget for those on low incomes than it does for rich people. The food budget may be trivial for the rich, but it is a substantial cost for those on lower incomes.
Now we have imposed VAT on domestic fuel and heating. It is clear that many of my constituents—honourable people who have worked through their lives, who have no occupational pension and are dependent on savings which have been eroded by inflation, because of our careers in previous incarnations in the House—are grievously affected by that VAT. All the budgetary allowances that are said to exist still do not take away
672
from the basic question, "Is it right or is it wrong?" People like me will say that to impose VAT, at a flat rate, on absolute necessities is wrong.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is a cheerful man and, amid the bluster, he often adopts poses. I should like to think that he has enough savvy to understand that, to ride public opinion and to take the British public with him, he must act with a sense of fairness. VAT on domestic fuel is regressive and has been perceived to be so by the nation. After all, if we cannot shout at, rail against and change policy in a democracy, what is the point?
The standing of Parliament has been debated in the House and was mentioned by the Prime Minister in his Guildhall speech. If we treat ourselves as if we are nobodies, although we are representatives of truly somebodies—our own people, remember—we are worth nothing. On Monday, we will have a debate on the finances of the European Community. We have not debated that subject since 1988—we could not because it requires a treaty change. That remarkable instrument is taxation by treaty. Somehow that is far more important than any taxation by Budget resolutions, which we shall deal with on Tuesday and subsequently. It takes all sort of precedence over the Budget.
Every year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government must secure the finances of the country. Every Member of the House may speak in those debates, move amendments and try to shift the Budget resolutions slightly. We all know, however, that if a Government fail to secure the finance to maintain the government of the country, they are no longer the Government.
The chairman of the 1922 Committee decided to make a constitutional intervention. He seems to think that taxation by treaty is of such paramount importance that he advised people to prepare for an election. On the face of it, that is absurd, because if there are people who are bound to maintain the revenues of Brussels it is those on the Labour and the Liberal Front Benches and, I regret to say, my own Front Bench. To suggest that Members of Parliament may not move amendments and may not honour the commitments they have given to their constituents is absurd.
For my part, my election address was particular—I know that I am not alone in that. It said that I did not believe in the Maastricht treaty and the arrangements that followed for it. I made it clear that I would not vote for citizenship for my fellow citizens. That is a decision so profound that only we as individuals can make such a step through a referendum. The House will know that, during the Maastricht debate, there was hardly anything in the treaty that I could support, because it purports to something that has never been put to the British people—that they should be subordinate constituents of another political organisation. My goodness, I have difficulty enough ever convincing colleagues on my own Front Bench to change a policy, but now power, decisions and laws flitter outside my grasp. I may rail here, but where do I sound? No common language exists, nor common Parliament that can reflect the visions, angers, frustrations and outlook of the British people, my own people.
I am told that the whip will be withdrawn on Monday should I move an amendment or not vote in support of the European Communities (Finance) Bill. I cannot believe that a Government of whom I am a supporter, a party that touches deep into the nature of our people, as

673
does the Labour party, put above the imposition of tax on the people of this country through VAT on domestic fuel, the securing of funds through a treaty for another organisation. I cannot believe that the Government are prepared to do that without being prepared to allow Parliament to exercise the scrutiny and allow the freedom of speech that we expect and demand on the budget of the United Kingdom. It is a curious twist to me. What is the call that puts that demand above our own exigencies and needs?
I am mindful that train fares are going up. They are now so unaffordable that one almost has to take a mortgage out to go to Birmingham. My commuters who must travel will find that their incomes will be squeezed, but that is considered to be of lesser importance than supplying funds to Brussels. I cannot understand that when I try to explain it to my constituents. Why is it that I cannot debate the subject of that money? My constituents do not understand the imperative that makes the Bill the most supreme piece of legislation in the whole programme, which threatens the absurdity of a general election and the withdrawal of the whip. It is a curious balance, which I do not understand.
If we are to stand and reclaim our fortunes with the electorate, it can only be on the basis that we represent someone and something. There has never been a time in living memory when an Administration has been so low in the standing of the people it governs. For me as a Conservative, it is a very important task to reverse that. That is why we cry out.
As for the memorandum from Mr. John Maples, which has been published, I do not know a Conservative Member who has not written large chunks of similar words over the past year. That had no effect, alas, but we will make sure that the views of the people are represented and argued for, because we can make something of them.
I hope that, in the winding-up speech, that fellow traveller of mine for an award by The Spectator will be able to say that it is absurd to try to restrict the freedom of speech of his Conservative colleagues by the threat of the withdrawal of the whip.
8.27 pm
Mr. David Hanson: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). In the short time that I have been a Member of the House, I have always found his speeches to be full of integrity, passion and independence of thought. That is to be commended and I genuinely appreciated his speech tonight.
In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings), I enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). I joined the Labour party because of him, so it was interesting to find that I agreed with him about everything. I am not sure whether I have moved to the right or he has moved to the left, but somewhere down the line there has been a shift in opinion.
The case against the Government on the economy is clear and straightforward. The Gracious Speech covers a number of issues that promise more of the same on the economy, which means a poor deal for my constituents.
674
Under this Government, millions of British people now face reduced living standards. Tax rises from this tax-cutting Government are being pushed through to pay for economic mismanagement. Unemployment continues to be tolerated, while skill levels are ignored. Each year, £25 billion of taxpayers' money is wasted on unemployment rather put to positive use to create jobs and a better society. Many thousands of people, including many of my constituents, are forced into poverty pay while the Government ignore and, as we have seen this evening, effectively tolerate massive pay rises for executives of privatised companies and others.
The burden of the Government's failure falls on those who are least able to pay. Under the Gracious Speech, public spending will be dramatically reduced and, while much of the Government's policy is deliberate, incompetence still plays a large part in their policy failures.
A Labour Member is expected to criticise the Government, but we have heard much today about what the former hon. Member for Lewisham, West, Mr. John Maples, said in his new role as deputy chairman of the Conservative party. He is a former Treasury man and if we are now going down the pan perhaps he should be given the credit for our reaching this state.
The report, which has been heavily leaked, includes a number of interesting quotes about the state of the economy, to which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred. I hope that I shall not score too many points by agreeing with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Maples said:
"What we are saying on the economy is completely at odds with experience."
We can all agree with that. He continued:
"The reality is now that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest who are getting poorer".
Every Labour Member in the House agrees with that. He went on:
"The Conservatives have let voters down, they have been in government too long, are complacent, have lost direction, and have failed to fulfil election promises."
What an epitaph for that former Conservative Member, who paid the price at the 1992 general election. I understand that he is now seeking a place in the House as the possible candidate for the constituency of Woking. He might be better getting a job as a gravedigger.
John Maples is not alone in his views. Today's issue of The Economist. covers a number of points that compound the Government's current woes. In the latest economic forecast for Britain, it says that the best is over and that the economy will decelerate in 1995, living standards will slip, falls in unemployment will slow to a crawl and the country will slide back to its traditional place near the bottom of the international pile. Incidentally, The Economist is edited by the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), who may apply for a job as deputy chairman of the Conservative party in the near future.
One aspect of the Chancellor's opening speech that I found interesting was that he did not seem to realise that the Government have been in power since 1979. All the points that he made related to the past three months, the past six months or the past nine months—perhaps the past quarter of an hour on the clock, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said earlier. May I put the

675
Government's economic performance in the context of the past 15 years and thus illustrate the enormity of their failure?
Government investment has been lower than that of any other G7 country during the 1979–93 period. Exports have seen their lowest rate of growth since 1979. On skills training, we have the second lowest number of 18-year-olds in further education of all OECD nations, with the exception of Turkey. This year, £119 million has been cut from the training budget, and £400 million has been cut from the training budget in the past three years.
The number of people out of work for more than a year has increased by 50 per cent. to almost 1 million since 1979. Despite recent falls in unemployment, which we all welcome, 2.6 million people are still out of work in Britain. Perhaps the most damaging statistic of all is on poverty, which is a serious issue in my constituency. Since 1979, the number of families with incomes below half the national average has increased from 5 million to 13.9 million. That statistic brings home the misery caused by the Government's economic failure during their period in office.
We still have a trade deficit of —6.1 billion, which, according to Treasury forecasts, will rise to £7.5 billion in 1995. To pay for their prolonged economic failure, the Government in the Gracious Speech make clear commitments for continued public spending cuts and, in next week's Budget and beyond, they plan to impose massive tax rises. What Mr. Maples did not mention is that this is a Government of "pay more and get less". Even before the forthcoming Budget we shall see tax rises in the form of increased national insurance, VAT on fuel, home insurance, car insurance and on mortgage tax relief, with allowances frozen.
For an economy of which the Conservative party are so proud, the tax bombshell which the last election was supposed to bring has brought a Tory tax bombshell of a 7p rise in the effective rates of income tax.
As has been said by many hon. Friends, the most iniquitous issue is that of VAT on fuel. Last Saturday, my local Labour party submitted 6,000 postcards calling on the Government to stop VAT on fuel to houses in my constituency of Delyn. By today, 750 postcards had been returned to me, duly stamped, by constituents who are concerned about the iniquities of that tax.
That protest is in addition to petitions and the general concern that has been expressed about VAT. Every hon. Member knows that people do not send postcards in that number back to their Member of Parliament unless they feel extremely strongly about an issue. I hope that, if we achieve nothing else this evening, we can have a commitment from the Government that that tax will be stopped.
If it cannot be stopped for domestic customers, I hope that the Treasury will at least say something about the effect that it will have on charities. This morning I received a letter from a constituent representing a church. He complains bitterly about the tax on charities, which cannot claim back that taxation.
Perhaps we should not be upset about that tax but should expect it from a Government who have now imposed tax rises from 34.3 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1979 when my party left office to 37 per cent. of GDP in 1995–96. As has already been said, the taxes are unfair and regressive because anyone who earns
676
£64,000 a year or more now pays less tax than in 1979 whereas nobody earning less than £64,000 a year pays less tax.
We have also seen public spending cuts on schools, housing and training. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) said in his speech, the pension age for women is to go up. The Conservatives are giving us less for more because of their basic economic failures. The experience of my constituency in north Wales is very much in line with the thoughts of chairman Maples. I want a strong Wales and a strong Delyn constituency, but the position is drastically affected by the Government's economic policies. North Wales has experienced the loss of its economic and industrial base. We have lost textile, steel and coal industries. When I was selected as the candidate for my seat seven years ago, 800 people worked in the coal mining industry in my constituency. Today, less than 160 people work in that industry.
Only today, I received a letter from British Aerospace on the borders of my constituency telling me of a further 200 redundancies. The Government's so-called "economic miracle" is missing my constituency and those whom I represent are paying for the Government's economic failures with their jobs, their livelihoods and tax rises. In my constituency, a quarter of 18 to 24-year-olds are unemployed and 2,500 people who remain unemployed face the job seekers' allowance, which is the only economic measure that the Government can bring forward with confidence. Massive blows have been dealt to the local economy with the transfer of jobs back to America and the deindustrialisation of Raytheon Jets, a British company which has produced British aircraft for many years but which has now been shipped back to America by a purchase on the free market.
My constituency remains among the lowest paid regions in the United Kingdom. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) is in his place, because I read yesterday, with great interest, the figures that he produced from the House of Commons Library. In Wales, 40 per cent. of the work force earn below 68 per cent. of average United Kingdom earnings—the decency threshold—and Wales is at the bottom oil the pay league in Europe. How does that compare with the Government's attitude to chief executives of major companies in the private and public sector? I refer the Minister to early-day motion 87, which has been signed by a number of hon. Members present today.
In the past year, salaries of chief executives have on average increased to £208,000 per annum—an increase of —50,000 per annum on 1993. The Prime Minister has exhorted companies to continue to exercise restraint and to continue to exercise control on chief executives' salaries, yet overall there was a £50,000 increase in the average salaries paid to chief executives between July 1993 and July 1994. That statistic does not take into account British Gas's chief executive, Cedric Brown.
I should not be surprised because, since 1979, the top 1 per cent. of British taxpayers have received 30 per cent. of the tax cuts available, from £75 billion in tax cuts paid to those richest sections of our community. I am surprised, however, at the complete failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to condemn those pay increases adequately this afternoon, and to call for further regulation by the Government of shareholders' ability to authorise such pay rises at the moment.

677
We need a radical shift in policy. We need to consider a range of issues to raise the profile of a strong economy and to rebuild that economy for our people. We need to ensure that we release capital receipts to boost housing, because housing is needed for our people. We need to ensure that there is long-term, Government-led investment in infrastructure, in rail and capital health and education projects. We need to ensure that there is a real skills boost for training and a job guarantee for school leavers. We need to ensure that there is public spending on energy efficiency and environmental improvements—on the things that people need.
The one thing that surprises me in the Gracious Speech is the Government's commitment to reduce the national share of income taken by the public sector and public spending. Public spending provides things that people need. It provides jobs and investment, and we should seek to increase it in the future. We need social justice, we need a minimum wage for Wales and we need to take steps to tackle the salaries of chief executives. We need to ensure that there is fairness and justice in our tax system, that value added tax increases are stopped and that windfall taxes are imposed on the profits of privatised utilities.
We need to ensure that there is fairness in our approach to society. It is blatantly not fair for chief executives to increase their salaries, week in, week out, at the same time as the Government abolish wages councils, do not allow a minimum wage and continue to force people into low-paid, low-skilled employment. It is not fair to have regressive taxation, such as value added tax on fuel, when people in the richest sections of our community are receiving massive tax handouts.
We need to start to tackle unemployment and poverty, not attack unemployed people and poor people. That is why the Government are wrong, that is why they will face a vote this evening on the amendments and that is why I will be proud to support my colleagues in the Lobby.
8.43 pm
Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who spoke forcefully about matters that he regards as being important to his constituents. I am sure that they would be pleased to hear him speaking forcefully. I do not know whether Opposition Front Benchers will be quite so happy with what he said.
It sounded very much as though the hon. Member for Delyn was making a strong plea for higher taxation for its own sake and to fund extra public expenditure commitments. Opposition Front Benchers appear hesitant about that. I am not sure that they will welcome the large increases in taxation that will be necessitated by that.
It is a great pleasure to follow some of the distinguished speeches that we heard earlier, and to follow a former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), and an experienced Member of the House, who spoke forcefully and from conviction, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).
678
If I may, with some temerity as a junior Member of the House, I shall follow what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said. Two points in his speech struck a special chord—first about the standing of Parliament and, secondly, about the fear of unemployment.
As for the standing of Parliament, I hope that I shall not be unduly partisan if I say that, had I been one of the television viewers whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup took as an example, I would have been somewhat surprised by the debate—at least by the way in which it began. It was supposed to be a debate about economic policy.
As I listened to the opening speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), I waited and waited for mention of economic policy, but very little came. We had a tour around identity cards, executive pay and the public utilities, and we certainly had a lot of the flotsam and jetsam of political tittle-tattle, but we heard little about economic policy. Whenever the hon. Gentleman mentioned economic policy, he moved on as though he had touched on something that was extremely dangerous for him.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned the fear of unemployment. I think that it is important, although I take some issue with the way in which it has been presented to the House because it is the political fashion of the moment to talk about fear of unemployment. Undoubtedly, such fear exists. It has been driven by profound economic changes that are taking place in the world economy, with changes in technology, developments in technology, developments in the economic process and the rise of new and competitive economies.
That has not happened overnight. It was happening long before the pundits of political fashion started talking about fear of unemployment, and it will continue to take place long after they have stopped. I know from my constituency, Hertsmere, that the fear of unemployment was at the forefront of electors' minds at the last general election. My constituency was one of those parts of the south-east that was touched by the recession for the first time after a long period of economic growth and prosperity. I know that that is very much on my constituents' minds.
At the last general election, my constituents wanted policies that would reduce unemployment, and I am pleased to say that since then unemployment in my constituency has fallen by about 20 per cent. There are now 700 more people in jobs, and I very much hope that unemployment will continue to fall.
What is the answer to the fear of unemployment? We cannot turn back the important changes that have taken place in the world. Even though people are in jobs, people are changing jobs more often and job security is not what it was, and that worries people.
As people enter the work force, we must educate and equip them for the changes in technology and in working conditions that they will experience throughout their working lives. I welcome the profound changes that have taken place in education in the past 15 years. The huge increase in the proportion of young people entering higher education must help in meeting that economic change; so too must the revolution that is taking place in vocational

679
education, and the great importance that has been attached to that through the introduction of national vocational qualifications and general national vocational qualifications. I welcome those developments, which will help my constituents a great deal.
Although there is no mention of new legislative measures for education in the Gracious Speech, I welcome the fact that legislation that we have enacted is driving on a process of reform in education, raising standards and creating new opportunities. I am pleased to see that the Labour party is at last responding to those changes. It must be ironic for the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that her opposition and hostility to league tables has now been ditched. I look forward to Opposition Members being dragged kicking and screaming towards other reforms that are definitely helping to raise standards.
I hope that the Labour party will reconsider its hostility to grant-maintained schools and assisted places. I feel strongly about that scheme because, as a result of it, many hundreds of children from lower-income families in my constituency now have the benefit of being able to choose an independent education. One way that we must deal with big economic changes is through improving education and revolutionising our attitude to skills and training. The second way to deal with the changes is to create sustainable long-term growth. Even if we have an increasingly well-educated and well-trained work force, they will still suffer if the economic policies are not in place to create sustainable growth, which is such an important part of our future.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East mentioned sustainable growth once in his speech and then passed on rapidly. He may feel a certain discomfort in talking about sustainable growth. Even bearing in mind the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills about economic policy and its transience, it is important to keep in place the conditions that are making our industries and businesses more prosperous and profitable, and providing jobs for so many of our constituents. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East would have done far better to devote more attention in his speech to the conditions for sustainable economic growth and the sort of policies that will nurture it.
Earlier in this Parliament Opposition Members started to talk about some of the constraints on economic policy that traditionally limit economic growth in this country, and have done so for a long period—problems of inflation and balance of payments constraints. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East did not mention trade. Conservatives can take some satisfaction from the fact that we have introduced policies that are resulting in high growth and low inflation. Although it may be painful, I urge Ministers to keep taking important long-term decisions to keep inflation down. That may be mundane, but it is extremely important because so many times in our recent economic history—certainly up to 1979—growth has been achieved and then blown off course by inflation after a short period.
It is also important that we should maintain our good balance of trade. Opposition Members have devoted little time to that. Exports are performing well—a fact that bears repetition. Much encouragement can be drawn from the recent good news on exports and our future prospects. That may have a good deal to do with our present competitive exchange rate. Once again, I accept the economic views of my hon. Friend the Member for
680
Aldridge-Brownhills—certainly our increasingly competitive exchange rates have been a factor in promoting exports.
Our position is also explained by the underlying strength of the economy—the strength in the real economy, manufacturing, production and investment has been reflected in our balance of payments figures. Some measure of the underlying strength of our economy and the successful conditions now in place is reflected in the high level of inward investment in this country. Overseas investors come to this country, see that it is a good place to set up in business, produce and expand, and in turn make a definite contribution to our exports and balance of payments.
I welcome the fact that 36 per cent. of all inward investment in the European Community comes into this country. I also welcome the fact that some of it is at last finding its way to my constituency. Various firms from Germany, the United States and other parts of the world are choosing to set up in Hertfordshire and helping to create employment. Many hundreds of the jobs that have been created in my constituency since 1992 are no doubt due to inward investment. I strongly urge my right hon. Friends to keep in place those policies that are doing so much to stimulate inward investment, which is a tribute to the strength of our economy.
Rather than talk about sustainable growth, Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, spent much time talking about the so-called windfall tax and attacking public utilities. Since the election of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) as Leader of the Opposition, we have heard a great deal about new Labour. One of the propositions said to apply to new Labour is that it is friendlier to the market than old Labour, with its tradition of clause IV, high taxation and excessive regulation. But there is not much evidence of that in Opposition Members' approach to the windfall tax.
The best form of regulation of the utilities is competition wherever possible. For that reason I welcome the proposal in the Queen's Speech for the liberalisation of the gas industry. Where competition is not possible, regulation must be applied, but it must be done in such a way as to enable profits to be made and investment to take place. Opposition Members show no enthusiasm for extending and promoting competition and do not talk of regulation; their first instinct is to reach for taxation. That is their answer to the problem, but is it the right one? What effect would taxation have on the privatised utilities?
Those utilities are already regulated, and subject to ordinary levels of corporation tax and other taxation. The effect on them of more taxation would undoubtedly be to take away all incentive to invest and seek a return on capital. It would take away all incentive to keep down cost, innovate and manage affairs efficiently. The effect would be to depress investment in the utilities and depress their performance in providing customer service and lower prices.
We have had an artificial debate about the utilities, but we should not lose sight of the progress made by the privatised utilities in providing better services at lower cost and passing on benefits to the consumer. The Opposition have not attacked any of those aspects of the performance of the privatised utilities, but have attacked executive pay. That illustrates Labour's basic hostility to the market economy.

681
The reasons for Labour's policy run deeper, though. The Opposition face their traditional problem of how to fund public expenditure. The trap that they face—higher taxation for higher public expenditure—has been avoided, they believe, by their series of gimmicks and irrelevant ideas such as the windfall tax. That problem will come back to haunt the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East after his speech today. The Opposition will just have to face up to the fact that their commitment to increasing public expenditure will inevitably mean higher taxes. There is no way out through gimmicks.
The Opposition must also face up to the fact that ours is a growing economy, in which people are going back into jobs and paying tax instead of receiving benefits. We have a policy framework which is achieving economic growth. If the Opposition want any credibility, it is incumbent on them to say how they will change our policies, how they could do any better and how they can avoid the risks associated with their traditional ways of managing the economy, which amount to lower growth, higher inflation and higher taxation. Those problems remain for the Opposition to confront.
After all the flotsam and jetsam that we heard from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East today, after all the lighthearted banter, the Opposition still have to face up to some serious policy decisions, which they conspicuously failed to do in today's debate.
8.59 pm
Mr. John Hutton: I should like to comment on many aspects of the Gracious Speech, but I shall confine my remarks to those parts of it that relate to the conduct of economic and monetary policy in the United Kingdom. First, however, I should like to comment on some of the excellent speeches made in the Chamber today. I think in particular of certain speeches by Conservative Members.
I strongly agreed with what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said about unemployment and the rising tide of insecurity that is overtaking so many communities. His remarks were highly pertinent and they threw into stark relief some of the more bumptious comments by the Chancellor.
I also strongly agreed with what the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said about the need to win the battle against drugs and drug-related crime. We know that in many countries around the world crime is having a measurable effect on economic activity. Furthermore, I strongly agreed with what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said about the need to avoid the second stage of the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. I am sure that, if that question were to be resolved by a free vote in the House, there would be no majority for the Government's policy.
It was clear from the Queen's Speech and from speeches by Conservative Members tonight that the Government have committed themselves to a continuation of current economic and monetary policies. The Chancellor painted a rosy picture of the economy, but it is important to appreciate the full impact of what John Maples, deputy chairman of the Conservative party, had
682
to say on the subject: that there is a gulf between what Ministers say about the economy and what our constituents experience.
There have been, to be sure, some welcome developments in the UK's performance. I think of the fall in unemployment—although there are real arguments about how many new jobs have really been created in the past two years. I think also of the continuing low level of inflation and the increases in output. All these are welcome, but we need to take into account, too, the advice of many economists, who maintain that, although there have been positive developments in the economy, they relate exclusively to macro-economic statistics. Everyone knows that the British economy continues to suffer from a number of serious structural problems.
Behind this cyclical recovery there are continuing difficulties: low levels of investment, increasing job insecurity and—despite what the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) may say—problems to do with the quality of certain supply side measures, especially those that relate to training and education. So, although there may be signs of improvement in the economy, they should not be allowed to mask the continuing difficulties that British business and our constituents will experience in the years ahead.
There has been a great deal of comment in this debate on the Maples memorandum. It is important to remind ourselves of the observations by the deputy chairman of the Conservative party on the Government's record. It is a rather miserable audit of the Government's credibility and their stance on the economy. Mr. Maples says that most people believe that the Government are
"out of touch, lying, don't care, … are stupid".
He also draws attention to the fact that previously strong Conservative supporters complain:
"There is a feeling of powerlessness and insecurity about jobs, housing, health service, business, family value, crime … and no vision of where we are heading … Very few people think we are out of recession."
For obvious, partisan reasons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that we are. We cannot have sensible debate about the economy and economic policy by ignoring the difficulties that have still to be overcome.
The Government's economic policy has been characterised by boom and bust. Booms, which are usually short term, are followed by ever-deepening recessions. Since 1979, Conservative Government has been characterised by unacceptably high unemployment. Those years have been marked by increasing signs of social division. There have been significant reductions in manufacturing capacity and a completely inadequate approach to training and vocational education.
To examine the first of those three significant structural economic problems, let us look first at investment, which is still 8 per cent. below its pre-recession level. In the period 1979 to 1993, the United Kingdom invested a smaller proportion of GDP than any other G7 country. Although the annual rate of investment increased by 5.4 per cent. in the second quarter of 1994, it was lower than in the previous quarter. That percentage is largely accounted for by an anomalous low figure in the second quarter of 1993.
Many hon. Members will have noticed that last week there was evidence that manufacturing investment is still not increasing. It fell in the third quarter of this year. Spending on plant and machinery, which is fundamental

683
to maintaining competitiveness and building for the new markets of the 21st century, rose barely at all in that quarter. It was little different from the amount invested a year ago. That must be set against the background of record cash surpluses being held by leading British companies. It now amounts to £9.5 billion, but investment in manufacturing plant and equipment remains static. That is worrying and it should worry the Government.
Rolls-Royce is one of our key industrial companies, but last week it announced that the future for car engine manufacture in the United Kingdom will depend upon finding a foreign partner to support its investment programme. There is much talk that that partner could be Mercedes. Rover has been sold to a foreign car manufacturer. That paints a more realistic picture of some of the continuing problems on investment.
Hon. Members may have seen in The Observer an interesting survey of recently established small businesses. More than 700 such businesses were surveyed and some of the findings are significant. One of them was that five times as many service companies are being established as are companies producing goods. I have nothing against the service sector. It employs millions of people and provides essential employment throughout the country, but it is clear that our manufacturing base continues to shrink. That is clearly evidenced by the number of new businesses that have been set up in the manufacturing sector.
Another significant indictment is the fact that 73 per cent. of the small businesses that were surveyed in The Observer survey felt that the Government were not providing enough help to set up small businesses. Only one third of the companies surveyed had heard of the Government's enterprise investment scheme, which is supposed to act as a sort of business angel to attract private capital into small businesses. There has been considerable progress, but we should, and could, be taking additional measures to help those small businesses which are so important for the future of the United Kingdom economy.
Before leaving the subject of investment, let me say something about the shipbuilding industry, which is of particular importance in my constituency. Employment in the VSEL yard stood at more than 14,500 in 1990. It was, without question, the largest and most significant employer in the south Cumbria area. That figure has fallen to below 6,000 in less than four years and all the available evidence suggests that it may fall further. There have been significant job losses throughout the shipbuilding communities in Britain—in particular, because of the deplorable closure of the Swan Hunter yard in Tyneside, which could have been avoided had the Government shown any commitment to the shipbuilding industry.
The shipbuilding industry is not a smoke-stack industry; it is not an industry of the past; it is not about dragging heavy objects over steel floors and men wearing hobnail boots. It is a high-tech industry with some of the most recent investment in plant, equipment and machine tools anywhere in the heavy engineering sector of the United Kingdom economy, but it is still struggling and facing significant job losses.
The Government should first recognise the importance of the shipbuilding industry to the manufacturing economy, but they should go further than that and
684

recognise that the technologies associated with shipbuilding can play a important part in reviving our manufacturing base and providing new jobs for the future.
In that context, the Government must clarify their policy towards the shipbuilding industry. We know that the seventh directive is to expire at the end of the year and we have had some suggestion from the President of the Board of Trade that the Government intend to maintain the shipbuilding intervention fund at a 9 per cent. subsidy throughout 1995. It is important that they do that until there can be full and comprehensive implementation of the OECD agreement on state subsidies to shipbuilding.
In addition, the Government could take a more significant step to help the merchant shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom by improving the home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme operated by the Department of Trade and Industry.
At the moment, a company that wants to secure the construction of a new merchant ship in the United Kingdom has access to guaranteed loans and a low rate of commercial interest on those loans, but the loan has to be repaid within the fixed period of eight and a half years. That compares unfavourably with similar regimes operated in many other OECD nations, particularly the United States.
The Government and the DTI can examine the scheme without needing to bring any further legislation to the House. They should ask themselves whether the loan period could be extended and whether it would be reasonable in the circumstances, and against a background of an expected substantial increase in the volume of demand for merchant shipbuilding in the European Union, for the Government to adopt a more generous approach to that loan guarantee period. Shipbuilding and ship repair associations are urging the Government to move to a 12-year loan repayment period. That would offer the prospect of many United Kingdom yards securing extra valuable business.
The shipbuilding industry therefore reflects and provides a example of where the Government have gone wrong on manufacturing. It is a modern industry. It is capable of competing with the best yards in the world and Europe. Many United Kingdom merchant shipbuilding yards are among the most efficient and viable yards anywhere in western Europe. I hope that the Government look seriously at a range of measures—two of which I have mentioned tonight—to help the merchant shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom get on with the rest of its life and prosper into the 21st century.
Another area where there is significant reason for concern and for reservations about the conduct of United Kingdom economic policy concerns an issue referred to by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—.the growing tide of job insecurity that is plaguing many communities in the United Kingdom. It is ironic that the Government's policy of labour market flexibility which the Secretary of State for Employment has been trumpeting recently may be one reason why there is no feel-good factor in the British economy.
The Government have pointed to signs of recovery in the economy, but our constituents cannot see those signs. There is no evidence that people feel better off. In fact, people feel that they are under increasing financial

685
pressure. They are worried about losing their jobs. They know that the welfare state is being attacked and that employment rights are constantly being undermined.
The policy of labour market flexibility is a problem for the Government because it is compounding those feelings of insecurity. It is also encouraging a neglect of proper training and investment in our work force. Quite simply, that policy has misfired. There must be a balance between social justice and economic efficiency, but the Government have moved the balance between those two issues too far in one direction. Successful economies around the world, particularly in western Europe, have shown that it is possible to combine higher levels of social protection and improved economic performance. Germany and Japan provide good examples of that.
We should bear in mind the comments of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that it is important that we recognise the limits of private enterprise in dealing with some of the huge problems associated with regularly retraining our industrial work force. It is unreasonable to expect the private sector to cope with those huge problems on its own. We need a greater and improved commitment from the Government. The Department of Employment's budget reveals that expenditure on industrial training is likely to fall.
We should be pursuing policies that will enable those on welfare to find a way back into full and relevant employment. The challenge for the Government is not to find ways to dismantle the welfare state—which is what the Government seem to have set themselves as their principal objective—but to find ways to modernise the welfare state and make it more relevant to the needs of people who find themselves, through no fault of their own, out of work.
With regard to the job seeker's allowance and the possible threat to industrial injuries benefit, to which the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred, the agenda in the Queen's Speech is bleak. It is also irrelevant, because the Government's task is to promote not greater feelings of insecurity but more social cohesion. Through the promotion of greater forms of social cohesion, the problems that we are experiencing with the British economy and the lack of the feel-good factor could well be addressed successfully. In addition, the taxpayer has to foot a huge and irrelevant bill for expenditure which should not have been incurred. I believe that we can do considerably better than that.
If we look back over the past 12 months and consider the achievements that the Government have claimed for themselves in respect of the conduct of economic policy, I believe that we can conclude that the Government could have done better. The signposts that the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid before us today as providing evidence of the Government's success are much more mixed than he wanted us to believe.
The evidence is mixed. There is a considerable area in respect of which the Government can make improvements across the spectrum of the conduct of economic policy. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to show that we believe that the British people deserve better than this.
9.18 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: The final day in the debate on the Queen's Speech began with discussions on the economy and it ranged very widely, as is inevitable on such occasions. I must admit that, two hours ago, I considered asking the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) if I could re-run some of his remarks instead of making my own speech as I thought that his comments were very pertinent to many of the problems that the country is facing. I was particularly interested in the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the salary of the chairman of British Gas and the agony of the large number of his constituents who are affected by the Child Support Agency. In particular, I draw the attention of the House to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the fears and insecurity facing the people of Britain at present.
Other hon. Members have also struck a chord. My hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Mr. Cummings) and for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) spoke in detail and with great feeling about the way in which their communities have suffered from the colliery closure programme and the Government's insensitivity to their plight. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) made a strong, passionate speech about how his constituency has been affected by major problems in the national health service. My hon. Friends' speeches will be appreciated.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer hid behind the need to preserve Budget secrecy as a reason for refusing to answer any vital questions. My suspicion is that the Budget, when we see it, will have as little relevance to this country's problems as the Queen's Speech has. Indeed, I expect it to be in line with the Chancellor's overall strategy of keeping his head down and looking for a way of selling the remains of the family silver so that he can fund temporary tax cuts at the time of the election.
I saw no sign in the Chancellor's speech that he is heeding the advice of the deputy chairman of the Conservative party. There was an absence of killer facts, as we have been told to expect, in what the Chancellor said—except perhaps the one potentially suicidal statement which might come back to haunt him in future. The Chancellor said that he could not have imagined a better economic background against which to introduce his Budget—what a hostage to fortune, especially as he explained a few minutes later that we should not take too much notice of estimates because the outturns are always different. If we take the Chancellor's statement at face value, and if everything is as good as he claims, there will be no need to double VAT on fuel on Tuesday.
We shall remind the Chancellor of his remarks today on many occasions in the coming year. We shall see whether he is right, or whether The Economist is right to predict that the economy will decelerate in 1995, with living standards slipping and with falls in unemployment slowing to a crawl. Perhaps we should not have expected much of substance from the Chancellor, who was distinctly uncomfortable this afternoon, especially when reminded of his comments about the lack of value that we should attach to promises made in Dudley—another remark that we shall hear more about in the next couple of weeks.

687
By contrast, my hon. friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has outlined the purpose of our amendment—the
"positive measures to remove the fear of unemployment"
and to reduce unemployment. My hon. Friend outlined a programme of measures which could make an enormous difference in a very short period. They are designed to meet the need to release capital receipts, the need for a small business expansion scheme, the need for an environmental task force, and the need for tax rebates for employers who take on the long-term unemployed. In short, it was a constructive package of positive measures to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well to listen, because the country would certainly support them.
Many people watched the state opening of Parliament on television. Some watched for an insight into the workings of Parliament, some for the pomp and pageantry, and some to hear the content of the Gracious Speech. This year, those who watched and listened were left with a common thought: "Is that it? Is that all? Is that the extent of the Government's solution to the problems that Britain faces?" Was that all that Her Majesty's Government believed needed to be done—all that they were offering? If this year's Queen's Speech represents the collective wisdom of the Cabinet, the poverty of its content proves that the Government have run out of steam.
Given the Government's record in the past 15 years, it might be considered a blessing if Ministers intended to start twiddling their thumbs for the next year—a relief not to have more so-called radical legislation. That might not matter so much, were it not for the desperate problems faced by so many people: unemployment, fear of job losses and the prevalence of temporary contracts are all breeding insecurity, as is the fear of crime and the loss of confidence in our health service. There are no answers to those problems in the Queen's Speech.
What the Queen's Speech tells us is that the Government are completely out of touch with the needs of the country and the priorities of its people. Not only Opposition Members believe that; Conservative Members who read The Daily Telegraph, as I am sure that many do, will have read the comment that the
"legislative proposals and policy initiatives were so insubstantial that one wondered why it was necessary for Her Majesty to drive down Whitehall to deliver it."
Nothing that we have heard in the past few days has done other than confirm that view.
The Government should be tackling unemployment; instead, they attack the unemployed. They should be reducing the need for people to claim benefit; instead, they reduce the rights of claimants. They should be tackling the problems of the Child Support Agency, not sweeping them under the carpet. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North pointed out, the Government should be intent on improving front-line services in the national health service; instead, as the Queen's Speech tells us, they are to
"bring forward legislation to make further improvements to the management of the National Health Service".—[Official Report, 16 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 6.]
688
We all know that every so-called reform of that kind has simply led to more bureaucrats. The number has increased from 510 in 1986 to more than 20,000 last year, and the total administrative salary bill for the NHS is now £1.5 billion.
Mr. Gallie: The other day I visited a hospital in the constituency of one of the hon. Lady's hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), where I met a lady who had been advised seven weeks ago that she needed the hip replacement, which she was now in hospital to receive. That is something that the Labour party could not have dreamed of a few years ago. Does that not show that the Government are doing well in the health service and will continue to do well in other areas?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has a nerve to talk about hospital services in Scotland, where the Government have just wasted more than £30 million of taxpayers' money on a private hospital.
Our constituents do not want further improvements of that kind, which only lead to bigger bills for the administrative side of the health service. Nor are they lobbying for the privatisation of the Crown Agents, or indeed for competition in the gas industry—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) pointed out, will result in regional monopolies in place of a national monopoly. But Labour Members—and, I am sure, Conservative Members—are hearing what our constituents think of the new surcharge on those who cannot pay their gas bills instantly. Even more, we are hearing what our constituents think about the unbelievable and outrageous increase in salary for the British Gas chairman.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Is it not the case that the regulator of the gas industry will not permit the company to increase prices to the consumers in order to pay salary rises? Those salaries have to be paid for out of the money which would otherwise go to the shareholders, who can complain about it at the next shareholders meeting if they see fit. Moreover, the 2.9 per cent. price increase is spread over the past three years and thus amounts to a rise of less than 1 per cent. a year—well below the present extremely low rate of inflation.
Mrs. Taylor: I think that the hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. If he takes that view, he cannot object to the new measures proposed by the Labour party to give new powers to the regulator. It is interesting that today and throughout this week not one Minister has condemned the increase to the chairman of British Gas—[Interruption.] There is condemnation and condemnation, obviously. The only Conservative Member who clearly condemned it was the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. That increase in salary is an insult to every family and every pensioner in Britain, especially when the Government are on the verge of doubling VAT on fuel and not compensating pensioners for all the increased bills that they will have to pay.
Recently, Ministers have started to complain about the cynicism of the British public. That seems to be their latest theme in countering the fact that they are doing so badly in the polls. I wonder who Ministers thank is responsible for the cynicism that exists in British politics. How can Ministers promise that there will be no increase in VAT or national insurance and no reduction in

689
mortgage tax relief and then, when they break those promises, complain that the British public are cynical? As my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) said, do Ministers think that the British public cannot add up the costs of the tax increases that we have seen since the last election?
National insurance is up from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. Mortgage interest tax relief has been reduced. Personal allowances have been frozen. There is a new home insurance tax, a new car insurance tax and a new airport tax on those who can afford holidays abroad. And there is VAT on fuel. Clearly, Ministers are hoping that the electorate will fall for the pre-election bribe which seems to be the sole objective of the Chancellor's economic policy.
To be fair, however—we have to be fair on these occasions—not every member of the Conservative party is totally out of touch. John Maples seems to have made a rather accurate analysis on many points. The Government would be wise to follow some of his advice—though not, of course, his advice to promote a yob culture in the Commons. The Government would be wise to follow the advice of the deputy chairman of their party to shelve the impending rise in VAT on fuel, as is Labour party policy. They would be wise to tax executive share options—also Labour party policy. They would be wise to recognise that they can never win on the NHS, especially when they promote increased bureaucracy. They would also be wise to recognise that
"Reversing Labour's 39 per cent. poll lead on education issues will be tough … talk of competition, budgets, management … triggers negative perceptions of treating education like a business."
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said in the Chamber a short while ago that many Conservative Members had been trying to get the Maples message through to Ministers but had so far failed. Perhaps they need to try harder. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he wanted to stand by his election promises on the EC but that he has been threatened with withdrawal of the Conservative Whip if he does not line up and vote with the Government on Monday. I noted that comment with interest. We so often hear how Government Back Benchers intend to rebel, but I fear that on Monday, when it comes to the crunch, they will back down once again.
We are told in the Gracious Speech that the Government
"will continue to implement policies and programmes responsive to the needs of the individual citizen, in line with the principles of the Citizen's Charter."
That passage has received little attention from Conservative Members. I have listened to much of the debate over the past week and I am left wondering whether Conservative Members even remember that we have a citizens charter. I have not heard them praising it.
The charter must be the fastest evaporating policy that any Government have ever introduced. Conservative Back Benchers realise, if Ministers do not, that the Government have made a joke out of the word "charter". Yet on Monday the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster boasted that there are now 42 charters. The Government's citizens charter unit is so impressed with that fact that it does not
690
even hold a copy of each of the charters, although that is perhaps not surprising when we consider how little the charters have delivered.
A cones hotline was set up costing £120,000. Yet it receives fewer than 30 calls a day. That, again, is perhaps not surprising in view of the quality of information on offer. A reporter from The Daily Telegraph who phoned to complain about cones choking the A21 was told that they were presumably there because of road works. As taxpayers, we are paying £120,000 for that sort of information. What a waste.
The Department of Education has not fared much better. When parents went to collect their child benefit at Post Offices this summer, they were handed a Government leaflet on school tests. A parliamentary question revealed that the Department was paying the Post Office £99,000 for that service. The leaflets were also being handed out at Argos stores and goodness knows where else. Ministers were so proud of the leaflets that they have now been withdrawn. Again, what a waste.
Ministers need to learn that charters have contributed to the cynicism of which they complain. The same is true of Government waste. Indeed, waste has become one of the most obvious features of the Government. Even today the President of the Board of Trade is sending out propaganda videos and wasting taxpayers' money. The right hon. Gentleman is sending them to every Member of this place. That is typical of the Government's priorities. They choose to spend money on propaganda videos, for example, rather than on the real issues.
Under the Tories, we have seen a waste of resources. Up to 1994, £125 billion of North sea oil revenues have been wasted. At the same time, investment in manufacturing industry is less now than it was in 1979.
Mr. John Butterfill: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Taylor: No, I have to finish in a moment.
We have had a waste of talent and of the potential of our people. That is what is so obscene about the Government.
The Chancellor and other Conservative Members have talked again today about wanting to bring public expenditure down. Yet the Queen's Speech does not even address the basic problem of public expenditure—the high cost and the waste of the public money that the Government are having to spend on unemployment. The Queen's Speech does not deal with that. Instead, its objective is primarily to keep the Tory party together.
The single theme of the Government, the theme that drives all others, is their desperation to be re-elected, at any cost to anyone. They see their re-election no longer as a means of furthering the good of the country, but as an end in itself. They have no policies whatever for the country—only a party survival strategy. That is their most fundamental flaw, worse even than the internal divisions, the policy sidesteps and the U-turns. Not even the sleazy cover-ups and fudges are more important than that.
The Government have lost their direction, their vision and their purpose. The Queen's Speech proves that they are out of touch and out of steam. That is why we shall press our amendment.
9.40 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I see that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has not yet been able to return to us tonight, but last Friday, at an earlier stage of the debate, he said that he had read
"every speech made by Conservative Home Secretaries to each Conservative party conference since 1979."
He described that as
"a numbing experience, but worth it."—[Official Report, 18 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 253.]
Having studied the rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I wondered whether the effect had worn off.
Nevertheless, impressed by the hon. Gentleman's diligence, I engaged in the somewhat similar exercise of reading all the Opposition winding-up speeches in Queen's Speech debates over the same period.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: We don't believe you.
Mr. Newton: It is true, I promise the hon. Gentleman. I was less lucky than the hon. Member for Blackburn, because in the end I was not sure whether the exercise had been worth it, but it was certainly not entirely without interest. Especially in the light of some of the policies urged in the speech by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and some other Opposition speeches, perhaps the interest lay most of all in reminding us how much the world has moved on in the intervening period.
It has not always been the shadow Leader of the House making the winding-up speech. In 1979 it was Albert Booth, a former Secretary of State for Employment, explaining the merits of the industrial relations legislation that had just given us the winter of discontent. In 1981 the late John Silkin, who was much respected on both sides of the House, explained the essential need for Britain to leave the European Economic Community in order to return to exchange controls and import controls. In 1982 it was John Silkin again, declaring that privatisation would destroy British Telecom.
That reminder of a world that now seems so long ago as to be almost beyond memory was one of the interesting things. The second one was the interesting pattern whereby every four years the speech equivalent to the one just made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury had the flavour of winding up, as the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) more or less specifically wound up his speech in 1991, with words to the effect of, "We look forward to the next Queen's Speech, because we shall write it." Those speeches were invariably followed a year later by a speech congratulating the new Conservative Leader of the House on his appointment.
Thirdly, I came across something that might interest hon. Members on both sides of the House, a quotation from an Opposition speech again made by the late John Silkin, in 1983. I shall quote—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Dewsbury will listen to this. [Interruption.] If I might just have the hon. Lady's attention for a moment, I am about to refer to her in a quite friendly fashion. I shall quote from the equivalent speech in 1983 to the one that she has just made.
The late John Silkin said:
"The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) paid tribute to Ann Taylor, of whom we are very fond and whom we miss greatly. Unfortunately, I missed the speech of the hon. Member for
692
Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), but I understand that it was extremely interesting, and we hope to hear from him again soon."—[Official Report, 29 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 658.]
Eleven years later, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) is happily still with us, the hon. Member for Dewsbury has happily been restored to us and the House has fulfilled its wish to hear more from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—now the Home Secretary—most recently, of course, in this debate last Friday.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I bring the Leader of the House back to serious matters? He will know that Mr. Patrick Nicholls, a vice-chairman of the Conservative party, resigned tonight following a number of appalling statements that he made about our European partners. Can we presume to have a statement from the Dispatch Box?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman can assume that there will be ample opportunity to debate European matters within a short space of time.
There is another thing that emerges, which I think the House will want me to get on to. It has become the custom of the Leader of the House in these debates to say a little about House of Commons matters. I have sought to follow that practice, despite early advice from a former colleague to the effect that I should forget all that and get on with bashing the Opposition.
Looking back on my speech on this occasion last year, I see that I was noticeably cautious—rightly, as the intervening year has shown—about the prospects for prompt early moves on modifications to our working arrangements along the lines proposed in the report of the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). I am glad to say, and most—though I know not all—in the House will be glad to hear, that tonight I feel able to be much less cautious on that front to the point at which both I and the hon. Lady, whose endorsement I have for what I am about to say, believe that we are now close to the point at which we can jointly recommend a package of changes to the House.
The House will not expect me to go into full detail tonight, since neither the nature of the occasion nor the time available would make that practicable or appropriate, and many of the report's specific proposals involve the technicalities of our procedures. But I can say that we believe that we can agree on virtually all the specific changes proposed in the report and on achieving its main strategic objectives, although not always precisely along the lines originally proposed.
In particular, we think that the timetabling of most Government Bills, as envisaged by the report, is best achieved by voluntary agreement through the usual channels, rather than by some formal mechanism, which would, in practice, be hard to distinguish from a formal guillotine. Apart from its other merits—most noticeably, the greater flexibility that it allows—that has the merit of reflecting the underlying reality that making the changes work will depend on people wanting to make them work.
I should add that we have agreed that the changes that we hope to propose should be instituted on an experimental basis for the present Session, and that we should review them towards the end of it. The formal changes required at this stage will be provided for, should the House approve them, in sessional orders rather than

693
by changes to the Standing Orders as such. The orders brought forward would include one to allow the House to choose, if it wished, to exchange some of the business that it now does at other times—including private Members' motions on some Fridays—for equivalent time in sittings on Wednesday mornings, with every effort being made by the business managers to avoid hon. Members being kept here beyond 7 o'clock on Thursdays before non-sitting Fridays.
I hope that the House will welcome that brief report, and one other point that I can make in what I shall call the spirit of Jopling. I am aware that many hon. Members have already registered that Easter next year is very late. They have asked for guidance about what that might mean for any Easter recess. I hope that it will help them if I say that, subject as ever to progress on business, I would anticipate the recess to focus on the week before Easter rather than afterwards.
Mr. Morgan: Before the right hon. Gentleman reaches his characteristically charismatic peroration, may I ask him whether he has had a chance to study the documents that the Chancellor of the Exchequer issued this afternoon concerning European Community financing? Will he take the opportunity before 10 pm to explain the following inconsistency? Last year, the Chancellor announced on page 97 of the Red Book, like a rabbit out of a hat, a cut of £1.3 billion in this year's net financial contribution to the European Community, all of which now appears to have disappeared; if one takes the figures for last year, this year and next year, the contribution to the Community is £1.3 billion higher.
Madam Speaker: Order. Interventions should be short and pertinent to the point.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was admirably clear in the remarks that he made this afternoon in response to a number of interventions during his speech. Moreover, he made it very clear that the implications of the Edinburgh agreement, for which the European Communities (Finance) Bill provides, are £75 million in the short term and £250 million towards the end of the century. He has repeatedly set out those implications and made them clear to the House.
I have no doubt that, when the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has had more time to study the document that my right hon. and learned Friend published this afternoon, it will all be clear to him as well.
Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend will know that a few days ago my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said on the "Today" programme that the figures I had put forward concerning Community financing were rubbish.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke indicated assent.
Mr. Cash: I notice that my right hon. and learned Friend still maintains that view, so can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House explain how it is that a
694
new piece of information has had to be put in the Vote Office to demonstrate the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend appears to have changed his mind?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend has changed his mind. He has simply done what he said this afternoon he had done—he has set out papers to make the position clear in the way that he described this afternoon.
Since the debate on the Loyal Address started, we have had many speeches that have covered the wide-ranging legislative programme. Those speeches have been made from the Front and Back Benches and started with excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). In the first of those speeches, there occurred one of those exchanges with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) which I suspect will stick in parliamentary memories long after the arguments of the day have become hazy.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: What happened?
Mr. Newton: I shall readily remind the hon. Gentleman of what occurred. The exchange was as follows:
"Mr. Dennis Skinner: He is a retread.
Mr. Dunn: I heard a pip squeak."—[Official Report, 16 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 8.]
That is one of those exchanges which I believe deserves to be taken out of Hansard and framed.
In due course, some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in relation to education reforms and what the hon. Member for Dewsbury said about the citizens charter might be taken out of Hansard and framed. To be told by the hon. Gentleman that our education reforms have failed, when the Labour Front-Bench spokesman has just announced the Opposition's conversion to a major part of them, and to be told by the hon. Lady that the citizens charter has failed, when education league tables were a key feature of it, practically beggars belief.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House explain why the Secretary of State for Education has dropped league tables for seven, 11 and 14-year-olds and has now said that crude examination league tables at the age of 16 are not useful?
Mr. Newton: That is plain smokescreen stuff. As with almost every previous education reform, the Labour party has spent two or three years denouncing the present reform and has then announced its conversion to it. That has happened this week and the hon. Lady will not divert attention from it.
I wish to pay tribute to a number of speeches in today's debate by Front and Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) made a speech of impressive dignity and thoughtfulness and paid a generous tribute to the Prime Minister. He drew attention to possibly the most encouraging and important single change since the previous Queen's Speech, which is the new hope of a better future in Northern Ireland, including the hope of a better economic future there.
The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was characteristically wide ranging and went well beyond our narrow domestic concerns. He rightly gave my right hon.

695
and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the credit that he deserves for the substantial improvement in our economy since the equivalent debate a year ago.
Unlike his leader, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East appears unwilling to acknowledge that an improvement has taken place. The Leader of the Opposition said:
"There is recovery and growth, and inflation is low. We welcome that."—[Official Report, 16 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 20.]
That is another extract from Hansard which could be taken out and framed because it is the first time that the Opposition have acknowledged those very facts. Whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is willing to recognise them, let alone welcome them, they are manifestly the reality.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reminded us, unemployment is down by nearly 500,000, growth is making us the fastest growing economy in Europe, both this year and next, and underlying inflation is at its lowest for a quarter of a century. As the recovery proceeds, one by one the sound bites of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East turn round and bite him back. We were told that unemployment would rise and it has not; we were told that we would see a widening trade gap and we have not; we were told that we could not break "stop-go", yet it is steadily becoming clearer and clearer that the economy is now better placed to do just that than at any time in the political lifetime of most of us in the Chamber today.
If Opposition Members do not wish to look at the statistics, they have only to look at the action of overseas manufacturing investors as they vote with their feet to come and do business in Britain. Samsung is only the latest and largest example of a trend which, last year, brought 40 per cent. of all US and Japanese investment in Europe to the United Kingdom. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech at the outset, it has even brought Black and Decker to the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition.
I shall say this to the House and, not least, to the Opposition, because it picks up the key themes of the Speech on which we are concluding our debate and links back to what I said earlier: those firms would not have come to the Britain of the late 1970s, with its chaotic industrial relations, loss-making nationalised industries, and exchange and import controls extolled in Labour speeches in debates 15 years ago.
At the end of the 1970s under the last Labour Government, those firms—Toyota, Nissan, Fujitsu, Samsung and many others—would not have touched Britain with a bargepole. Moreover, they would not continue to come to Britain under the policies that Labour is extolling today: a minimum wage; a social chapter; and a persistent and insistent intervention in industry. Those companies are here, and those companies will stay, because of the policies which we have pursued and which the Gracious Speech carries forward in a wide-ranging programme of further improvements to the competitiveness of our economy and modernisations to our welfare state.
696
That programme meets the country's needs, will obtain the support of the House today and will build further on the economic record that is clear for all to see.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 312.

Division No.2]

[22.00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Darling, Alistair

Adams, Mrs Irene

Davidson, Ian

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Allen, Graham

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Alton, David

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

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

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Denham, John

Armstrong, Hilary

Dewar, Donald

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Dixon, Don

Ashton, Joe

Dobson, Frank

Austin-Walker, John

Dowd, Jim

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Barnes, Harry

Eagle, Ms Angela

Barron, Kevin

Eastham, Ken

Battle, John

Enright, Derek

Bayley, Hugh

Etherington, Bill

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Bell, Stuart

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Fisher, Mark

Bennett, Andrew F

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bermingham, Gerald

Foulkes, George

Berry, Roger

Fraser, John

Betts, Clive

Fyfe, Maria

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Galbraith, Sam

Blunkett, David

Gapes, Mike

Boateng, Paul

Garrett, John

Bradley, Keith

George, Bruce

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Gerrard, Neil

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

Godman, Dr Norman A

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Godsiff, Roger

Burden, Richard

Golding, Mrs Llin

Byers, Stephen

Gordon, Mildred

Caborn, Richard

Graham, Thomas

Callaghan, Jim

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Gunnell, John

Canavan, Dennis

Hain, Peter

Cann, Jamie

Hall, Mike

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Hanson, David

Chidgey, David

Harvey, Nick

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Church, Judith

Henderson, Doug

Clapham, Michael

Heppell, John

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hodge, Margaret

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hoey, Kate

Clelland, David

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Clwyd, Mrs Arm

Home Robertson, John

Coffey, Arn

Hoon, Geoffrey

Cohen, Harry

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Connarty, Michael

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hoyle, Doug

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Corbett, Robin

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Corston, Jean

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cousins, Jim

Hutton,John

Cox, Tom

Illsley, Eric

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Ingram, Adam

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Dafis, Cynog

Jamieson, David

697

Janner, Greville

Patchett, Terry

Johnston, Sir Russel

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Pope, Greg

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jowell, Tessa

Primarolo, Dawn

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Purchase, Ken

Keen, Alan

Quin, Ms Joyce

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Radice, Giles

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Randall, Stuart

Khabra,Piara S

Raynsford, Nick

kilfoyle, Peter

Reid, Dr John

Kirkwood, Archy

Rendel, David

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Lewis, Terry

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Rogers, Allan

Litherland, Robert

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Livingstone, Ken

Rowlands, Ted

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Ruddock, Joan

Llwyd, Elfyn

Salmond, Alex

Loyden, Eddie

Sedgemore, Brian

Macdonald, Calum

Sheerman, Barry

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

MacShane, Denis

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Madden, Max

Short, Clare

Maddock, Diana

Skinner, Dennis

Mahon, Alice

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Mandelson, Peter

Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Marek Dr John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Soley, Clive

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Spearing, Nigel

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Spellar, John

Martlew, Eric

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Maxton, John

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

McAllion, John

Steinberg, Gerry

McAvoy, Thomas

Stevenson, George

McCartney, Ian

Stott, Roger

McCrea, Rev William

Strang, Dr. Gavin

McFall, John

Straw, Jack

McKelvey, William

Sutcliffe, Gerry

McLeish, Henry

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

McMaster, Gordon

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

McNamara, Kevin

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

McWilliam, John

Timms, Stephen

Meacher, Michael

Tipping, Paddy

Meale, Alan

Turner, Dennis

Michael, Alun

Tyler, Paul

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Vaz, Keith

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Milburn, Alan

Wallace, James

Miller, Andrew

Walley, Joan

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Wareing, Robert N

Morgan, Rhodri

Watson, Mike

Morley, Elliot

Welsh, Andrew

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Wicks, Malcolm

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Wigley, Dafydd

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

Mudie, George

Wilson, Brian

Mullin, Chris

Wise, Audrey

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Worthington, Tony

O'Brien,Mike (N W'kshire)

Wray, Jimmy

O' Neill, Martin

Wright, Dr Tony

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Olner, Bil

Tellers for the Ayes:

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Mr. John Cummings and

Parry, Robert

Mr. Joe Benton.

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surry)

Amess, David

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Ancram, Michael

Alexander, Richard

Arbuthnot, James

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

698

Ashby, David

Fabricant, Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Atkins, Robert

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Fishburn, Dudley

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Forsvth Michael (Stirling)

Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)

Baldry.Tony

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Forth, Eric

Bates, Michael

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Batiste, Spencer

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Beggs, Roy

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Bellingham, Henry

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Bendall, Vivian

French, Douglas

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fry, Sir Peter

Booth, Hartley

Gale, Roger

Boswell, Tim

Gallie, Phil

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gardiner, Sir George

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Garnier, Edward

Bowis, John

Gill, Christopher

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Brandreth, Gyles

Gillan, Cheryl

Brazier, Julian

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bright, Sir Graham

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Gorst, Sir John

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)

Budgen, Nicholas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Burns, Simon

Burt,Alistair

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Butler, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Buttetfill, John

Grylls, Sir Michael

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hague, William

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Carttiss, Michael

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Cash, William

Hampson, Dr Keith

Churchill, Mr

Clappison, James

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hannam, Sir John

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Harris, David

Coe, Sebastian

Hawkins, Nick

Colvin, Michael

Hawksley, Warren

Congdon, David

Hayes, Jerry

Conway, Derek

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Heald, Oliver

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cormack, Patrick

Hendry, Charles

Couchman, James

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

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

Hicks, Robert

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Day, Stephen

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Devlin, Tim

Horam.John

Dicks, Terry

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)

Dover, Den

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Howell Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Duncan, Alan

Dunn, Bob

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Dykes, Hugh

Hunter, Andrew

Eggar, Tim

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Elletson, Harold

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Jenkin, Bernard

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Jessel, Toby

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Evennett, David

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Faber, David

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

699

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Key, Robert

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Kiledder, Sir James

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Ross, Wiliam (E Londonderry)

Knapman, Roger

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Knight, Dame Jill (Birm E'st'n)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Sackville, Tom

Knox, Sir David

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lait Mrs Jacqui

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shepherd, Colin (Hertford)

Legg, Barry

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Leigh, Edward

Shersby, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Sims, Roger

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lidington, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lightbown, David

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lilly, Rt Hon Peter

Soames, Nicholas

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Speed, Sir Keith

Lord, Michael

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

MacKay, Andrew

Spink, Dr Robert

Madel, Sir David

Spring, Richard

Maginnis, Ken

Sproat, Iain

Maitland, Lady Olga

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Major, Rt Hon John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Malone, Gerald

Steen, Anthony

Mans, Keith

Stephen, Michael

Marland, Paul

Stern, Michael

Marlow, Tony

Stewart, Allan

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Streeter, Gary

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Sumberg, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Sweeney, Walter

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Sykes, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Merchant, Piers

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

Mills, Iain

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants N W)

Thomason, Roy

Moate, Sir Roger

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Thomton, Sir Malcolm

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Thurnham, Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Tracey, Richard

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Tredinnick, David

Norris, Steve

Trend, Michael

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Trimble, David

Oppenheim, Phillip

Trotter, Neville

Ottaway, Richard

Twinn,Dr Ian

Page, Richard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Paice, James

Viggers, Peter

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Waltegrave, Rt Hon William

Patten, Rt Hon John

Walden, George

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

Pawsey, James

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Waller, Gary

Pickles, Eric

Ward, John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Powell, William (Corby)

Watts, John

Rathbone, Tim

Wells, Bowen

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Whitney, Ray

Richards, Rod

Whittingdale, John

Riddick, Graham

Widdecombe, Ann

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Robathan, Andrew

Wilkinson, John

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Willetts, David

700

Wilshire, David

Yeo, Tim

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Tellers for the Noes:

Wolfson, Mark

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Wood, Timothy

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add,
But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech omits measures to promote long-term investment in the country's economic competitiveness and the advancement of individual opportunities; and calls instead for measures to improve the country's performance in education and training, a programme to increase public and private investment and implement a structure for private-public partnership, policies to close the widening gap between rich and poor, reforms to create a more pluralist system of Government and encourage more public participation in decision-making including a system of fair voting, freedom of information legislation and devolution, a strategy for positive and constructive participation in the European Union to promote the country's interests, measures to increase energy efficiency, reduce the use of pollutants and actively promote public transport, and substantive reforms to the Child Support Agency.—[Mr. Ashdown.]
Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Calling of amendments at end of debate), That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 311.

Division No.3]

[22.17 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Maddock, Diana

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Marek, Dr John

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &, Bute)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Rendel, David

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Salmond, Alex

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Dafis, Cynog

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Tyler, Paul

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Wallace, James

Harvey, Nick

Welsh, Andrew

Foster, Don (Bath)

Wigley, Dafydd

Johnston, Sir Russell

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Kennedy. Charles (Ross.C&S)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

Llwyd,Elfyn

Mr. Simon Hughes.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Bendall, Vivian

Aitken,Rt Hon Jonathan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Alexander, Richard

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Booth, Hartley

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Boswell, Tim

Amess, David

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Ancram, Michael

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Arbuthnot, James

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bowis, John

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Ashby, David

Brandreth, Gyles

Aspinwall, Jack

Brazier, Julian

Atkins, Robert

Bright, Sir Graham

Atkinson David (Bour'mouth E)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Baldry,.Tony

Budgen, Nicholas

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Burns, Simon

Bates, Michael

Burt, Alistair

Batiste, Spencer

Butler, Peter

Beggs, Roy

Butterfill, John

Bellingham, Henry

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

701

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Carrington, Matthew

Hannam, Sir John

Carttiss, Michael

Hargreaves, Andrew

Cash,.William

Harris, David

Churchill,.Mr

Hawkins, Nick

Clappison, James

Hawksley, Warren

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hayes, Jerry

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Heald, Oliver

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Coe, Sebastian

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Colvin, Michael

Hendry, Charles

Congdon, David

Heseltline, Rt Hon Michael

Conway, Derek

Hicks, Robert

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Cormack, Patrick

Horam, John

Couchman, James

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

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

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Day, Stephen

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Devlin, Tim

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Dicks, Terry

Hunter, Andrew

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Dover, Den

Jenkin, Bernard

Duncan, Smith, Iain

Jessel,Toby

Duncan, Alan

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dunn, Bob

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Durant Sir Anthony

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Dykes, Hugh

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Eggar, Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Elletson, Harold

Key, Robert

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Kilfedder, Sir James

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knapman, Roger

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Evennett, David

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Faber, David

Knox, Sir David

Fabricant, Michael

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fishburn, Dudley

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Legg, Barry

Forth, Eric

Leigh, Edward

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Lidington, David

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Lightbown, David

French, Douglas

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Fry, Sir Peter

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Gale, Roger

Lord, Michael

Gallie, Phil

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Gardiner, Sir George

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

MacKay, Andrew

Garnier, Edward

Madel, Sir David

Gill, Christopher

Maginnis, Ken

Gillan, Cheryl

Maitland, Lady Olga

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Major, Rt Hon John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Malone, Gerald

Gorrman, Mrs Teresa

Mans, Keith

Gorst, Sir John

Marland, Paul

Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)

Marlow, Tony

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

McLoughin, Patrick

Hague, William

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Merchant, Piers

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mills, Iain

702

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Spring, Richard

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Sproat, Iain

Moate, Sir Roger

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Steen, Anthony

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Stephen, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Stem, Michael

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Stewart, Alan

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Streeter, Gary

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Sumberg, David

Norris, Steve

Sweeney, Walter

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Sykes, John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Page, Richard

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Paice, James

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

Patrick, Sir Irvine

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Thomason, Roy

Pawsey, James

Tnompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Pickles, Eric

Thomton, Sir Malcolm

Porter, David (Waveney)

Thurnham, Peter

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Powell, William (Corby)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Rathbone, Tim

Tracey, Richard

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Tredinnick, David

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Trend, Michael

Richards, Rod

Trimble, David

Riddick, Graham

Trotter, Neville

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Twinn, Dr Ian

Robathan, Andrew

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Viggers, Peter

Robertson Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Walden, George

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Walker Bill (N Tayside)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Waller, Gary

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Ward, John

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Waterson, Nigel

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Watts, John

Sackville, Tom

Wells, Bowen

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Whitney, Ray

Shaw, David (Dover)

Whittingdale, John

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Widdecombe, Ann

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wilkinson, John

Shersby, Michael

Willetts, David

Sims, Roger

Wilshire, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Skinner, Dennis

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wolfson, Mark

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Wood, Timothy

Soames, Nicholas

Yeo, Tim

Speed, Sir Keith

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Spencer, Sir Derek

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Tellers for the Noes:

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Spink, Dr Robert

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Labour Market
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
10.29 pm
Mr. David Evans: I did not ask for this debate on instructions from No. 10 or from the Whips Office. If Keir Hardie had not invented the Labour party, Jeremy Beadle would have done. Labour Members surely represent the biggest practical joke ever played on the British people. It might even be funny, if the consequences for the country were not so dire.
I pay tribute to Janus—no, not Janice, but the two-headed Roman god of beginnings, after whom the month of January was named. Janus's two heads enabled him to look back to the past while facing the future. I would like to emulate that technique this evening, as I believe that we need to look to the disastrous conditions of the previous Labour Government before we can fully appreciate the miraculous achievements of the Conservative Government throughout the 1980s and 1990s in setting the foundations for an exciting future which will continue to bring prosperity to the nation.
A trip down memory lane is necessary to inform and warn an ever-growing section of the electorate who are too young to remember the Frankenstein horrors of the previous Labour Government, although the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is a passable imitation of the real thing from Count Dracula's castle—he certainly scares me—and so have little understanding of the reality of voting Labour.
To enable the Government to focus on a policy for the labour market today, they had to consider what happened during the late 1970s. Even to this day, the scars are visible for all to see. No one will forget—that lot over there would like us to forget—the previous Labour Prime Minister, having returned from a trip to sunny Barbados in January 1979, saying, "Crisis—what crisis?" The crisis, which everyone except he and his Cabinet could see, was only too evident. I could give a hundred reasons to highlight that fact, but, for the purposes of this debate, I will focus on 10.
One: rats as big as cats were running around Leicester square, where the capital's refuse was being dumped because members of the Transport and General Workers Union, supported by their sponsored Labour Members of Parliament, refused to collect the rubbish.
Two: the dead lay unburied outside our cemeteries because the TGWU, supported by sponsored Labour Members, refused to dig the graves or to let the corpses cross the picket lines.
Three: patients were not admitted to hospitals, nor were vital drugs and medicines allowed in, because the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees, again supported by sponsored Labour Members, said no. Our reforms have meant that, every week, 40,000 more patients are treated in the national health service than was the case in 1979—instead of 40,000 more union meetings.
Four: we have to remember, too, the humiliation of the Chancellor of the day, a certain Denis Healey, who boasted that he would turn the economy round. The only thing he turned round was the 747 taking him to America, because on that morning the International Monetary Fund, or, as I call it, the receiver, had refused to lend the United
704
Kingdom any more money. In other words, we were bust, with our name being dragged through the gutters of Europe, and our national pride gone. Under Labour, Great Britain did not mean Great Britain, it meant "gone bust".
Five: who can believe now that, in 1979, one was allowed to take only £50 per year out of the country to go on holiday? Labour believed that, if it allowed any more to be taken out, it would all go overnight to foreign countries, where people's money would be safe and not subject to the ravages of inflation in the United Kingdom. While we are talking about £50, who did not pay the pensioners their £50 Christmas bonus when they were in power?
Six: who can believe now that, under the last Labour Government, inflation reached a peak of 27 per cent., and that, on a weekly shopping trip, every can of beans had acne? It was possible to peel off four or five price increase stickers—and that was just in one week.
Seven: when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—or is it Belgravia?—regularly talks about closing pits and sacking miners, roared on by his colleagues, he should remember that facts are facts. The Labour Governments of 1964–70 and 1974–79 closed 313 pits—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fonlies): Order. We could do with a little more quiet.
Mr. Evans:—with the loss of 205,700 jobs. Between 1974 and 1979, the Labour Government were committed to expanding the market for coal; in fact, output fell by 16 per cent.in that period, from 142 million tons to 119 million. A former Labour Energy Minister, now Lord Marsh, said on 20 October 1992:
"We genuinely believed that with a benevolent mixture of good intentions and massive subsidies we could reverse"—
I repeat: reverse—
"the market trend.
My Lords, we completely misled ourselves and them."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 1992; Vol. 539, c. 692.]
By "them" he meant the miners.
Eight: what was the higher rate of tax in 1979? With the higher rate now at 40 per cent., it seems inconceivable to us now Was it 50 per cent.? [HON MEMBERS:"Higher."] Was it 60 per cent.? [HON. MEMBERS:"Higher."] Was it 70 per cent.? [HON. MEMBERS:"Higher."] Was it 80 per cent.? [HON. MEMBERS:"Higher."] Was it 90 per cent.? [HON. MEMBERS:"Higher."] Was it 95 per cent.? [HON. MEMBERS: "Higher.] Was it 98 per cent.? [HON. MEMBERS: "Unbelievable!"] And some of us actually managed to pay 103p in the pound.
Nine: the present leader of the Labour party tries to rewrite Labour's history in order to keep up with our agenda, having to eat his words daily. Over the past 20 , years, his party has changed its mind no fewer than eight times over whether we should be in or out of Europe, and pledged allegiance to a non-nuclear defence policy. It is funny how people and times change—or is it promotion that does it?
With regard to Europe, it is worth mentioning that every member of today's shadow Cabinet, as a Member of Parliament in 1972, voted against British entry. On defence, even at this year's Labour party conference—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I point out that the choice of

705
topic was his, that topic being Government policy. To me, that did not suggest past Government policies. I think that the hon. Gentleman should now come to the title of his Adjournment debate.
Mr. Evans: Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying to paint a picture—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I know very well what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do; I am saying that he must come to the point.
Mr. Evans: People today do not believe that 13 million days were lost under Labour in the 1970s owing to strikes, as against just under half a million lost in 1993.
Those are some of the reasons why Labour lost the general election in 1979; lost the general election in 1983; lost the general election in 1987; and lost the general election in 1992. Labour has played four and lost four. Even Graham Taylor had a better record than that as manager of the England football team.
It is a simple rule of government that, in order to fight unemployment and develop the conditions for growth, investment and job creation, it is vital that the strategy towards the labour market is built upon the foundations of solid and sensible economic policies.
The next time that that lot on the Opposition Benches have the audacity to criticise the Government's economic policy, I should like to play to them the video of the winter of discontent—strikes, inflation, taxes and misery, the four corners of socialism throughout the world.
Since 1979, it has been the task of Conservative Governments to pick up the pieces from the socialist suicide of the seventies. We like a challenge. We leave that lot on the Opposition Benches to do the whingeing. We get on with the job—and what is more, we deliver. Conservative Governments' top priority has been to reduce inflation so that business can have a firm and steady basis on which to plan and invest. We delivered.
In 1993, inflation remained below 3 per cent. for 12 months, the first time that that has happened since 1960. Inflation currently stands at 2.4 per cent., the lowest it has been for 30 years. Compare that with our international competitors. In Germany, inflation stands at 3 per cent. and in Italy it is 4.1 per cent.
We cut taxes to encourage enterprise and initiative. Since 1979, the basic rate of income tax has been brought down from 33p to 25p. Beer and sandwiches at No.10 are gone for ever. Since 1979, exports have risen by three quarters. By taming the unions, we have got the country working again, and working hard. The United Kingdom rose to the top of the productivity growth league in the 1980s, having been at the bottom in the 1960s and 1970s.
Manufacturing industry has been transformed under Conservative management. Britain is now an international leader in key sectors, such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals and telecommunications. It was only by defeating the unions that we could regain Britain's position as an industrial world leader and give British management the confidence, freedom and incentive to manage properly and professionally.
Nowadays, when one mentions unions, there is an eerie silence on the Opposition Benches. That silence is caused by confusion. On the one hand, the unions still give
706
Opposition Members a nice juicy pay cheque at the end of each week. Every Member of the shadow Cabinet is sponsored by a union. They have a cheek to talk about sleaze. What is more sleazy than a block vote or a late night shop stewards' election? Labour party policy emanates from their back pockets.
On the one hand, the unions are still Labour's paymasters, but on the other hand there is the so-called "new look" Labour party, led by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, who looks more like a ladies' hairdresser than a credible statesman. He lacks only a velvet jacket and a pouffy buttonhole to become the Teazy-Weazy of the trade unions.
That has resulted in a form of political schizophrenia. When addressing a conference of business men, the Labour leadership, Mr. Trade Union Teazy-Weazy promises not to amend trade union laws that we have established, but when the deputy leader addresses the unions, he talks of taxing the undeserving rich, of minimum wages and of reforming Tory laws. Like Janus, they face both ways. If fact, if one compares the Labour leader's speeches with those of the deputy leader, it is difficult to tell whether they are on their janus or their anus. Will the real Labour party please stand up, or is it too late?
The Conservative party's policy on the labour market is the one that delivers the goods. Unemployment in Britain fell again last month by 45,000 to 2.5 million. That marked the eighth successive monthly fall, and fits into a consistent downward spiral in unemployment since 1992.
Our achievement in the labour market compares very favourably with that of our European counterparts. For example, unemployment in the United Kingdom is 8.9 per cent. That is well below the rate in France, which is 11.3 per cent. It is 12 per cent. in Italy and a staggering 21.8 per cent. in Spain. It is worth noting that Spain has a minimum wage. Need I say more?
Throughout the 1980s, the Conservative Government saw the importance of providing the nation's children with an education to equip them with the skills that they would need to enable them to compete in a future labour market. About £2.8 billion a year is spent by the Government on training, enterprise and vocational education. That is two-and-a-half times more in real terms than under Labour in 1979.
In addition, spending per pupil under the Conservatives has risen by 47 per cent. in real terms since 1979 Spending on books and equipment has risen by 31 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Average teachers' pay has risen by 57 per cent. on the same basis since 1979.
Conservative reforms and policies have worked. That is plain for all to see. In Europe, 40 per cent. of all inward investment comes to Britain. Foreign companies are flooding into Britain to take advantage of our sound eonomy, our low taxation and the skills of our honest work force.
Britain, the poor man of Europe in the 1970s—there was the brain drain, when all our best doctors, business men and scientists left for foreign parts— has become the investment magnet of Europe. How can that lot over there on the Opposition Benches seriously question anyone on economic policy when they remain committed to clause IV? Their commitment to nationalisation shows that, despite the recent influx of slick party political broadcasts,

707
sober soundbites and cheesy grins, there still lurks a union boss behind every Labour leader— the string of the Labour party puppet.
Try as he might to get his so-called new-look team to be taken seriously, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield cannot teach his old dogs new tricks, especially when they are kept on a tight Transport and General Workers Union lead, housed in a Trades Union Congress kennel and allowed to eat from a GMB bowl.
The Conservative party is the party of the people. The British people vote Conservative because their vote is returned with a guarantee. We shall deliver.
In the second quarter of 1994, gross domestic product grew by 3.7 per cent. when compared with the same period last year. According to the European Commission— not a source I tend to quote too often— in 1994–95, GDP in the United Kingdom is set to grow faster than in any other EC country.
Politics is about delivering the goods; we have done that. Consumer goods are the layman's thermometer for assessing wealth. Since 1979, the number of households with a washing machine has risen by 14 per cent; with a car, by 16 per cent; with central heating, by 48 per cent. We have injected initiative. enterprise and opportunity into the economy. That has resulted in growth, success and jobs.
How dare that lot over there challenge our record in the labour market when they are financially bound to the unions, chained to clause IV and committed to the suicidal social chapter? Even when taken together, they have less employment and economic experience than a bingo caller.
A Labour Government would allow every man, woman and child in great Britain to participate in the biggest lottery ever seen. The lottery would be based on which policy they implemented first. Would it be higher inflation, higher taxation, crippling national debt or trade union terrorism— in other words, a lottery from hell? It is a lottery ticket that the people of Great Britain must not be allowed to buy.
10.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice)rose—
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Paice: Madam Deputy Speaker, if only I could answer in a way adequate to deal with the inimitable style of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans)—a style of which we in the House are proud, and of which we know that Janice is also proud.
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend on achieving the debate. He is right to recall the situation in the 1970s, against which the electorate rebelled so decisively in 1979. When we examine the labour market, we must start with one fundamental belief: Governments do not create jobs. Jobs come from businesses producing goods and services at a price and of a quality that people want. My hon. Friend knows that from his own successful business career. Government's role is to provide the right framework for enterprise to flourish, and that is what we are doing.
As my hon. Friend has said, inflation is low, well below the average of our European competitors. We are now in a third year of economic growth, with GDP at its highest level ever. Manufacturing output is 4 per cent. higher than
708
a year ago, and we have the fastest industrial production of any major industrial country. Export volumes are up 12 per cent. on a year ago, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund predict that the United Kingdom will have the fastest growing major European Community economy this year. The policies are working.
As my hon. Friend also said, United Kingdom unemployment has fallen again, and is now below 9 per cent., down by 450,000 since the recovery in the labour market began. That fall began much earlier in the recovery than in any pervious economic cycle. It did so because we have a flexible labour market. Flexibility delivers jobs. The least regulated countries are also those with the best record on job creation.
The United States and Japan not only have fewer people out of work than most European countries; they also have more people in work. Only a handful of European countries can match their record, and those countries, such as the United Kingdom, are also among the least regulated. We have a higher proportion of our work force in employment than any other major EC country. Unemployment is falling faster here than in any other member state. Youth unemployment stands at 13.1 per cent, compared with an EC average of 19.4 per cent.
Perhaps most important are the findings of a survey by the EC Commission—not the one to which my hon. Friend referred—showing that 27 per cent. of employers in Europe regard inflexibility as a very important deterrent to recruitment. The figure for the United Kingdom was 10 per cent., the lowest in any member state.
Our aim is to minimise the burdens on business, while at the same time safeguarding employees and the public. We have transformed industrial relations and labour market flexibility since those days that my hon. Friend recalled. Strikes are now at the lowest levels since Queen Victoria was on the throne, and our strike rates are among the lowest in all industrialised countries—lower than those in Germany, France and the United States. We ended the closed shop; we got rid of the dock work labour scheme; we have created trade union democracy, and given power back to union members.
The Government are not interested in a low-wage economy. Nobody seriously believes that we can compete on wage rates with the Pacific rim. We want a high-skill, high-tech, high-productivity economy, because that will lead to high wages but to low unit wage costs. In the past 20 years, unit labour costs in manufacturing have risen by almost 200 per cent. in Europe. In Japan, they have risen by about 30 per cent.
The Government's policies are reversing that trend, and keeping non-wage costs down. Unit wage costs in manufacturing are now down by 1.4 per cent. on last year. Productivity in manufacturing is up by 6 per cent. on last year, and labour costs as a percentage of total hourly costs are lower than all of our major competitors.
But there are threats to those great achievements. There is not just the vague and remote possibility of a Labour Government, to which my hon. Friend referred and properly put into context, but the threat of new regulations and burdens at European level. That is why the Government chose, rightly, to keep out of the social chapter.

709
Let me make it clear that we do not really mind if businesses want to set up works councils, or if businesses want to give workers three months' or three years' parental leave, but we do mind if they are forced to do so. It is for businesses to decide, not Europe, or, in most cases, Westminster.
We have in this country a solid framework of protection for workers in health and safety, sex and race discrimination, trade union membership or non-membership and rights against unfair dismissal. But beyond that framework, we believe that employers and employees should be left to decide which arrangements suit their individual needs.
I referred to a high-skill economy. The main responsibility for training still rests with employers. It is estimated that UK employers spend more than £20 billion a year on training. A CBI survey only last month showed a substantial increase in the percentage of manufacturing firms expecting to increase training, compared with last year.
The centrepiece of our strategy is the "investors for people" initiative, to encourage employers to invest effectively in the skills needed for business success. It aims to improve business performance by linking training and the development of employees to business objectives.
Britain used to lag behind the rest of Europe in education and skill levels. We have done much to change that. More than 70 per cent. of 16-year-olds, and more than 55 per cent. of 17-year-olds are now in full-time education, compared with just 42 per cent. and 29 per cent. respectively in 1979. Training people in work has
710
increased sharply during the past decade. In spring of this year, 79 per cent. more people received job-related training than in spring 1984.
We have not forgotten the unemployed. Listening to the Opposition, one could believe that "the unemployed" were one large homogenous mass. They are not—they are 2.5 million individual people, each with his own needs and expectations. Some need skills, some need motivation, some need literacy and numeracy, and some need to learn how to apply for a job. That is why my Department has a large menu of options for the unemployed, and it is why around half of those who become unemployed leave the count within three months, and two thirds leave within six months.
We have developed national vocational qualifications and modern apprenticeships to drive forward the skills needs of our country. Together with the changes in the labour market brought about by the experiences which my hon. Friend recalled, we are equipping Britain with a work force for the future.
I read today that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said that the Labour party plans to make the Department of Employment a "driving force" for a more competitive and dynamic economy. I have news for her—she is years behind the times, as my hon. Friend described. This Government and this Department, of which I am proud to be Minister, is already there. We are pushing forward the skills frontiers of Britain and pursuing flexible labour market policies to get unemployment down.
My hon. Friend has done the House a major service in allowing us to recall and recount just how far we have come during the past 15 years, and just how much we have achieved in that time. The House should he grateful for his contribution.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements are being made for the future appointment of permanent secretaries following the White Paper, "The Civil Service: Continuity and Change".

  Mr. David Hunt
  The White Paper made clear in paragraph 4.24 that, as vacancies arise at this level, the arrangements for identifying candidates, either through internal procedures or by open competition, will be considered on a case by case basis by addressing a number of "prior questions". Appointments to a number of permanent secretary vacancies which will arise next year have now been addressed in this way. Those in the Department of Employment and the Central Statistical Office will be made following open competition. The appointment of the Permanent Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science will be made following consideration of candidates across the civil service as a whole.

  Large Hadron Collider Project
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the amount of the French contribution to the large hadron collider project at CERN which is in dispute; and what impact this amount makes on the project.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The United Kingdom and German Governments, with the support of other CERN member states, are seeking an appropriate additional contribution to the large hadron collider—LHC—project from France which properly reflects the considerable.benefits they derive from hosting CERN. A host state.contribution of 10 per cent. of a project's cost is the norm for such large international facilities such as CERN.

  Accordingly we have asked the host states, France and Switzerland, to consider making an additional contribution of 290 million Swiss francs towards a construction cost of 2.9 billion Swiss francs. At present the sum offered by the host states falls significantly short of this amount. Negotiations are continuing to find a satisfactory settlement.

  Detailed analysis, endorsed by CERN management, suggests there is a significant funding gap if the LHC is to be completed by 2005. Any shortfall in the contribution from host states would have to be made up by further cuts at CERN or increased contributions from other sources.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the reasons why the decision on the large hadron collider project at CERN is being held up; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The Government believe that, in principle, the large hadron collider project is the right next step for particle physics and for CERN. However,144
  before giving formal approval for the project to go ahead, a fair and sustainable financial framework must be established. Such a framework must include the acceptance of tight cost control mechanisms and an appropriate additional contribution from the host states, France and Switzerland, in recognition of the considerable benefits which they have derived, and will continue to derive, from the location of CERN at Geneva.

  Negotiations with CERN management and other member states have been progressing and in the last few months good progress has been made. We hope to be able to secure the basis for agreement before the next CERN Council meeting in December.

DEFENCE

  Defence Agencies
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the Defence Clothing and Textiles Authority.

  Mr. Soames
  The Defence Clothing and Textiles Authority became Defence Agency of the Ministry of Defence on 22 November 1994. The DCTA, although an organisation with tri-service responsibilities, is presently part of the Quartermaster General's department within the Army. It comprises a small headquarters at Andover and a number of interlocking business functions across the country; it employs a total of 447 staff comprising 13 military and 434 civilian staff.

  The primary role of the DCTA is to provide an agreed range of clothing and textile products to meet the operational needs of the MOD and other defined customers within agreed standards, and in the most cost effective manner.

  As the first chief executive, Brigadier R. H. T. Kirby CBE will be offered new opportunities to build on the current organisation's professional expertise and high performance standards. Through a more commercial approach, the chief executive will actively seek to improve the efficiency and value for money of his organisation and thereby fulfil the agency's aim of.providing its customers with an efficient service which.offers the best value for money.

  The chief executive has been set the following key targets for financial year 1994–95:

  1. To achieve 80 per cent. availability of stock from shelf.

  2. 80 per cent. of research and development milestones to be met by the due date and within budget.

  3. 80 per cent. of procurement to meet total planned lead time for delivery.

  4. To develop the framework for a full customer satisfaction survey.

  5. To establish the mechanisms required for full cost accruals accounting system.

  6. Initiate action to formulate and develop plans for restructuring and collocation of the agency.

  7. Complete national measurement accreditation service NAMAS of DCTA laboratories.

  8. To remain within financial year 1994–95 cash allocation, incorporating current efficiency assumptions.

  9. To initiate a review of the scope for further private sector involvement, aiming to complete implementation by April 1998.

  I have arranged for copies of the agency's framework document to be placed in the Library of both Houses.
  145
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the Royal Air Force signals engineering establishments.

  Mr. Soames
  The Royal Air Force Signals Engineering.Establishment—RAFSEE—became an agency of the Ministry of Defence on 22 November 1994. RAFSEE is based primarily at Royal Air Force, Henlow, with one division currently located at Royal Air Force, Wyton and due to move to Royal Air Force, Waddington in 1995. The establishment belongs to the Signals Units group which is part of Logistics Command, the headquarters of which is at Royal Air Force, Brampton.

  The role of RAFSEE is to provide a quick reaction signals engineering capability for military operations worldwide. This work includes design, manufacture, installation and recovery for the full range of strategic and tactical communications, radar and information and electronic systems. It also extends to providing special signals equipment for the Royal Air Force's_ electronic reconnaissance squadron, and special avionic equipment for aircraft of the three services.

  As the first chief executive, Air Commodore P. C. Ayee will be offered new opportunities to build on the current organisation's professional expertise and high performance standards. In maintaining RAFSEE's operational capability, the chief executive will actively seek to improve the efficiency and value for money of his organisation.

  The chief executive has been set the following key targets for financial year 1994–95:

  1. To deliver 100 per cent. of operational tasks to time.

  2. To maintain 100 per cent. of core skills needed to support likely operations.

  3. To deliver 70 per cent. of all tasks to time, an improvement of 10 per cent. over the previous year.

  4. To put in place a system to monitor and report on the on the quality of delivered tasks.

  5.To reduce costs per task manhour by five per cent.

  6. To complete a competing for quality feasibility study on £7,970,000 of non-core business by 31 January 1995.

  7. To produce shadow accrual accounts by 1 April 1995.

  I have arranged for copies of the agency's framework document to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the Army's logistic information systems.

  Mr. Soames
  The directorate of logistic information.system—Army—was established as a Defence agency on 21 November 1994 and will now be known as the Logistic Information Systems Agency—LISA. LISA will comprise a headquarters at Andover, alongside the quartermaster general's headquarters—QMG—and two main centres of activity at Bicester and Donnington where the base ordnance depots are located. LISA's initial strength will be 46 servicemen and 351 civilians.

  The role of the agency is to enhance the logistic effectiveness of the Army in peace and war by providing information systems, services and support.

  As the first chief executive, Brigadier A.W. Pollard will be given the authority, responsibility and opportunities to improve the quality of information systems support to Army logistics in a comprehensive, competitive and efficient manner. Building on the Government's successful competing for quality initiatives, he will be following an innovative approach to the involvement of
  146
  the private sector in the non-core aspects of the agency's work. If study work confirms preliminary assessments it is envisaged that a partnering contract with a private sector supplier will be awarded by competition towards the end of 1995. Consideration is being given, within the bounds of Government policy and without detriment to military priorities, to including some novel revenue sharing arrangements in this contract with the partner. This will be achieved by exploiting the wider market potential offered by partnering and any under utilised, but unavoidable spare LISA capacity. The scope for offsetting LISA costs will thus have obvious value for money benefits to the taxpayer.

  The chief executive has been set the following key targets for the first year of operation:

  1. Meet targets laid down by QMG for the timeliness, cost and planning effectiveness of projects. Projects should be delivered within planned time and cost tolerance without adjusting the project plans.

  2. By 1 April 1995, carry out a customer satisfaction survey, completeness and responsiveness of the services offered and set targets for improvement.

  3. By 1 April 1995 introduce dummy invoicing for chargeable services provided by LISA.

  4. Within the competing for quality framework, and in order to deliver CFQ efficiency savings, reach a decision by 1 April 1995 on a partnering agreement with the private sector or determine what other CFQ initiatives should be employed to achieve the desired savings and efficiencies.

  5. By 31 December 1994 LISA will finalise its pre-CFQ initiative organisational structure and by 1 April 1995 will complete the associated internal changes.

  6. LISA will introduce financial and business systems to enable the operation of a full cost accruals accounting system by 1 April 1995.

  7. For financial year 1994–95 to operate within budgetary provision and achieve agreed output. By 1 April 1995 establish baselines for agency overheads and unit costs of chargeable output, as a more reliable means of measuring efficiency, and set targets for reductions.

  I have arranged for copies of the agency's framework document to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Royal Dockyards
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the proposed sale of the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following invitations to tender issued by the Ministry of Defence on 14 July 1994, initial bids have been received from Devonport Management Limited, for Devonport dockyard, and from Babcock International Group, for Rosyth dockyard. No other bids have been received to date. We are currently evaluating these bids and negotiations will take place with each of the companies, but outcomes other than sale cannot be ruled out.

  Gordon Foxley
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the report of his Department's internal investigation into the activities of Gordon Foxley and others.

  Mr. Freeman
  It will, in due course, be necessary to report to the House on my Department's investigations into recent corruption cases. At present, however, the investigations are still in train and, in the case of Gordon Foxley, are closely integrated with a civil action which
  147
  has been launched against Foxley, members of his family circle and the companies involved.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if all facilities which comprise the Trident works programme at CSB Faslane and RNAD Coulport will have received a full complete safety case before HMS Vanguard goes out on operational patrol; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if all new construction at CSB Faslane and RNAD Coulport has now been completed; whether all facilities have now received a full and complete nuclear safety case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  All major new construction at CSB Faslane and RNAD Coulport in support of the Trident programme is complete. Clearance of all facilities necessary to support HMS Vanguard's first operational patrol has been given or is in hand. Work to achieve the full safety clearance of all facilities is progressing as planned and is due to complete next year.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the first two lifts of a Trident submarine in the shiplift at CSB Faslane;

  (2) if the shiplift at CSB Faslane will have achieved unlimited safety clearance before HMS Vanguard goes out on operational patrol;

  (3) what progress has been made in obtaining a full and complete nuclear safety case for the shiplift at CSB Faslane; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  HMS Vanguard was lifted fully on the Faslane shiplift during the week commending 24 October, following a partial lift to establish the fit between the submarine and its supporting cradle. Work towards achieving full through-life safety clearance of the shiplift is progressing as planned and is due to complete next year.

  HMS Vanguard
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's progress towards achieving HMS Vanguard's first patrol.by the end of December.

  Mr. Freeman
  HMS Vanguard remains on course to start her first operational patrol around the turn of the year.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of reported problems with HMS Vanguard's reactor.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not our practice to comment on the material state of individual submarines.

  F3 Tornados
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate of the date of commencement of legal action against the Bricom group in relation to damage caused in the course of the Airwork contract for modifications to F3 Tornados at RAF St. Athan.

  Mr. Freeman
  We hope to be able to complete the preparation of the claim against Bricom by the end of financial year 1994–95 when it will be raised against the company. Whether or not specific legal action has to be taken will depend on the company's response to the claim.

  Future Large Aircraft
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the decision on FLA C130J can be delayed until the feasibility studies on the future large aircraft are completed in the first quarter of 1995.

  Mr. Freeman
  Our objective is to meet the operational air transport requirements of the armed forces. FLA is already being taken into account in our assessment.

  Wegberg Hospital
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has already been spent on the proposed market testing of RAF hospital Wegberg in Germany; what is the estimated final cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  It would not be possible to identify separately the cost of market testing the RAF hospital at Wegberg from the overall study of health provision for British forces Germany. The additional cost of the market test was some £100,000 in financial year 1993–94 and is estimated to be £600,000 this financial year and £160,000 next year. As a result of this project, we expect to make substantial savings against the current cost of this activity which is currently in excess of £30,000,000 per annum.

  Operation Seafire
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the distance flown by helicopters from RAF Chivenor to the rendezvous with West Glamorgan firefighters during Operation Seafire on 17 October off the west Wales coast; what was the distance flown from that rendezvous to the Stena Sea Lynx; and what was the average speed (i) over each leg of the journey from Chivenor to the Sea Lynx separately and (ii) over the whole journey, excluding the stop in west Glamorgan.

  Mr. Soames
  The distances flown by, and average speed of, the RAF search and rescue helicopter involved in Exercise Seafire on 10 October 1994 are shown in the table:

  Distance nm

  Average speed kts

  RAF Chivenor to rendezvous point

  86

  110

  Rendezvous point to Stena Sea Lynx

  51

  125

  The average speed over the whole journey, excluding the stop in west Glamorgan, was 118 kts.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Mr. David Hart was last employed by his Office and for what reason he left; what role Mr. Hart played in providing written or oral advice in the defence costs study initiative; and what access he had to official information concerning the replacement programme for the Hercules transport aircraft or information supplied by British Aerospace concerning its participation in the future large aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  Mr. David Hart is one of a number of unpaid, independent advisers who provide my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence with informal advice from time to time. At my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's request, he was involved in the defence costs study, "Front Line First",
  149
  but he has not been involved in deliberations on the replacement programme for Hercules transport aircraft.

ENVIRONMENT

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action he proposes to take to meet World health authority health-based air quality guidelines for transport-related pollutants by the year 2005;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to explore with the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, other professional bodies and local authorities how forms of collaboration similar to the London air quality network and unit can be built on and encouraged in other conurbations;

  (3) what action he proposes to take to establish in appropriate areas by 2005 local air quality standards based on the critical levels required to protect sensitive eco-systems.

  Mr. Atkins
  These matters will be covered fully in the response to our consultation paper, "Improving Air Quality" which we expect to publish shortly.

  Recycling
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to work with vehicle manufacturers and dismantlers to develop a cradle-to-grave strategy for recycling.

  Mr. Atkins
  Currently 1.5 million vehicles are scrapped in the United Kingdom each year and in the process 75 per cent. by weight is recycled, with the remainder going to landfill. In December 1993, the Automotive Consortium on Recycling and Disposal—ACORD—which represents all sectors of the industry, presented to Government a preliminary plan which would increase the recovery of scrap from vehicles to 95 per cent. by body weight by the year 2015. This will require a cradle-to-grave approach to the manufacture of new vehicles and components in which design for recovery will play an important part. ACORD has now produced a detailed implementation plan which we will be discussing with it shortly.

  Geese
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has taken prior to issuing licences for geese to be shot in London parks.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government seek the advice of their statutory scientific adviser, English Nature, before issuing any licence to kill geese in London parks.

  Landfill Sites
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to alter the regulations regarding the licensing of landfill sites registered for the disposal of toxic or nuclear waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have no plans to deregulate the disposal of toxic or radioactive waste at landfill sites. One of the proposals in the consultation 150
  document, "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary Conclusions". published in August, was that waste producers should be encouraged to make more use of the controlled burial of radioactive waste in landfill sites. However, this would remain subject to the same strict regulatory control as at present. The proposals in the document are being considered in the light of the responses received. The disposal of controlled wastes, including special wastes, is subject to the enhanced waste management licensing arrangements introduced under the Environmental Protection Act in May this year.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the landfill sites in the country at present registered for nuclear waste disposal and those where applications are under consideration.

  Mr. Atkins
  A small number if users of radioactive material are currently authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 to dispose of low level radioactive waste by controlled burial at specified sites. The sites where such burial is specified in the relevant user's authorisations and which may receive waste are:

  Milton Landfill, Cambridge

  ICI Limited, Cowpen Bewley Tip, Cleveland

  Vickers Waste Ponds, Walney Island, Cumbria

  Rolls-Royce, Hilts Quarry, Derbyshire

  Magnesium Elektron, Swinton, Greater Manchester

  Cilgwyn Quarry, Caernarfon, Gwynedd

  Braziers Landfill, Hertfordshire

  SCM Chemicals, Site tip, Humberside

  Clifton Marsh, Preston, Lancashire

  Sefton Meadows Tip, Merseyside

  Beighton Tip, Sheffield, South Yorkshire

  Beddingham Quarry, Sussex

  Ryton Tip, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear

  BNFL, Drigg, Cumbria

  BNFL, Sellafield, Cumbria

  Some of the users of radioactive material are licensed under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. The sites where waste arising from such users can be buried are: Cowpen Bewley, Vickers, Hilts Quarry, Ulnes Walton, Clifton Marsh, Drigg and Sellafield. With the exception of Drigg, the wastes arise locally to the burial site.

  There are no outstanding applications for authorisation under RSA 1993 which involve burial of low, medium or high level radioactive waste.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what study he has made of the consequences for the infrastructure of neighbouring areas of the initial enterprise zones.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department's preliminary report, "An Evaluation of the Enterprise Zone Experiment", HMSO 1987, examined a number of linkages between zones and their local areas. A further report, based on the performance of the first round zones, is due for publication early next year.

  Council Tax Valuations
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend the council tax valuation orders to allow a reduction in valuations to reflect the current market value of houses affected by blight caused by the announcement of major infrastructure
  151
  projects where the time from the announcement to the payment of compensation, if a decision were taken to proceed, would be more than five years.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Humber Estuary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) for what reasons his Department referred back to the National Rivers Authority its list of areas of high natural dispersion under the urban waste water treatment directive when the Humber estuary was not included upon it; and how many other areas not originally in the National Rivers Authority list were subsequently added after the original list had been submitted to him;

  (2) what discussions he or any members of his Department had with Yorkshire Water before the designation of the Humber estuary as a area of high natural dispersion for the purpose of the urban waste water treatment directive;

  (3) upon what scientific basis the Humber bridge was chosen as the western end of the high natural dispersion area for the purpose of the urban waste water treatment directive;

  (4) upon what environmental impact assessment he made his decision that the Humber estuary was an area of high natural dispersion;

  (5) what direct consultation his Department and the National Rivers Authority had with the port health authority, the city of Hull, Associated British Ports and the public on both banks of the Humber before designating the estuary as an area of high natural dispersion;

  (6) on what date his decision was taken under article 6 of the urban waste water treatment directive that the Humber estuary was an area of high natural dispersion.

  Mr. Atkins
  In March 1992 the Department published a consultation paper on, among other issues, the criteria and procedures for identifying less sensitive areas, high natural dispersion area—HNDAs, under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. The scientific criteria for identifying HNDAs were published in a second consultation paper in March 1993. These consultation papers were the subject of parliamentary answers and news releases and were placed in the Library of the House. They were sent to the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils, among others.

  Discussions then took place between the National Rivers Authority, the water industry and the Department on the identification of locations meeting the agreed criteria. In July 1993, my hon. Friend, the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) announced the NRA's working list of HNDAs, which included parts of the Humber. Subsequently, in light of advice from the NRA, Ministers concluded, and I announced on 18 May 1994, that the Humber met the criteria for HNDAs.

  Discharges into HNDAs must have at least primary treatment—which entails the provision or improvement of treatment at most locations. Comprehensive studies are now being carried out in respect of each HNDA to satisfy the NRA, before it issues any discharge consents, that the discharge will not adversely affect the environment. If the NRA is not satisfied in any particular case, additional treatment will be required. The NRA has a statutory duty
  152
  to publish consent applications and to serve notice of its intention to issue a consent, which allows representations or objections to be made. This duty is not affected by the decision to identify a HNDA.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the will list those development projects since 1964 which have involved demolishing or rendering uninhabitable more than 55 listed buildings.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is not held centrally in this form.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sites of prospective opencast mining which as yet do not have planning permission but have been included in the reserves listed in the portfolios of the proposed regional coal companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  On privatisation, regional coal companies will acquire exploration licences, conditional operating licences and options for leases in relation to the coal at portfolios of prospective opencast sites.

  Prospective opencast sites are at different stages in the process of assembling the interests and rights in and over land and of obtaining planning and other consents, all of which are necessary for the extraction of coal. The grant of planning consents will remain a matter for the planning authorities.

  A list of those prospective sites which have, as yet, obtained no planning permission, by Regional Coal Company, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any of the reserves of prospective opencast sites which have previously been the subject of unsuccessful planning applications for opencast mining have been included in the portfolios of the proposed regional local companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  A number of the prospective opencast sites included in the portfolios of the regional coal companies have, in the past, been the subject of unsuccessful planning applications. It has, however, been made abundantly clear throughout the sales process that the grant of any planning consents in the future will remain a matter for the planning authorities.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what calculation his Department has made of the effect on the purchase price of regional coal companies of the inclusion of possible but unapproved sites for opencast coal mining; and what is the difference between the purchase price of possible, but unapproved, sites and that of approved or working sites on a cost per tonnage basis.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  In submitting bids for regional coal companies, prequalifiers for the sale of British Coal's mining activities were assessing the overall value of a portfolio of assets, including prospective opencast mining sites. Bidders were not asked to provide details of their bids on

  153
  a site-by-site basis, and no such assessment has been made by my Department.

TREASURY

  Pensions
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many retired civil servants, retired officers of the armed services and other retired public servants, are receiving pensions of more than 50 per cent. of the current salaries for the jobs from which they retired; and what is the annual cost to the Exchequer.

  Sir George Young
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Most public service pension schemes provide a half-pay pension only after a full career, and a one-off lump sum payment of three times the annual pension. However, most public servants do not serve long enough to retire with a half-pay pension.

  Taxes (Wales)
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the total raised from income tax revenue in Wales,(a) in 1990, (b) in 1991, (c) in 1992, (d) in 1993 and (e) in the first six months of 1994;

  (2) what was the total raised from income tax revenue in Scotland, (a) in 1990, (b) in 1991, (c) in 1992, (d) in 1993 and (e) in the first six months of 1994.

  Sir George Young
  Estimates of income tax liabilities for residents of Scotland and Wales are given in the table for 1990–91, 1991–92 and the latest available year for regional estimates, 1992–93. Information on income tax receipts has not been provided for Scotland and Wales as they merely reflect administrative arrangements for the collection of tax.

  Estimates of income tax liabilities for residents of Scotland and Wales

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Scotland

  5,070

  5,170

  5,130

  Wales

  2,370

  2,500

  2,330

  IMF
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the United Kingdom's annual contribution to the International Monetary Fund.

  Mr. Nelson
  The United Kingdom makes no direct annual contribution to the International Monetary Fund. As a member of the IMF, the United Kingdom maintains a reserves position with the IMF. Of this SDR 700 million—equivalent to £653 million—is unremunerated. The balance is remunerated at the fund's rate of remuneration. At end September 1994, the United Kingdom's reserve position in the IMF stood at SDR 1,354.3 million—equivalent to £1264 million.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the United Kingdom's annual contribution to the IMF's(a) structural adjustment facility, (b) enhanced structural facility and (c) other relevant facilities.
  154
  Mr. Nelson
  The only specific IMF facility to which members contribute directly is the enhanced structural adjustment facility—ESAF. Over the life of the facility, the United Kingdom will contribute up to £377 million to the subsidy required for ESAF loans. This amount includes a contribution of the £50 million made earlier this year when the facility was expanded and enlarged. Over time, the United Kingdom will contribute about one-ninth of the subsidy required by ESAF. In 1993–94, a payment of £20 million was made under these arrangements.

  Overseas Debt
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the non-concessional debt owed to the international multilateral financial institutions by severely indebted low income countries has been cancelled or converted to International Development Association terms.

  Mr. Nelson
  Debt owed to the international financial institutions is not cancelled. Under the International Development Association fifth dimension facility, complementary IDA credits, provided in proportion to interest payments due on outstanding IBRD debt, have helped ease the debt service burden of eligible IDA-only countries undertaking internationally supported economic reform programmes. I refer the hon. member to the answer which the Chancellor gave on 19 October to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) for details of proposals that he made in Malta this year to help further reduce the burden of debt owed to the IFIs by the poorest, most indebted countries,Official Report, 19 October column 272.

  European Investment
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount in pound sterling the facilities of the European Investment bank were increased under terms agreed at the Edinburgh Council.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Edinburgh European Council established a special temporary lending facility, within the European Investment bank, to support capital investment in infrastructure projects. This facility amounted initially to 5 billion ecu or £3,925 million, but was subsequently increased to 7 billion ecu, or £5,495 million by the Copenhagen European Council.

  All figures converted at 18/11/94 £/ecu conversion rate (£1 =1.2738 ecu).

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the expenditure implications for the European Union's budget arising out of the activities of the European investment bank and European investment fund.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The activities of both the European Investment bank and the European investment fund are financed in each case largely from the resources of the institution concerned and, to this extent, impose no direct costs on the budget of the European union. However:

  (i) the European union has subscribed for 600 million ecu, £471 million, worth of shares in the European investment fund, for which 20 per cent. is to be paid in. This sum of 120 million ecu, £94 million will be charged to the EU budget.

  (ii) the European union has provided guarantees to the European Investment bank in respect of lending programmes

  155
  which it undertakes in eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America, and in the Mediterranean countries. These guarantees stand on the budget as a contingent liability.

  All figures converted at 18/11/94 £/ecu conversion rate (£1 =1.278 ecu).

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount in pound sterling the establishment of the European investment fund following the Edinburgh Council is predicted to cost the budget of the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The European Union has subscribed for 600 million ecu, or £471 million, worth of shares in the new European investment fund, of which only 20 per cent is to be paid in to the fund. This sum will be paid from the EU budget, in four equal annual tranches of 30 million ecu, or £23.5 million, over the years 1994 to 1998.All figures converted at 18 November 1994 £/ecu conversion rate (£1 = 1.2738 ecu).

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the £24 billion expenditure package referred to in the Prime Minister's statement of 14 December 1992,Official Report, column 36, is affected by European Union budgets.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The package referred to by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not affected by European Union budgets.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish any variation or extension of the text of the presidential communique of the December 1992 European Council in Edinburgh in respect of the revised arrangements for financing the European Community as now contained in the draft Council decision 9298/93.

  Mr Heathcoat-Amory
  Draft Council decision 9298/93 was superseded by Council decision 94/728/EC, Euratom of 31 October 1994—the "own resources decision".

  The arrangements for Community own resources established by the new own resources decision do not differ in any material respect from those agreed by the Edinburgh European Council.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the figures in table 11.1 of

  United Kingdom Contributions to and Receipts from the European Community Budget

  Cash Plans

  £ millions

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 outturn

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 estimated outturn

  1994–95 plans

  1995–96 plans

  1996–97 plans

  1997–98 plans

  Gross payments

  5,804

  6,411

  6,129

  6,970

  8,407

  8,308

  9,943

  9,910

  10,552

  Public sector receipts

  -2,035

  -2,388

  -2,757

  -2,810

  -3,864

  -3,963

  -4,293

  -4,441

  -4,526

  United Kingdom abatement

  -1,317

  -1,838

  -2,428

  -1,993

  -2,350

  -1,899

  -2,256

  -2,108

  -2,744

  156
  Cm. 2517 to take account of latest information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The information in the accompanying table reflects the latest forecast and is consistent with the information which I will publish in next week's Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  The pattern of our net contributions to the EC budget is obscured by considerable fluctuations from one year to the next. These are caused by adjustments to our payments in previous years as later information become available, differences in the level and timing of receipts, and movements in the size of our abatement. These effects, are increased because we use a different financial year from the Community. Our estimate of the underlying level of the net contribution—that is, what we think the net contribution is when the various irregularities are stripped out—is as follows:

  Estimate of underlying public sector net contribution to the EC Budget

  £million

  1988

  1,500

  1989

  1,700

  1990

  1,900

  1991

  2,100

  1992

  2,200

  1993

  2,400

  1994

  2,500

  1995

  2,700

  1996

  3,100

  1997

  3,300

  1998

  3,500

  1999

  3,550

  Of the increase of £850 million between 1995 and 1999, some £600 million results from the effects of Community gross national product and inflation within the present own resources ceiling which is set at 1.20 per cent. of Community GNP. The remaining £250 million is a consequence of the agreement at the Edinburgh European Council to increase the own resources ceiling from 1.20 per cent. to 1.27 per cent. by 1999.

  These figures look large because they are presented in cash terms, for consistency with the rest of our public expenditure arithmetic. But the real scale of the Edinburgh settlement can be seen in the fact that it increased the own resources ceiling over seven years by 7/10,000ths of Community gross national product.
  157

  United Kingdom Contributions to and Receipts from the European Community Budget

  Cash Plans

  £ millions

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 outturn

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 estimated outturn

  1994–95 plans

  1995–96 plans

  1996–97 plans

  1997–98 plans

  Net public sector contributions to the European Community budget

  2,452

  2,18

  943

  2,167

  2,192

  2,446

  3,394

  3,361

  3,282

  For domestic public expenditure planning purposes, part of the United Kingdom's contribution to the Community budget is attributed to the overseas aid programme. The net contribution to the EC budget when adjusted for this element, our payments to the European Investment, bank and our receipts from the European Coal and Steel Community form the United Kingdom's net payments to EC institutions, the latest estimates for which are: 1994–95 £2,043 million, 1995–96 £2,821 million, 1996–97 £2,765 million and 1997–98 £2,639 million.

  EC Expenditure
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will raise with the EC Commission its statement on page 13 of the draft budget for 1995 on the intention of the EC to exceed the legal limits of agricultural spending by accountancy devices.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: The agricultural guideline can be increased or exceeded only with unanimity in the Council. The Government have made it clear that they see no case for agreeing to a breach of or increase in the guideline for 1995, and that this option is therefore not available to the Council.

  It is too early to tell whether spending in 1995 would, in the absence of further measures to control it, exceed the guideline. An approach to the Commission would therefore be premature.

  Stamp Duty Office, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had in relation to the decision to close the Cardiff stamp duty office, located at Companies house, Crown way, Maindy, Cardiff; what representations he has received in relation to the closure prior to and since the announcement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 22 November 1994]: The decision to close the Cardiff stamp office was taken by the Inland Revenue on operational grounds. The closure is one of several changes taking place in the interests of making the stamp office as a whole more efficient. The stamp office is consulting the trade unions about redeployment of the Cardiff stamp office staff as the aim is to offer all staff alternative positions with the Inland Revenue. To date, I have received no representations about the closure.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to further modify the tax rules in relation to company cars, to remove the incentives for environmentally damaging behaviour.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 22 November 1994]: As with all tax issues, the Chancellor makes his decisions in the Budget. I cannot therefore comment further at this stage.

  Debtor Countries
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the British Government's policy on providing direct contributions to debtor countries to assist in the settlement of arrears or debt-service to the IFIs.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom provides programme aid in support of economic reform programmes agreed with the IMF and World bank as part of a collective donor effort to help finance the country's overall external financing requirements including debt service commitments. Exceptionally, at the request of the Zambian Government, we have agreed that our programme aid for 1994–95 may be used to reimburse the government for some of its debt service commitments to the international financial institutions. This is in the context of an agreed overall government budget which provides for increased social services provision.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  European Economic Area Nationals
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of EEA countries have been required to leave the United Kingdom on the basis of direct referrals from the Benefits Agency since the Income Support (General) Regulations were amended in April 1993; and, how many of these EEA nationals are lone parents.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Between April 1993 and December 1993, 183 European Community nationals, whose cases were referred by the Benefits Agency, were advised that because they were not economically active and had become a burden on public funds the Secretary of State was not satisfied that they were exercising a right of residence under European Community law and they should accordingly make arrangements to leave the United Kingdom. Since January 1994, when EC rights of residence were extended to all European economic area nationals, 393 EEA nationals have been advised in similar terms up to the end of October 1994. Information is not available as to whether any of these cases involved lone parents.

  Police (Truncheons)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of
  159
  alternatives to the traditional truncheon for use by the police.

  Mr. Howard
  Home Office research published today, into assaults on police officers and police trials of the expandable side-handled baton, confirms that there is a need for better ways of restraining violent suspects, that the expandable side-handled baton is very good for this purpose, and that a three-piece expandable baton is acceptable to many officers. I have already given my support to police forces that are using the expandable side-handled baton. In the light of these reports and of further scientific research, I am content for chief officers, if they wish, to introduce the rigid version of that baton. I am ensuring that chief officers have available good, scientifically based information about the different characteristics of different batons as a basis for their choice.

  I have also, as police authority for the Metropolitan police, agreed that they may have 24 inch and 26 inch batons in addition to the 22 inch ones already being issued. This follows satisfactory scientific evaluation of the new batons.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are planned to ensure effective co-ordination for emergency planning between any new unitary authorities established within an existing county council boundary in England.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Local authorities in England and Wales, together with the principal associations representing them, have been consulted on the delivery and co-ordination of emergency planning following the outcome of the local government review. We are considering their responses and hope to make an announcement before the end of this year.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum seekers have been detained under the Immigration Act 1971 since(a) 26 July 1993 and (b) 1 January;

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of the number of asylum seekers currently held in detention by (a) nationality, (b) gender, (c) length of detention, (d) place of detention and (e) immigration status at the time of application.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  At 18 November 1994, a total of 654 people who had sought asylum were detained. This figure includes people awaiting the setting of directions for removal following refusal of the application, as well as those whose application was under consideration or subject to appeal. Of this figure, 167 had been in detention less than one month, 125 between one and two months, 233 between two and six months and 129 had been in detention longer than six months.

  Information on the gender, immigration status, nationality and location of detention is given in tables A, B and C. Information on the numbers who have been detained since 26 July 1993 and 1 January is not available.
  160

  Table A Number of people detained on 18 November 1994, who had sought asylum, by immigration status and gender

  Immigration Status

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Port case

  281

  24

  305

  Illegal entrant case

  276

  8

  284

  Deportation case

  55

  10

  65

  Total

  612

  42

  654

  Table B Number of people detained as at 18 November 1994 who had sought asylum, by nationality

  Number detained

  Afghanistan

  1

  Albania

  6

  Algeria

  74

  Angola

  11

  Bangladesh

  20

  Bulgaria

  1

  Cameroon

  2

  Chad

  1

  China

  10

  Colombia

  8

  Cyprus (TRNC)

  19

  Dominica

  1

  Egypt

  3

  Eritrea

  1

  Estonia

  1

  Ethiopia

  5

  Gambia

  3

  Ghana

  56

  Hong Kong

  1

  India

  87

  Iran

  4

  Iraq

  5

  Israel

  2

  Ivory Coast

  10

  Jamaica

  5

  Kenya

  6

  Lebanon

  2

  Liberia

  5

  Libya

  6

  Malawi

  1

  Malaysia

  1

  Mauritius

  5

  Morocco

  7

  Mozambique

  1

  Nigeria

  117

  Pakistan

  28

  Peru

  1

  Philippines

  2

  Romanian

  5

  Russia

  2

  Rwanda

  1

  Sierra Leone

  13

  Slovenia

  1

  South Africa

  6

  Sri Lanka

  13

  Sudan

  3

  Tanzania

  1

  Trinidad and Tobago

  1

  Tunisia

  3

  Turkey

  49

  Uganda

  5

  Former Yugoslavia

  6

  Zaire

  22

  Zimbabwe

  1

  Nationality doubtful

  3

  Total

  654

  161

  Table C Number of people detained as at 18 November 1994, who had sought asylum, by location of detention

  Number Detained

  Immigration service establishment

  Campsfield House

  154

  Gatwick Beehive

  16

  Harmondsworth

  90

  Manchester airport detention suite

  8

  Queens building

  25

  Stansted

  8

  Newhaven

  11

  Dover Harbour Board

  8

  Glasgow

  1

  Prison service establishment

  Armley

  14

  Birmingham

  40

  Brinsford

  6

  Bristol

  2

  Brixton

  4

  Bullingdon

  3

  Canterbury

  1

  Cardiff

  1

  Chemlsford

  3

  Crumlin Rd.

  2

  Dorchester

  1

  Durham

  1

  Elmley

  8

  Erlestoke House

  1

  Exeter

  2

  Feltham YC centre

  2

  Greenock Harwich

  2

  Haslar

  74

  Highdown

  5

  Hindley remand centre

  1

  Holloway

  1

  Leicester

  1

  Lewes

  1

  Liverpool

  1

  Norwich

  3

  Pentonville

  5

  Risley

  1

  Rochester

  60

  Saughton

  1

  Shrewsbury

  1

  Strangeways

  6

  The Mount

  1

  Wandsworth

  7

  Winchester

  7

  Winson Green

  1

  Wolds remand prison

  3

  Wormwoods scrubs

  4

  Police cells

  55

  Total

  654

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost per week of detaining an asylum seeker under the Immigration Act 1971.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The available information does not identify separately those detention costs which relate to asylum seekers. However, for the year ended 31 March 1994 the average weekly cost of accommodating all categories of detainee in detention accommodation for which the Immigration Service is responsible was estimated at just over £800 per detainee.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum seekers detained 162
  under the Immigration Act 1971 have been released from detention as a result of an application to the courts for habeas corpus (a) in the past five years and (b) since 26 July 1993;

  (2) how many asylum seekers detained under the Immigration Act 1971 have been released from detention as a result of an application to the High Court for bail (a) in the past five years and (b) since 26 July 1993.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information on the number of asylum seekers released from detention on bail as a result of an application to the High Court or as a result of an application for habeas corpus, is not separately identifiable in the statistics.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers granted temporary admission to the United Kingdom while their asylum claim is examined by the Home Office have subsequently absconded or otherwise failed to comply with the terms of temporary admission(a) in the past five years and (b) since 1 January.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not available.

  Anti-doping Convention
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the measures that he proposed to fulfil the United Kingdom's Obligations under article 4 of the Council of Europe anti-doping convention

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proposals which the Government announced on 2 November for imposing controls on anabolic steroids and on which I consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who has overall responsibility for the Council of Europe anti-doping convention, will help restrict their availability to sportsmen and women, among others, in conformity with the principles of article 4 of the convention.

  Young Offenders
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people are currently being held in adult prisons.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Llin Golding, dated 23 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many young people are currently being held in adult prisons.
  On 30 September 1994, 876 young persons (inmates aged between 15 and 20 and sentenced young offenders aged 21) were held in adult prisons (local prisons, closed training prisons and open prisons) in England and Wales.

  Animal Experimentation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which animals currently come under which schedule of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
  163
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Schedule 1 of the 1986 Act, which lists standard methods of humane killing and the animals for which they are appropriate, has not been amended since 1986.

  Schedule 2, which lists the animals which may be obtained only from designated breeding or supplying establishments, has been amended to add "any bird of the species Coturnix coturnix (quail)".

  Prisoners (HIV)
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions are made to monitor routinely the CD4 cell counts of identified HIV-infected prisoners in Great Britain.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Keith Hill, dated 23 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the monitoring of CD4 cell counts.
  Routine clinical and laboratory monitoring, including CD4 cell counts, is accepted practice in the clinical and medical care of HIV infected individuals in the community.
  The Prison Service seeks to provide the same level of care and prison medical officers have been advised that such monitoring should form part of routine medical supervision of HIV-infected patients in prison. These guidelines have been issued on the manual 'HIV and AIDS a multi-disciplinary approach in the prison environment' which is available in all Prison Service establishments and to health care centres.

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the United Kingdom Passport Agency.

  Mr. Howard
  A review of the work of the United Kingdom Passport Agency has now been completed. Like other reviews of executive agencies, this included an evaluation of the agency's performance, and a review of options for its future organisation.

  The evaluation found that since its establishment, the agency has clearly improved the service it provides and is operating in a more efficient and businesslike way. Applications have increased from 3.3 million in 1991–92 to 3.6 million in 1993–94, but targets for turnaround times have been achieved whilst unit costs have been reduced.

  As to the future of the agency, I have concluded that neither privatisation nor full contracting out of the agency's activities is feasible and that passports should continue to be issued by the United Kingdom Passport Agency. But there is scope for further improvements in efficiency and quality of service, and for further reducing unit costs. As part of this process, the private sector needs to become progressively involved in the passport issuing process.

  As a first step, the agency is developing plans for partnership with travel agents and other retail outlets so that they, as well as the agency's own offices, will issue and receive completed application forms and fees from the public. The intention is that these arrangements will be in place next year.

  The agency is also undertaking a review of the size and location of its offices, which will be completed early next
  164
  year and will involve private sector consultants. The agency will also look at ways of involving the private sector in the issuing operation after the decision to grant a passport is taken, and in the provision of support services. It is intended to move the agency to trading fund status from April 1996.

  The framework document for the agency will be revised to take account of these developments. The agency's key targets for 1994–95 are:

  (i) to process properly completed, straightforward applications within a maximum of 20 working days in the periods of peak demand between January and June. 15 working days in July and August, and 10 working days at other times.

  (ii) to process such application within an overall average of nine working days for the year as a whole, and

  (iii) to reduce unit costs by a further 3.2 per cent. in real terms in comparison with the outturn for 1993–94.

  The chief executive will remain directly accountable to me for the performance of the Passport Agency. An advisory board, including two private sector members with experience of delivering services to the public, will continue to provide me with an independent assessment of the agency's performance.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Quangos
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which quangos his Department has abolished since 1979.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Since 1986 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the Overseas Development Administration, has abolished or de-classified 10 quangos:

  1986

  United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO (Advisory)

  1987

  Overseas Superannuation Scheme Advisory Board Anglo-Irish Encounter

  1988

  None

  1989

  Advisory Panel on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation

  1990

  None

  1991

  Developing Countries Trade Agency

  Irish Pensions Appeal Tribunal

  1992

  Institute of Development Studies

  1993

  Bureau of Hygiene and Tropical Diseases

  (Managing Committee)

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations

  To answer this question in full, that is, which quangos the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has abolished since 1979, would incur disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many quangos his
  165
  Department was responsible for (a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which a number is available.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In 1979 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the Overseas Development Administration, was responsible for 36 quangos. In 1993 the latest year for which a number is available, it was responsible for 18.

  Embassy Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff are employed

  United Kingdom based staffing levels at overseas posts in European countries

  British Embassies

  British Consulates General

  British Consulates

  Post

  United Kingdom based staff 1994

  Post

  United Kingdom based staff 1994

  Post

  United Kingdom based staff 1994

  Ankara

  26

  Amsterdam

  3

  Florence

  1

  Athens

  32

  Barcelona

  2

  Malaga

  1

  Belgrade

  21

  Bilbao

  1

  Oporto

  1

  Berlin

  22

  Bordeaux

  1

  Palma

  1

  Berne

  15

  Dusseldorf

  11

  Bonn

  68

  Frankfurt

  5

  Bratislava

  3

  Geneva CG

  7

  Brussels

  30

  Hamburg

  3

  Brussels JMO

  4

  Istanbul

  22

  Bucharest

  25

  Lille

  1

  Budapest

  30

  Lyons

  1

  Copenhagen

  20

  Marseilles

  1

  Dublin

  24

  Milan

  6

  Helsinki

  22

  Munich

  7

  Kiev

  19

  Naples

  2

  Lisbon

  22

  St. Petersburg

  7

  Ljubljana

  2

  Stuttgart

  1

  Luxembourg

  7

  Zurich

  3

  Madrid

  37

  Minsk

  2

  Moscow

  89

  Oslo

  23

  Paris

  89

  Prague

  25

  Reykjavik

  3

  Riga

  3

  Rome

  46

  Sarajevo

  2

  Skopje

  2

  Sofia

  23

  Stockholm

  22

  Tallinn

  2

  The Hague

  30

  Tirana

  2

  Vatican City

  2

  Vienna

  29

  Vilnius

  2

  Warsaw

  38

  Zagreb

  9

  Arms
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to(a) reduce and (b) eliminate the flow of arms to states where they are likely to be used in the repression of civilians; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  All applications for licences to export defence equipment are subject to strict controls. They are considered case by case in the light of established criteria. These criteria include the guidelines
  166
  full time and how many part time in each British embassy in each European country; how many staff are employed full time and how many part time in each British consulate in each European country; and how the level of staff is determined in each case.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The table gives details of United Kingdom-based staff slots in embassies and consulates in European countries, including service attaches and staff from other Government Departments and agencies. All are full time.

  Staffing levels are assessed against the objectives and activities of posts; they are reviewed regularly by FCO inspectors.

  agreed with European Union partners and in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. In particular, we do not export defence equipment which is likely to be used for internal repression.

  DNA Testing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the number of children who have been DNA tested for immigration
  167
  purposes in (a) Pakistan, (b) Sri Lanka, (c) India and (d) Bangladesh in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information is given in the table. Information on the number of DNA tests on children in Sri Lanka is not collected centrally.

  Number of DNA tests on children in the Indian sub-continent carried out under the Government scheme, 1991–1993

  Number of children

  Country where application made

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Bangladesh (Dhaka)

  760

  1,040

  790

  Pakistan (Islamabad, Karachi)

  440

  580

  410

  India (Bombay, New Delhi,Calcutta, Madras)

  30

  20

  110

  Total Indian sub-continent

  1,230

  1,640

  1,320

  All figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  Columns may not sum due to rounding.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for publication in the Official Report of a copy of the letter on plutonium smuggling sent to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent to which he refers in his answer of 3 November Official Report, column 1385.

  Mr. David Davis
  Yes, the text of the letter was:The British Government was represented by officials from the DTI and the FCO at the meeting called by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna on 2 and 3 November.
  The meeting discussed what role the Agency might play in combating nuclear smuggling. The United Kingdom shared the views expressed at the meeting that the responsibility for preventing illicit trade lay primarily with the governments concerned. But we also feel that the IAEA has two important roles to play. Firstly, in coordinating assistance to member States to help improve national systems of nuclear material accountancy and control and of physical protection. Secondly, in developing a reliable data base of information on illicit trade in nuclear materials.
  Based on views expressed at this meeting the IAEA Secretariat now intends to produce recommendations for action to be presented to the Board of Governors at its next regular meeting on 8 December. The Agency issued a, press release at the end of the meeting on 3 November, a copy of which I will place in the Library of the House.

  Rights of the Child Convention
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made toward meeting the terms of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom's First Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child was published in February 1994. Copies were placed in the library. The report sets out the ways in which the United Kingdom's policy, law and practice meet the provisions of the convention.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement 168
  on the Government's position on a unilateral ban on the production, sale, export, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines.

  Mr. David Davis
  We are very much in favour of measures to regulate the production, transfer and use of anti-personnel landmines. But to be effective, such measures need to command wide international support and respect. We are working with like-minded countries to that end.

PRIME MINISTER

  Court of Auditors
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he proposes to make to the latest report of the EC Court of Auditors; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom welcomes the Court of Auditors' report for 1993; its findings and recommendations will assist in the fight against fraud and financial mismanagement and in favour of better value-for-money. The United Kingdom has been in the lead in pressing the Commission and the European Parliament to attack fraud and improve financial management. We secured important improvements in the treaty on European union, including giving the European Court of Auditors enhanced status as a full Institution of the European Union. The United Kingdom has also pushed for better value for money in Community expenditure.

  Following on from the Edinburgh European Council conclusions, the 1993 structural funds regulations required, for the first time, prior appraisal of expenditure, effective monitoring and evaluation of results. In March of this year, the United Kingdom proposed a joint action to ensure that member states make legally binding commitments to take tougher action against criminal fraud. The United Kingdom also supports the principles of a proposal from the Commission for a complementary framework of financial penalty rules and wants to see these principles carried through effectively. Both proposals are currently under discussion.

  The European Court of Auditors' report will be considered by the Council of the Ministers early next year. The United Kingdom will urge that its findings are followed up vigorously by the Commission and member states; that appropriate action is taken; and that the Commission reports back fully on the results.

  As I said last week, following the Anglo-French summit at Chartres, we shall press for the Council of Ministers to act on the court's special reports on particular areas of the Community budget and we wish to see member states co-operate in taking tougher action against criminal fraud. We also wish to see the Commission step up its spot checks for fraud and fraudsters; the European parliament as a whole, rather than just its budgetary control committee, act on fraud; and we are in touch with the German presidency to see how we can use the Essen European Council to add further momentum to the fight against fraud.

  European Union (Finance)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minster what provisions exist to ensure that the obligations entered into
  169
  between European Union member states in matters related to the European Communities (Finance) Bill are honoured.

  The Prime Minister
  The purpose of the European Communities (Finance) Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to give effect to a new own resources decision. The British Government, and the Governments of all other member states, committed themselves politically to the financial arrangements which are the basis of the own resources decision by a settlement at the Edinburgh Council, during the British presidency in 1992.

  The relevant arrangements for giving legal effect to this international agreement are set out in article 201 of the treaty establishing the European Community which states that:
  "The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, shall lay down provisions relating to the system of Own Resources of the Community, which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

  National procedures for adoption are a matter for each member state. In the United kingdom, the practice is to ask for Parliament's approval by means of a Bill adding the new own resources decision to the list of relevant "Treaties" in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

  When all member states have notified adoption of the new own resources decision, it will enter force, retrospectively if necessary, with effect from 1 January 1995. Once in force, member states will be under a legally binding obligation to make contributions to the Community budget in accordance with the new own resources decision.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many victims of asbestos-related diseases have had benefits recouped under the compensation recovery unit powers following successful claims for damages against an employer or other party.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for 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. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 22 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking how many victims of asbestos related diseases have had benefits recouped under the Compensation Recovery Scheme.
  The full range of information you have requested is not available. The Compensation Recovery Unit's computer system records cases involving victims of asbestosis rather than asbestosis related diseases. In addition, information relating to cases settled prior to January 1993 is no longer held on the computer system and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.
  However, I am able to tell you that there have been recoveries in 171 cases involving victims of asbestosis where final settlement was made after January 1993.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the target time for the Child Support Agency to answer inquiries about cases; in what percentage of inquiries the target is reached; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Alistair Darling, dated 23 November 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency's target time for answering written queries.
  Under its current Charter Standard the Agency aims to reply to all routine written enquiries within 10 working days of receipt. Figures published for the period April 1994 to August 1994 show we replied to 29 per cent. of such enquiries within this timescale.
  These results are disappointing, but the Agency is working to improve performance.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are taken by the Child Support Agency to investigate the financial circumstances where the parent with care is self-employed.

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 23 November 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about steps taken to investigate the financial circumstances where the parent with care is self-employed.
  The formula for assessing maintenance is applied equally to both the parent with care and the absent parent. where either parent is self-employed, they will need to provide evidence to the Agency about their business. Details of the information required by the Agency and the steps taken to verify such information are contained in the Child Support Adjudication Guide and the Child Support Manual, copies of which are held in the Library.
  I hope that this reply is helpful.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are taken by the Child Support Agency to investigate cases where the parent with care is fraudulently claiming benefit; and how many such cases have been discovered since the agency was set up.

  Mr. Burt
  As an intermediary between two parties in the arrangement of child maintenance, the Child Support Agency has no direct role in the detection of fraud, although if social security benefits are in payment and a potential fraud against the benefits system is alleged, relevant information is passed to the Benefits Agency or the Employment Service.

  Although figures are not available for the entire period since the Child Support Agency was get up, in the first six months of 1994–95, the Child Support Agency referred 5,561 cases to the Benefits Agency for investigation. In the same period, the Benefits Agency identified benefit savings on a total of 2,213 cases which had been referred by the Child Support Agency. No referrals have been made to the Employment Service.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long the Child Support Agency takes to process an assessment from the receipt of the information from all persons involved based on the child support charter.
  171
  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss A Chant, the chief executive. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Iain Mills, dated 23 November 1994:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency's clearance times.
  The Child Support Agency Charter Standard relating to maintenance assessments is to aim to write with an assessment within 5 working days of receiving all information needed from both parents. Figures published for the period to August 1994 shows performance as 17 per cent. but this reflects the fact that the Agency is clearing older cases.

  Income Support
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much will be saved from the social security budget by reducing the entitlement of 18 to 24-year-olds from current levels of unemployment benefit to the under-25s' level of income support at current rates of youth unemployment from April 1996 for each subsequent year.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated savings arising from reducing the entitlement to 18 to 24-year-olds from the current levels of unemployment benefit to the under-25s' level of income support based on current levels of youth unemployment are £25 million in 1996–97 and £30 million in 1997–98.

  Notes:

  1. Savings rounded to the nearest£5 million.

  2. 1996–97 savings are in 1996–97 prices. 1997–98 savings are in 1997–98 prices.

  Table 1: The average incomes of pensioner units by source, 1974–1992

  a) Pensioner couples

  Average income

  Growth

  Average income from each source as

  £ per week July 1992 prices

  percentage

  percentage

  percentage of total income

  Income Source

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1974–1979

  1979–1992

  1974

  1979

  1992

  Earnings

  32.10

  26.10

  18.00

  -19

  -31

  -21

  16

  8

  Benefit income

  77.80

  87.70

  107.10

  13

  22

  50

  53

  45

  Occupational pension

  18.40

  17.50

  45.40

  -5

  160

  12

  11

  19

  Other income

  0.50

  0.90

  1.40

  86

  65

  *

  1

  1

  Total gross income

  155.70

  164.80

  237.80

  6

  44

  100

  100

  100

  Deductions

  22.20

  23.80

  31.60

  7

  33

  14

  14

  13

  Total net income1

  133.50

  141.00

  206.20

  6

  46

  86

  86

  87

  Total net income AHC2

  116.60

  122.20

  190.70

  5

  56

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  1 Median net income, at 1992 prices, was £107.60 in 1974, £115.10 in 1979 and £162.90 in 1992.

  2 Median net income after housing costs, at 1992 prices was £103.20 in 1974, £97.90 in 1979 and £145.80 in 1992.

  b) Single Pensioner

  Average income

  Growth

  Average income from each source as

  £ per week July 1992 prices

  percentage

  percentage

  percentage of total income

  Income Source

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1974–1979

  1979–1992

  1974

  1979

  1992

  Earnings

  8.10

  5.90

  5.10

  -27

  -14

  -10

  7

  4

  Benefit income

  51.80

  58.00

  70.80

  12

  22

  64

  69

  56

  Investment income

  12.00

  9.30

  25.20

  -23

  172

  15

  11

  20

  Occupational pension

  8.70

  10.10

  24.50

  16

  142

  11

  12

  19

  Other income

  0.70

  0.60

  0.70

  -14

  29

  1

  1

  1

  172
  3. Estimates assume that contributory benefit is paid for 6 months in 1996–97 and 1997–98: ie they assume that jobseekers allowance has been introduced in full.

  4. Estimates use the May 1994 unemployment benefit statistics and the 1990–91–92 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  Savings figures assume transitional protection in 1996–97.

  National Insurance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy not to levy national insurance contributions on employer-funded meal vouchers and childcare provided outside the workplace.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Employer-funded vouchers for meals and childcare provided outside the workplace are benefits in kind on which national insurance contributions are not chargeable.

  Industrial Injury Compensation
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the current system of industrial injury compensation.

  Mr. Hague
  We have no such plans at present but under the long-term review of social security expenditure each part of the social security programme is being examined to ensure that the objectives are right for the 1990s and beyond.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what is the latest information held about pensioners' incomes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The latest information is in the tables. This revises information given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 19 July at columns 201–4 and on 17 October at columns 59–60.
  173

  b) Single Pensioner

  Average income

  Growth

  Average income from each source as

  £ per week July 1992 prices

  percentage

  percentage

  percentage of total income

  Income Source

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1974–1979

  1979–1992

  1974

  1979

  1992

  Total gross income

  81.30

  83.90

  126.40

  3

  51

  100

  100

  100

  Deductions

  10.80

  10.30

  17.00

  _5

  65

  13

  12

  13

  Total net income1

  70.50

  73.60

  109.40

  4

  49

  87

  88

  87

  Total net income AHC2

  59.10

  60.70

  93.00

  3

  53

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  1 Median net income, at 1992 prices, was £60.70 in 1974, £66.80 in 1979 and £86.30 in 1992.

  2 Median net income after housing costs, at 1992 prices was £48.70 in 1974, £52.10 in 1979 and £62.80 in 1992.

  c) All pensioner Units

  Average income

  Growth

  Average income from each source as

  £ per week July 1992 prices

  percentage

  percentage

  percentage of total income

  Income Source

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1974–1979

  1979–1992

  1974

  1979

  1992

  Earnings

  16.40

  12.90

  9.90

  -22

  -23

  15

  12

  6

  Benefit income

  60.80

  68.20

  84.40

  12

  24

  57

  61

  50

  Investment income

  14.20

  12.10

  32.80

  -15

  171

  13

  11

  20

  Occupational income

  15.10

  17.90

  40.00

  19

  123

  14

  16

  24

  Other income

  0.60

  0.70

  1.00

  13

  48

  1

  1

  1

  Total gross income

  107.10

  111.80

  168.10

  4

  50

  100

  100

  100

  Deductions

  14.70

  14.90

  22.40

  1

  50

  14

  13

  13

  Total net income1

  92.40

  96.90

  145.60

  5

  50

  86

  87

  87

  Total net income AHC2

  79.00

  81.90

  129.50

  4

  58

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  1 Median net income, at 1992 prices, was £65.60 in 1974, £68.40 in 1979 and £93.50 in 1992.

  2 Median net income after housing costs, at 1992 prices was £50.00 in 1974, £53.00 in 1979 and £76.40 in 1992.

  Notes to table 1:

  (1) Components may not sum to totals owing to rounding.

  (2) '*' denotes a figure of less than 0.5 per cent.

  (3) All average amounts are means unless otherwise stated.

  (4) All figures are before housing costs unless otherwise stated.

  (5) Pensioner units are defined as single people over state pension age and couples in which the husband is over state pension age.

  (6) '1990–1' denotes estimates from the combined sample for 1990 and 1991. One quarter of the 1991 Family Expenditure Survey sample has been omitted because of problems in the collection of information on community charge payments following the delayed issue of bills in April 1991. As a result the sample size in that year is too small to provide reliable estimates of pensioner's incomes. For this reason the remaining data for 1991 has been combined with that for 1990.

  (7) 'N/A' means Not Applicable.

  Table 2: Proportion of pensioner units with investment income and the average amount for those in receipt

  percentage of units with investment income

  Average amount for those in receipt(£per week,1992 prices)

  Percentage growth in average amount since 1979

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1992

  a) All pensioner units

  Pensioner couples

  58

  71

  84

  31·70

  24·50

  54·30

  122

  Single pensioners

  49

  57

  71

  24·40

  16·40

  35·60

  117

  All pensioner units

  52

  62

  76

  27·20

  19·70

  43·30

  120

  b) Recently retired pensioner units

  Pensioner couples

  60

  73

  83

  32·10

  26·00

  59·80

  130

  Single pensioners

  54

  60

  67

  20·40

  15·20

  51·20

  236

  All pensioner units

  58

  68

  77

  28·30

  22·00

  56·80

  158

  Notes:

  (1) Recently retired pensioner units are defined as: single women aged 60–64; single men aged 65–69; and couples in which the husband is aged 65–69.

  (2) All average amounts are means.

  Table 3: Proportion of pensioner units with investment income and the average amount for those in receipt

  percentage of units with Occupational Pension

  Average amount for those in receipt(£per week,1992 prices)

  Percentage growth in average amount since 1979

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1992

  a) All pensioner units

  Pensioner couples

  53

  65

  72

  51·30

  52·80

  92·00

  74

  Single pensioners

  24

  32

  53

  37·20

  35·00

  59·90

  51

  All pensioner units

  34

  43

  60

  44·80

  44·40

  71·70

  61

  174 175

  Table 3: Proportion of pensioner units with occupational pension and the average amount for those in receipt

  Percentage of units with occupational pension

  Average amount for those in receipt (£ per week, 1992 prices)

  Percentage growth in average amount since 1979

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1992

  b) Recently retired pensioner units

  Pensioner couples

  63

  68

  73

  56·20

  62·10

  99·90

  61

  Single pensioners

  24

  37

  53

  46·40

  37·70

  71·70

  90

  All pensioner units

  43

  55

  65

  54·30

  55·30

  91·60

  66

  Notes:

  (1) Estimates of the percentage of pensioner units of occupational pension income are based upon data from the family expenditure survey and the GAD survey of occupational pension schemes. Due to thin use of additional information, it is not possible to derive the overall average occupational receipt from the estimates in this table.

  (2) Recently retired pensioner units are defined as: single women aged 60–64; single men aged 65–69; and couples in which the husband is aged 65–69.

  (3) All average amounts are means.

  Data Matching
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information given to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) on 12 July,Official Report, column 573, in respect of actions taken to establish and investigate inconsistency in information given in relation to claims for different benefits made by the same person.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have authorised further exercises to extend the comparison of information held on computer files to include housing benefit; council tax benefit; retirement pensions; widow's benefit; invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons over the age of 65 years are currently receiving the mobility component of the disability living allowance; and if he will break the figure down by sex and region showing the proportion of the over-65 population in each region receiving the benefit.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is in the tables.

  Number of people 65 and over receiving the DLA mobility component by sex

  Females

  132,800

  Males

  137,200

  Total

  270,000

  Note:

  The figures are based on a quarterly 5 per cent. statistical extract as at 31 August 1994 (Source-ASD).

  Number of people aged 65 and over receiving the DLA mobility component by region

  Number

  Population

  Percentage

  Northern

  20,300

  497,500

  4·1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  29,500

  795,600

  3·7

  East Midlands

  18,900

  649,300

  2·9

  East Anglia

  7,400

  366,700

  2·0

  South East

  48,700

  2,668,300

  1·8

  South West

  17,700

  903,500

  2·0

  West Midlands

  26,000

  820,400

  3·2

  North West

  47,000

  1,001,000

  4·7

  176

  Number of people aged 65 and over receiving the DLA mobility component by region

  Number

  Population

  Percentage

  Wales

  24,600

  506,000

  4·9

  Scotland

  29,600

  777,000

  3·8

  All

  270,000

  8,983,300

  3·5

  Notes:

  1. The Numbers of people over 65 and receiving the mobility component are estimates based on a quarterly 5 per cent. sample as at 31 August 1994 (source—ASD).

  2. Population figures are 1991 based projections for mid 1994 and not actual population figures (source OPCS and GAD for Scotland and Wales).

  European Economic Area Nationals
  Dr. Howells
  to ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's policy toward nationals of EEA countries who have been engaged in casual employment in relation to whether they are regarded as being within the provisions of regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68, and whether they are exempt from the habitual residence test for claims for income support.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Work has been defined by the European Court of Justice as needing to be "genuine and effective" before the person performing it comes within the scope of regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68. A national of an EEA country who has been engaged in "genuine and effective" work and who claims income support when unemployed is treated as being habitually resident.

  Invalidity Benefit and Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will give the age and sex distribution of current invalidity benefit claimants in Mid Glamorgan at(a) Porth, (b) Tonypandy, (c) Pontypridd and (d) Aberdare;

  (2) if he will give for the Porth, Tonypandy, Aberdare and Pontypridd areas the number of invalidity benefit claimants claiming for an adult dependant but no child dependants and the number of these adult dependants not working;

  (3) if he will give the number of invalidity benefit claimants in receipt of state earnings-related pensions and the average amount claimed in the areas of Porth, Tonypandy, Aberdare and Pontypridd;
  177
  (4) if he will give the number of claimants in the Porth, Tonypandy, Aberdare and Pontypridd areas claiming reduced earnings allowance.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

EDUCATION

  Head Lice
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what response she has made to the open letter sent to her on 4 October by Community Hygiene Concern on the subject of head lice in schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has replied to Community Hygiene Concern commending its good work in providing information and advice on the problem of head lice. however, the Department for Health is primarily responsible for child hygiene. I understand that that Department is in communication with Community Hygiene Concern over its "bug busting" campaign.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration he has now given to the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation report into discretionary awards provision; and what action he proposes to take in the light of its findings.

  Mr. Boswell
  The provision of discretionary awards is in the first instance a matter for local authorities.

  Infirmity retirements

  Premature retirement

  Financial year ended

  Gender

  Number retired

  Average pension1 £

  Average lump sum1

  Number retired

  Average pension2 £

  Average lump sum2

  31 March 1989

  Male

  1,241

  5,704

  17,085

  6,313

  6,213

  18,552

  Female

  2,182

  4,667

  13,944

  6,034

  4,618

  13,734

  31 March 1990

  Male

  1,653

  6,192

  18,551

  6,241

  6,573

  19,672

  Female

  2,539

  5,134

  15,357

  6,051

  4,983

  14,845

  31 March 1991

  Male

  1,821

  6,530

  19,735

  5,669

  6,993

  20,938

  Female

  3,117

  5,442

  16,298

  5,952

  5,284

  15,767

  31 March 1992

  Male

  1,770

  7,292

  21,865

  5,087

  7,671

  22,984

  Female

  2,890

  5,978

  17,916

  5,175

  5,712

  17,074

  31 March 1993

  Male

  1,960

  8,181

  24,542

  6,364

  8,392

  25,108

  Female

  2,937

  6,737

  20,201

  5,843

  6,401

  19,158

  31 March 1994

  Male

  2,314

  8,912

  26,738

  6,061

  8,957

  26,820

  Female

  3,235

  7,174

  21,518

  6,170

  6,630

  19,861

  1 Including the cost of enhancement.

  2 Does not include cost of enhancement which is payable by, and at the discretion of, individual employers.

  Note:

  The table includes teachers in the maintained schools sector, further and higher education and certain independent schools.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average annual cost of employing a physical education teacher.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department's estimate of the average annual cost of employing a classroom teacher in England and Wales as at 1 April 1994 is around £23,800. It is not possible to estimate the average annual cost of employing teachers in specific subjects.
  178
  However, the Government are concerned by evidence in the Gulbenkian report that potential students' chances of obtaining discretionary award support depend increasingly on where they happen to live. My right hon. Friend and I have had a number of discussions with interested parties and are keeping the situation under review.

  Examination Marks
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students in each of the last three years in England and Wales were dissatisfied with the advanced level grades allocated to them and asked for their papers to be remarked; and in how many cases original marks were(a) upgraded, (b) downgraded and (c) unchanged.

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Teachers
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers have taken early retirement in each of the last six years; and what has been the total cost of the retirement packages, including pension enhancements.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows the number of members of the teachers' superannuation scheme, together with the corresponding average lump sum and annual pension, who retired on the ground of infirmity, redundancy or organisational efficiency in each of the last six years. Employers may enhance the pension of those who retire on the ground of redundancy or organisational efficiency: the cost of this is not recorded centrally.

  Graduates
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many 1994 graduates are currently unemployed(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of 1994 graduates.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on 1994 graduate destinations is not yet available. Provisional figures of graduates from full-time first degree courses at English institutions in academic year 1992–93 show that 13,600—
  179
  or 12 per cent.—were recorded as unemployed approximately six months after graduation.

  University Students
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will estimate the average annual cost to public funds, including Higher Education Funding Council (England) grants and the payment of college and university fees, but extending maintenance grants and loans, of a student attending(a) the universities of Oxford or Cambridge and tutoring (i) a fee band 1 subject and (ii) a fee band 2 subject and (b) the average for such students at other English universities.

  Mr. Boswell
  The average annual cost to public funds per student at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge is about £4,900. The cost per student at other English universities ranges from just under £1,000 for the Open university to about £4,500. Institutions with high levels of part-time participation or which place a greater emphasis on the arts and humanities tend to have lower costs. The average annual cost per student at other English universities is about £2,800.

  The information required to estimate the average annual cost by fee band is not readily available.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many official Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 1994; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Members' Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he intends to send this year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I and my hon. Friends have not yet decided how many official Christmas cards we will send this year. The card chosen will cost 20p and will be posted second class. A copy will be placed in the Library at the time the first cards are posted. The information on staff time to sign, address and place cards in envelopes is not available.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will place in the Library a copy of the national playing fields register, divided into parliamentary constituencies.

  Mr. Sproat
  The "Register of Recreational Land" records information by local authority district and not parliamentary constituencies. I will, however, consider the practicalities of presenting the information in this manner and will advise the hon. member as soon as possible.

  ITN
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to revise the status of ITN as the only news provider available to the ITV companies following the ITC's decision to postpone the imposition of the 20 per cent. ownership limit.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. The nomination of bodies corporate as nominated news providers is entirely a matter 180
  for the ITC, in accordance with the powers set out in section 32 of the Broadcasting Act 1990.

  Turner Bequest
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the terms of the Turner bequest of pictures to the nation; how these are now carried out; and if he will agree to meet the editors of the "Turner Journal".

  Mr. Dorrell
  The terms of the bequest under which J. M. T. Turner left his pictures to the nation are both complex and, in part, contradictory. Since opening of the Clore gallery in 1987 at the Tate gallery, London, there has been almost general agreement that the main conditions of the bequest have been met. Some of Turner's works are also displayed separately at the National gallery, London.

  The display of the bequest is a matter for the trustees of the Tate and National galleries and it would be inappropriate, therefore, for me to meet the editors of the "Turner Journal" to discuss this matter.

  Digital Terrestrial Frequencies
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the allocation of digital terrestrial frequencies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Trade and Technology Minister announced on 19 January 1994 that the Government had decided to make available the frequency band 217.5 MHz to 230 MHz for potential terrestrial digital audio broadcasting services in the United Kingdom.

  My predecessor announced on 14 July 1994 that it was the Government's intention that spectrum, including channel 35, would be made available for digital terrestrial television.

  Television Licence Fees
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action he is taking to ensure that residents in the Channel islands pay the television licence fee.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under section 180 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system passed to the BBC with effect from 1 April 1991. The day-to-day administration and enforcement of the licensing regulations in the Channel islands is carried out actively by the island post offices under contract to the BBC.

TRANSPORT

  Tamar Road Crossing
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the terms of reference for the investigation by consulting engineers into the question of a possible second Tamar road crossing; and when he hopes to receive their report.

  Mr. Watts
  Terms of reference for the studies have not yet been agreed. We are in discussion with the local authorities. I hope that we will be able to invite bids for the working early next year.

  A38
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now announce his Department's preferred routes for the A38 trunk road improvements between the Saltash-Trerulefoot and Liskeard-Bodmin sections; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  I am pleased to be able to announce today the preferred routes for improvements of these two sections of the A38 trunk road in south east Cornwall. I have sent to my hon. Friend brochures giving details of the proposals. Brochures are also being sent to all affected and interested parties.

  Public Transport, Merseyside
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the deregulation of Merseyside public transport;and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Transport Research laboratory has carried out a number of studies on our behalf into the effects of bus deregulation both nationally and locally including one on Merseyside in 1989. I am kept aware of the current situation in Merseyside through visits and meetings both with the Passenger Transport Authority and the Passenger Transport Executive.

  Buses (Standing Passengers)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what information his Department has on the implications of accidents as a result of standing passengers on buses; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals his Department has for changes in (a) the regulations and (b) bus design in relation to standing passengers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The information available on the reducing number of standing passengers killed or injured on buses, including those moving either to a seat or to alight from the vehicle, does not indicate that any change to the provisions for ensuring the safe carriage of standing passengers on buses is necessary.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to introduce some form of post-driving test compulsory motorway training with appropriate flexibility taking into account proximity of motorways to the test applicant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  We have no plans to introduce compulsory post-test motorway training. However, in the new year we shall be launching a voluntary scheme for post-test driver training which will include a session on motorway driving. This will be part of the "Pass Plus" scheme, which is one of the measures we are introducing to improve new driver safety, following our consultation paper last year.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department has on the number of drivers receiving training from a qualified driving instructor before taking their driving test; and what information his Department has as to discount on car insurance on the use of a qualified driving instructor.
  182
  Mr. Norris
  About 98 per cent. of drivers take professional driving instruction prior to taking their driving test. We have no information which indicates that insurance discounts are given as a result of taking qualified driving instruction, but discounts on motor insurance will be available to those who successfully complete our post-test training course, "Pass Plus", to be launched in the new year.

  Overtaking
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Transport what plans the Government have to amend current legislation to prohibit drivers from overtaking vehicles that are loading or discharging school children.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the firms with which his Department has consulted, or is currently in consultation with, over the privatisation of Railtrack and the costs from each firm;

  (2) what has been the total cost to public funds so far for consultations into the privatisation of Railtrack.

  Mr. Watts
  In the period up to 31 March 1994, the Department spent about £16.5 million on external consultancy costs on the whole rail privatisation programme. Planned expenditure in 1994–95 is £12 million. It is not possible to disaggregate the costs attributable to advice on Railtrack matters.

  Crewe Bridge
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if the Highway Authority has received an application for Nantwich road to be closed due to engineering work on Crewe bridge;

  (2) what are his Department's plans to divert traffic in Crewe and Nantwich;

  (3) what consultations he has had with local traders in the Crewe bridge area of Nantwich road over the proposals for long-term closure of the main road for engineering work;

  (4) what approval the Highway Authority has given for Nantwich road area to be closed for engineering work for a period of longer than three months;

  (5) if he will publish the details of any diversion in the Crewe bridge area of Nantwich road;

  (6) if he will direct Railtrack to carry out urgent consultations with traders in the Crewe bridge area of Nantwich road over the proposals for long-term closure of the main road for engineering work.

  Mr. Watts
  The reconstruction of Crewe station railway bridge is presently being undertaken by Railtrack. Crewe and Nantwich borough council, as agents for Cheshire county council who have responsibility for the A534—Nantwich road—which is carried by the bridge, is providing traffic management while the work is carried out and will be issuing details of any diversions in the area.

  One complete weekend closure is planned for 26 and 27 November to allow the installation of bridge beams and a six-week closure is proposed from 11 March 1995.

  183
  There are no plans for Nantwich road to be closed for a period longer than three months.

  My Department has no plans to divert traffic in the area.

  Consultation with local traders about closures on the A534 is a matter for Railtrack and Cheshire county council and their agents.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a special budget urgently available for temporary car parking in the Crewe bridge area of Nantwich road to Crewe and Nantwich borough council.

  Mr. Norris
  No. The resources my Department allocates for local transport infrastructure go to local highway authorities and passenger transport executives. Crewe and Nantwich borough council are not eligible.

  Railway Construction (Compensation)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to modify the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 to extend the right for compensation to persons or businesses damaged by bridge engineering works over the railway;

  (2) if he will institute a study of the rules of compensation given to businesses in the area of roads which are closed for engineering work with a view to amending the legislation in the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845.

  Mr. Watts
  There are no plans to amend the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 to require compensation to be paid for loss of trade resulting from highway closure necessitated by railway bridge works. Retailers and other businesses have no legal right to any prevailing level of passing trade and temporary reductions in traffic flows have to be accepted as part of the commercial risk of running businesses.

  Driving Licences
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will amend driving licence legislation so that United Kingdom citizens who moved abroad with short-period driving licences do not have to retake their driving tests on their return.

  Mr. Norris
  We plan to use the new powers under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to enable drivers who can prove that they held a full short period licence before 1 January 1976—when such licences were replaced by ones valid till age 70—to regain their full driving entitlement without having to pass a further test.

  LGV Driving Schools
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amounts of correspondence he has received on the issue or regulation of LGV driving schools.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has received nine letters in the last 12 months asking about the regulation of LGV driving instruction.

  Unauthorised Road Works
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the penalties for engineering work carried out on main roads for a period of longer than three 184
  months which has not been approved by the Highways Authority.

  Mr. Norris
  The carrying out of unauthorised works on or to a highway would constitute unlawful interference with the highway. Part IX of the Highways Act 1980 sets out the various offences of unlawful interference with a highway and specifies the penalties by way of a fine appropriate to each.

  Radioactive Materials (Transport)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when Road Transport will implement the current IAEA regulations for the safe transport of radioactive materials, first published in 1985.

  Mr. Norris
  Most road transport in the United Kingdom of radioactive materials is already being undertaken in conformity with current IAEA regulations. United Kingdom regulations implementing those IAEA regulations should be made by March next year.

  Road Closures
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are taken to avoid closing main roads in trading areas to all traffic for engineering work for the two weekends before Christmas.

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for the traffic authorities concerned.

  Staff Annual Reports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will analyse the annual staff report markings for 1994 in his Department by gender, grade and ethnic group.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department already does so.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to reassess all road schemes for which contracts have not yet been let to take into account the recommendations of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution.

  Mr. Watts
  Very careful consideration will be given to all of the Royal Commission's recommendations.

  Railways
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to include in the criteria for public contribution to railways costs the social and environmental benefits of attracting traffic to rail from road.

  Mr. Watts
  It is already the Government's policy to subsidise loss-making passenger services, because they perform a valuable social service. Grants are also available to the rail freight sector to encourage a switch from road to rail in recognition of environmental and other benefits.

  Cycling
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has made to the report "Trust Pedal Power-A Review of Transport Policies and Programmes
  185
  1994–95", a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I expect to discuss aspects of this report with representatives of the cyclists' public affairs group, when I meet them soon. I am pleased that the report recognises the opportunity offered by the new package approach to local transport funding. Our circular on transport policies and programmes draws local authorities' attention to the importance of incorporating cycling provision within their package bids where appropriate. We shall give due weight to such provision in the forthcoming settlement.

  Environment Action Programme
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken under the fifth environment action programme to strengthen the environmental input into the transport policies of the European Union.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 22 November 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I seek to ensure full consideration of environmental impacts at all appropriate stages in the development of transport policies in the European Union.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the reason for the delay in settling the 1 April 1994 pay award for driving examiners and the executive and clerical support grades of the Driving Standards Agency.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 22 November 1994]: This is an operational matter for the Driving Standards Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from S.J. Ford to Mr. Jeff Rooker dated 23 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question concerning the reason for the delay in settling the 1 April 1994 pay award for driving examiners and the executive, clerical and support grades of the Driving Standards Agency.
  In making any pay offer to staff for 1994–95, the Agency must be limited to what it can afford. Without ways of generating new money DSA's offer, had it been made quickly early in 1994, would have been very small, and at best, no more than one per cent. The Agency has tried since then to work up the pay increase to a higher level through productivity arrangements. In an attempt to generate higher productivity, and therefore earn more fees, the Agency has made an offer of 2.5 per cent. on average payable in the form of an attendance bonus. In acknowledgement of the delay since April part of this, in the form of a lump sum bonus not linked to attendance has been offered.

  Equines
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase the number of equines in service in London streets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 22 November 1994]: None.

  MV Norrana
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the co-ordinates of the location of the ferry MV Norrana when fire was discovered on board at 00.22 hours on 9 April 1990.
  186
  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Coastguard Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C.J. Harris to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 23 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as the question deals with an operational matter, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  The position of MV `NORRANA' at 0022 on 9 April 1990 was 51 34.7N 005 44.9W.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the times at which, during the fire incident on board the MV Norrana on 9 April 1990(a) the call for helicopter and firefighter assistance was received by Her Majesty's Coastguard, (b) Her Majesty's Coastguard requested search and rescue helicopters and firefighters from RAF Brawdy and Dyfed fire service, (c) search and rescue helicopters took off from RAF Brawdy, (d) helicopters arrived at Haverfordwest to pick up firefighters, (e) the helicopter took off with firefighters, (f) the helicopter arrived over MV Norrana and (g) firefighters began to be lowered.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Coastguard Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 23 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as the question deals with an operational matter, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  During the fire incident on board the MV `NORRANA' in April 1990 (a) the call for helicopter and firefighter assistance was received by Her Majesty's Coastguard at 23.19 on 8 April, (b) Her Majesty's Coastguard requested search and rescue helicopters from RAF Brawdy at 23.20 and firefighters from Dyfed Fire Service at 23.22, (c) search and rescue helicopters took off from RAF Brawdy at 23.40, (d) not recorded, (e) the helicopter took off with firefighter at 00.07 on 9 April, (f) the helicopter arrived over MV `NORRANA' at 00.20, and (g) firefighters began to be lowered at 00.25

  Operation Sea Fire
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what emergency service personnel and equipment, were placed on board the Stena Sea Lynx prior to exercise Operation Sea Fire on 17 October.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Coastguard Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. C. J. Harris to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 23 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport had asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as the question deals with an operational matter, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  During exercise SEAFIRE on 10 October 1994 no emergency personnel or equipment, except directing staff (distaff) were placed on board prior to exercise.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the co-ordinates of RAF Chivenor, of the position of the ferry Stena Sea Lynx throughout Operation Sea Fire on 17 October, and the pick-up point in West Glamorgan for firefighters involved in the exercise.
  187
  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Coastguard Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. C. J. Harris to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 23 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as the question deals with an operational matter, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  The details of co-ordinates you requested are:

  a. RAF Chivenor: 51 05N 04 09W.

  b. Stena Sea Lynx during exercise SEAFIRE on 10 October 1994: 51 ION 005 30W - Vessel drifted during exercise.

  c. Grid reference for pick-up point for West Glamorgan Fire Service: Sheet 159 672 989.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take to ensure that search and rescue helicopters respond within the one-hour limit set by his Department and the Ministry of Defence following the Operation Sea Fire on 17 October.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Coastguard Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C.J Harris to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 23 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as the question deals with an operational matter, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  The MOD/DOT target is to locate search and rescue (SAR) helicopters in order to provide a helicopter at a range of 40 miles anywhere off the coast of the United Kingdom in 1 hour by day and 100 miles in 2 hours by night. These criteria are based on readiness states of 15 minutes by day and 45 minutes by night, timings which in normal circumstances are usually bettered.

  Market Testing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are(a) the results of the market test of his offices in Eastcote, (b) the total cost to public funds of the market test to date and (c) his estimates for the savings per year that he expects his Department to make.

  Mr. Norris
  (a) Eastcote Office Services lost the distribution market test. Call off contracts have been set up for the supply of stationery and office equipment. Eastcote is to close on 31 March 1995; some staff will transfer to central London. (b) £112,100 (c) £655,000.

  Staff Annual Reports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the reporting year 1992–93 the annual staff report box markings for female typists excluding typing manager grades.

  Mr. Norris
  Thirty box one, 270 box two, 211 box three, and three box four.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the percentage of(a) female support grades and (b) male grade 7s receiving box 1, 2 and 3 markings in 1992–93 on the basis of the information supplied in his answer of 18 July, Official Report, columns 69–70.

  Mr. Norris
  (a) box one nil, box two 32 per cent, and box three 68 per cent.

  (b) box one 5 per cent., box two 53 per cent., and box three 42 per cent.

  Cycling
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has planned or already undertaken to assess the potential of cycling and walking for short journeys.

  Mr. Norris
  We have undertaken a review of the published literature on studies of short trips involving pedestrians and cyclists, as part of our research programme, and we expect to publish it in the new year.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what protection he intends to give to the west Dorset coast of special scientific interest affected by the A35 Chideock-Morcombelake bypass;

  (2) what protection he intends to give the Roughs site of special scientific interest affected by the A259 Dymchurch-M20 junction 11 improvement;

  (3) what protection he intends to give to the Combe Haven site of special scientific interest affected by the A259 Bexhill and Hastings Western bypass;

  (4) what protection he intends to give to the Pevensey levels site of special scientific interest affected by the A259 Pevensey-Bexhill improvement;

  (5) what protection he intends to give to the Camber Sands, Rye harbour site of special scientific interest and Walland marsh site of special scientific interest affected by the A259 Rye bypass.

  Mr. Watts
  These are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms. Joan Walley, dated 23 November 1994:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. Watts has asked me: to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the protection it is proposed to give to a number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSS1) affected by proposed schemes to improve the A259 trunk road between Pevensey and Rye in East Sussex.
  The proposed A259 Pevensey-Bexhill Improvement would involve the construction of a new second carriageway generally on the north side of the existing road. The widening has been designed to minimise the impact on the Pevensey levels SSS1. The proposals include the creation of about 2.5 ha of new woodland and scrub habitat and over 5000 metres of new ditch. The new planting would increase the habitat available to reed and sedge warblers and the new length of ditch would substantially increase the aquatic habitat. Arrangements would be made to rescue and relocate, as far as possible, any important plan specimens before construction started. An improved drainage system would better control run-off from the road.
  The proposals for the A259 Bexhill and Hastings Western Bypass include a high viaduct across Combe Haven, instead of an embankment, to minimise landtake and reduce the impact on the SSSI. Special measures would be taken to keep damage during construction to a minimum and to restore the area as far as possible. Large scale planting of native trees and shrubs to reflect local conditions would be carried out. Elsewhere along the scheme, the development of wetland habitats in ditches and storage ponds would help replace lost habitats.
  Detailed proposals for minimising the A259 Dymchurch-M20 scheme on the Roughs SSS1 have been made available to the public inquiry which is underway at present. These include measures to replicate, as far as possible, existing conditions. This would include grading the earthworks to match existing gradients and re-using soils

  189
  and local seed sources to encourage the re-establishment of a varied species rich grassland. At the top of the cutting, a near vertical rock face would be created. Rocks with a particular good cover of lichens and mosses would be set aside during the contract to be replaced on the new rock face. Translocation of tree bark would also be carried out with a view to recolonising trees in the area. Road drainage would be kept separate from ground water issuing from the cuttings. The ground water would be diverted into existing streams to help maintain their natural habitats.
  The preferred route for the A259 Rye Bypass has not yet been designed in detail and will, in any event, be subject to review as part of the A259 Guestling Thorn to east of Rye Planning Conference. As presently envisaged, the route would be placed in tunnel where it crosses the Camber Sands and Rye Saltings SSS1. The salt marsh is expected to recover quickly once construction is complete. The Rye Harbour and Walland Marsh SSS1s would be affected by the route but an objective of the detailed design will be to keep its impact to the minimum possible.
  Where appropriate, the proposed protection measures referred to above have been developed in consultation with English Nature and the National Rivers Authority.
  On the A35 Chideock-Morcombelake Bypass, this scheme has recently been fully debated and examined at a public inquiry and it would not be proper for me to comment on the Minister's behalf at this stage. The Inspector will submit his report and recommendations to the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment in due course.

  Property Purchases
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many properties have been acquired under the Department's discretionary purchase scheme since its introduction in January 1992; what was the total value; and how much money has been allocated out of the Department's budget to the scheme this year.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Geoffrey Clinton-Brown, dated 23 November 1994:
  As you probably know, since the creation of the Highways Agency in April this year, it falls to me as Chief Executive to write to MPs who have tabled questions on matters which relate to operational matters of the Highways Agency and to give the information requested.
  In answer to your question about the discretionary purchase scheme operated by the Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport, the position is that approximately 540 properties have been acquired to date. Total purchase costs have amounted to a little over £60.0 million. Excluded from this total are legal surveyor fees, plus disturbance compensation, where payable, and also departmental handling costs. Separate provision is not made in the Department's budget for this scheme but it is covered by the overall Lands budget for 1994–95, totalling £236. million.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Norman Shaw Buildings
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what steps he takes on a daily basis to ensure that tradesmen's vehicles, refuse collection trucks, post office vehicles and other motor vehicles do not obstruct access to or prevent parking in the Norman Shaw north car park on the part of hon. Members or their staff.
  190
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The arrangements for parking are kept under regular review by the Administration Committee. If the hon. Gentleman has details of any specific difficulties being experienced I shall invite the Committee to consider them.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what consultations he has had with right hon. and hon. Members with offices in the Norman Shaw Buildings before proceeding with the redevelopment of the car park at those buildings; what was the total cost of that work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  As a consequence of work commencing on the phase 2 site the Administration Committee gave approval for the five parking spaces in Canon Row reserved for residents of the phase 1 building to be transferred to the area in the Norman Shaw car park between the main gates and the entrance barrier. In order to compensate for these spaces, an additional six spaces were provided in the inner courtyard of Norman Shaw north. Members with rooms in the Norman Shaw buildings were informed of these revised arrangements in a notice issued by the Serjeant at Arms on 2 February. The removal of the security hut at the Embankment entrance this summer has enabled the layout of the Norman Shaw car parks to be improved with an overall gain of a further six spaces. The total cost of the redevelopment work was £43,400 including VAT.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee (1) what consultations he had with right hon. and hon. Members with offices in the Norman Shaw Buildings before proceeding with the installation of card-controlled access gates in the tunnel giving access to the Palace from Westminster underground station; what was the total cost of that work; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consultations he had with right hon. and hon. Members with offices in the Norman Shaw Buildings before proceeding with the provision of new security gate access facilities at those buildings; what was the total cost of that work; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what consultations he had with right hon. and hon. Members with offices in Norman Shaw Buildings before proceeding with the development of card-controlled access equipment to the rear door of the Norman Shaw North Building; what was the total cost of that work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The installation of automatic access controls at these entrances is in line with the policy on access to the precincts approved by the House in 1989. It is not the practice to publish details of the costs of security measures which have been implemented.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many parking spaces at the Norman Shaw Buildings are currently allocated to staff with residences within the Palace and its outbuildings; and who are the staff concerned.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  Six spaces are allocated to the following: the Speaker's Secretary; the Clerk of the House; the Serjeant at Arms; the Deputy Serjeant at Arms; the Head Office Keeper and the Second Office Keeper.

  Residential and Overnight Accommodation
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will give a
  191
  breakdown by building, size and location of all residential and overnight accommodation which is currently available within the Palace and its outbuildings and by whom precisely that accommodation is used; and if he will estimate the annual cost of providing that accommodation in terms of construction, maintenance, decoration, cleaning, notional lost rental value and other costs.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Details of House of Commons residential and overnight accommodation within the parliamentary precincts are contained in the parliamentary space audit database. I have asked the Director of Works to write to the hon. Gentleman. Details of the annual cost could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Photocopiers
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee whether daily checks are made on the quality of the copies provided by photocopiers in the Norman Shaw buildings.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The photocopiers in the Norman Shaw buildings are monitored and serviced twice daily. In addition, the staff rely on users to report any interim faults including deterioration of copy quality.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee on how many occasions in the last 12 months for which figures are available repairs have been required to photocopiers(a) in the Norman Shaw North building and (b) elsewhere within the Palace of Westminster; on average how many calls per copier per month each of these two figures represent; and what was the total cost of the purchase, servicing and maintenance of all photocopiers in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I assume that the hon. Member's question relates to machines provided for the use of Members and their staff.

  During the 12 months November 1993 to October 1994 inclusive, the number of occasions on which faults requiring the attention of a service engineer were logged for those photocopying machines supplied by the Serjeant at Arms for Members' use was 109 in the Norman Shaw North building and 390 elsewhere in the parliamentary estate. This represents an average of 0.91 calls per copier per month in Norman Shaw North building and 0.57 calls per copier per month elsewhere in the parliamentary estate. The total cost of leasing which includes the costs of maintaining the photocopiers supplied by the Serjeant at Arms for Members' use was £324,177.24 in financial year 1993–94.

  Parliamentary Staff
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if he will give figures, grades, titles and ranks for all officers of the House whose salaries are higher than those of hon. Members of the House as at June 1994.

  Mr. Beith
  One hundred and one officers of the House in the following grades receive basic salaries above the £31,687 paid to hon. Members:

  Grade

  Clerk of the House

  1

  Clerk Assistant

  2

  Clerk of Committees

  2

  Principal Clerks, Class I

  3

  Speaker's Counsel

  3

  Principal Clerks, Class II

  4

  Deputy Principal Clerks

  5

  Deliverer of the Vote

  5

  Assistant to Speaker's Counsel

  5

  Supervisor of Broadcasting

  6

  Senior Clerks

  7

  Deputy Deliverers of the Vote

  7

  Serjeant at Arms

  3

  Deputy Serjeant

  4

  Director of Works

  4

  Assistant Serjeant

  6

  Deputy Director of Works

  6

  Deputy Assistant Serjeant

  7

  Principal Building Surveyor

  7

  Librarian

  3

  Deputy Librarian

  4

  Assistant Librarians

  5

  Deputy Assistant Librarians

  6

  Senior Library Clerks

  7

  Director of Finance and Administration

  3

  Accountant

  4

  Head of Establishments Office

  4

  Head of Finance Office

  5

  Computer Officer

  5

  Deputy Accountant

  6

  Staff Inspector

  6

  Deputy Head of Establishments Office

  6

  Editor, Official Report

  4

  Deputy Editor

  5

  Principal Assistant Editors

  6

  Assistant Editors

  6

  Committee Sub-Editors

  7

  Director of Catering Services

  5

  Catering Accountant

  7

  Executive Chef

  7

  Speaker's Secretary

  5

  193
  Salary scales for these grades as at June 1994 are as follows:

  Grade

  Pay Range £ per annum

  Implementation Dates

  1

  95,051

  1.4.94

  2

  65,990–79,394

  1.4.94

  3

  56,131–66,283

  1.4.94

  4

  47,897–57,612

  1.8.93

  5

  39,365–57,612

  1.8.93

  6

  30,680–49,697

  1.8.93

  7

  29,436–44,050

  1.8.93

  27,106–41,003

  1.8.93

  Note:

  Grade 3 rates include £2,000 per annum London allowance. All rates below grade 3 include recruitment and retention allowance.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if he will give a breakdown by grades, salaries and functions of the number of people currently employed by the House.

  Mr. Beith
  I refer the hon. Member to the 16th Annual Report of the House of Commons Commission (House of Commons Paper No. 602 of Session 1993–94). He will find the information that he requires in the Departmental annual reports and appendices 1 and 2, subject to the revision of the pay scales for grades 1,2 and 3 with effect from 1 April 1994 as follows:

  Right to buy sales to local authority sitting tenants1

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Total

  Scotland

  29,182

  26,943

  18,755

  19,829

  16,366

  111,075

  Borders

  505

  304

  262

  268

  270

  1,609

  Central

  2,132

  1,568

  1,091

  1,247

  1,184

  7,222

  Dumfries and Galloway

  692

  494

  407

  510

  552

  2,655

  Fife

  2,213

  1,500

  1,051

  1,183

  905

  6,852

  Grampian

  1,635

  1,540

  1,272

  1,985

  1,998

  8,430

  Highland

  666

  584

  558

  672

  659

  3,139

  Lothian

  5,520

  4,019

  2,665

  2,442

  1,774

  16,420

  Strathclyde

  13,671

  13,689

  9,413

  9,852

  7,658

  54,283

  Tayside

  2,001

  3,127

  1,894

  1,535

  1,221

  9,778

  Islands Councils

  147

  118

  142

  135

  144

  686

  1 Includes a small number of voluntary sales.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what means he has of monitoring whether NHS dental services are achieving national targets in improving dental health in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government monitor the state of dental health from the results of a range of epidemiological surveys based on the inspection of a sample of individual patients. Annual surveys of child dental health in Scotland are carried out under the Scottish health boards' dental epidemiological programme; five year-old and 12 or 14 year-old children are surveyed in alternate years. In the United Kingdom as a whole 10-yearly surveys of adult and child dental health are carried out by the Office of Population Census and Surveys; the last adult survey was in 1988 and the most recent child survey was in 1993.
  194
  Grade 1: – £95,051 –

  Grade 2: – £65,990 – £79,394

  Grade 3: – £56,131 – £66,283

  Police and Security Staff
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed as representing the House of Commons Commission how many(a) police officers and (b) security staff are currently deployed within the Palace of Westminster; and what is the total annual cost of that deployment.

  Mr. Beith
  One hundred and sixty police officers and 205 security officers are currently deployed within the Parliamentary Precincts. The House of Commons' share of the cost of the security force was £10.317 million in 1993–94.

SCOTLAND

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by region, the number of council houses sold under right-to-buy legislation in the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of local authority houses sold by region under the right-to-buy legislation for the five year period from 1989 is shown in the table:

  Housing
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by region, the number of schemes between district councils and developers and housing associations that have been established in the last five years to build new houses to rent; and if he will list, by region, the number of new houses to rent that these schemes have provided.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on local authority joint ventures with the private sector to build new houses for rent is not held centrally.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the pupil-teacher ratios for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94 for public section (i) nursery schools, (ii) primary schools, (iii) secondary schools, (iv) non-maintained

  195
  schools, (v) special schools and (vi) all schools; and whether these figures include unqualified teachers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested for education authority schools is as follows. All teachers in Scottish schools are qualified; therefore there are no unqualified teachers included in the calculation of pupil:teacher ratios.

  Pupil: teacher ratios in Education Authority schools in Scotland at September

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Nursery

  25–5

  25–9

  Primary

  19–3

  19–5

  Secondary

  12–6

  12–8

  Special

  4–3

  4–5

  All Schools

  15–6

  15–8

  Teachers
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many newly-trained teachers had obtained employment in education by(a) September and (b) May following their qualification; and what percentage this represents of the total of newly qualified teachers for each year since 1990–91.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is collected in respect of the destination of newly qualified teachers in the September and March following graduation. The table shows in respect of each year the number who were known to be teaching in the September and March following graduation. The destination was unknown for 21 per cent. of teachers graduating in June 1991, 25 per cent. in 1992 and 34 per cent. in 1993.

  Graduates known to be employed as teachers

  September

  March

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Qualifying in June of:

  1991

  829

  47

  1,134

  64

  1992

  920

  47

  1,198

  61

  1993

  997

  43

  1,251

  54

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many teachers were registered unemployed in Scotland in(a) May and (b) September for each year since 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the previous occupation of the unemployed is available from the labour force survey, a sample survey of households. Unfortunately, the sample size is too small to give a reliable estimate of the number of unemployed teachers in Scotland.

  Nuisance Legislation
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what conclusions the Government have reached in the light of the responses to their consultation paper "Contaminated Land Clean-up and Control" and the recent consultation exercise on the revision of Scotland's nuisance legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government intend to replace the existing Scottish nuisance provisions in the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897 with those of part III of the 196
  Environmental Protection Act 1990, which apply mainly to England and Wales. A clear majority of the 37 responses to our August consultation paper were in favour of such a change, which will usefully strengthen controls on nuisance in Scotland.

  I hope to make a further announcement on the outcome of the contaminated land review shortly.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Quangos
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds have been allocated to non-governmental organisations by the Overseas Development Administration during the latest financial year; and who have been their recipients.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Overseas Development Administration allocated £158,449,755 to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations in 1993–94. Details of the grants paid to recipients have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Western Saharans
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government have made to finance emergency aid to alleviate the immediate crisis in the western Sahara; and what plans are being put into effect to provide resources to western Saharan refugees to rebuild the fabric of their society in exile in the medium and longer term.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom contributes to the Saharawi refugees through its regular budget payments to UNHCR and the European Union. We have no plans for any direct bilateral contribution to the Polisario-run camps following their recent devastation by rain and flooding.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the damage caused by the rains and floods in the western Saharan refugee camps of southern Algeria on 8 September and 29 and 30 October; and how many refugees are without shelter.

  Mr. Baldry
  Schools, hospitals and dispensaries made of compressed sand-based bricks in the camps were damaged, as were tents and food and other supplies. It is understood that the earlier wave of torrential rains left some 20,000 people without shelter; the rains at the end of October, according to UNHCR, left up to a further 30,000 people shelterless and eight died.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance will be given in the immediate future to the western Saharan refugees, to supply tents, blankets, medicines, food and fuel.

  Mr. Baldry
  The UN department of humanitarian affairs and UNHCR have provided cash for local relief purchases and have airlifted tents, blankets, plastic sheeting and electricity generators into Tindouf. A UNHCR and world food programme assessment mission has recently visited the affected area and arrangements have been made urgently to replenish destroyed food stocks.

  Overseas Funding
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which directorates in the European Commission are responsible for funding overseas population and reproductive health activities.

  Mr. Baldry
  Directorate General VIII is responsible for any such programmes in countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. Directorate General I is responsible for projects of this type in Asia, Latin America and Mediterranean.

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs if he will place in the Library copies of reports on population control in China received by his Department from the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations fund for population activities.

  Mr. Baldry
  Copies of the United Nations Population Fund 1993 inventory of population projects and the International Planned Parenthood Federation 1994 annual report supplement will be placed in the Library of the House, together with a copy of China's national report to the international conference on population and development.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the reasons why the Chinese Government bans the publication of official statistics on methods of population control.

  Mr. Baldry
  We understand that the Government of China does publish yearly statistics on the number of people using contraceptives, including information on methods used.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department had with representatives of the People's Republic of China at the international conference on population in Cairo.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom delegation participated with Chinese and other delegations to the international conference on population and development in discussions on reproductive rights and a range of other issues.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings his Department has had with the Chinese embassy to discuss Chinese population control policies.

  Mr. Baldry
  Officials from my Department meet on a regular basis with officials from the Chinese embassy to discuss a range of issues, including population.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the reasons for the prevalence of sterilisation as a major method of population control in China.

  Mr. Baldry
  Sterilisation is an important method of contraception for couples who have completed childbearing in many countries, not just China. It is one of the most popular methods of contraception in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what statistics are used by 198
  his Department to assess the effect of Chinese population control policies on the human rights of Chinese women.

  Mr. Baldry
  Reliable statistical data relating to alleged abuses of women's human rights in population programmes are not available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department had about Chinese population control with representatives of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations fund for population activities at the international conference on population in Cairo; and with what results.

  Mr. Baldry
  Officials met with staff from the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations population fund at the international conference on population and development and continue to have dialogue with these two organisations. Both organisations remain committed to promoting better reproductive health care and free choice.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those projects to which the Overseas Development Administration has provided funding under the aid and trade provision since June 1993.

  Mr. Baldry
  A list of aid and trade provision projects approved for funding since June 1993 is as follows:

  ATP agreements concluded since June 1993

  Country

  Project

  1993

  Malaysia

  Railway double tracking

  Morocco

  Tetouan gas turbines

  India

  Bombay and Delhi airports

  1994

  Lesotho

  Muela hydropower project

  China

  Chicken processing plant phase II

  Sri Lanka

  Kundasale strategic study

  Chile

  Santiago traffic control

  Thailand

  Mini hydros

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the projects funded under the aid and trade provision in(a) Malaysia, (b) Indonesia and (c) Nigeria, since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  Lists of projects funded under the aid and trade provision in Indonesia and Malaysia have been placed in the Libraries of the House. No aid and trade provision projects have been funded in Nigeria.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all projects financed under the aid and trade provisions since 1984.

  Mr. Baldry
  A list of all aid and trade provision projects financed since 1984 has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria he uses for determining whether assistance should be given to a country under the aid and trade provision; and if he will make a statement.
  199
  Mr. Baldry
  Following the wide-ranging aid and trade provision review announced in June 1993, country eligibility criteria for aid and trade provision is based on credit-worthy low-income developing countries with a 1989 per capita income of under US $700.

  Reproductive Health Services
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is European Union policy on funding reproductive and sexual health services for adolescents in developing countries.

  Mr. Baldry
  The issue of reproductive and sexual health services for adolescents is not treated as a separate policy by the European Union. Under the European Union's broader health care programme to developing countries there are projects which include the provision of improved reproductive health services to all, including adolescents.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what budget lines in which European Union directorates can be used for population, reproductive and sexual health projects in developing countries.

  Mr. Baldry
  The primary source of funding for such projects in developing countries is the EC's country aid programme for the state concerned. African, Caribbean and Pacific programmes are funded through the European development fund. Asian, Latin American and Mediterranean programmes are funded through the budget lines for the regions—Asia B7–3000, Latin America B7–3010, Mediterranean B7–4051 for individual Mediterranean countries and B7–4080 for Mediterranean regional programmes. Three smaller budget lines are also relevant: B7–5046—health programmes in the fight against AIDS in developing countries: B7–5047—maternal and child health care; B7–5050—aid for population policies and programmes in developing countries.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what follow-up initiatives are taking place within the European Union in the context of the Cairo programmes of action with non-governmental organisations and with officials of the European Union member states; and who is the point of contact in Brussels for an hon. Member wishing to take these matters further.

  Mr. Baldry
  The European Union held a co-ordination meeting of member states earlier this month to discuss action to be taken in respect of the Cairo programme of action and plans further meetings. European Union member states will be represented at the development assistance committee meeting, which is focussing on population assistance, to be held in Paris at the end of the month. The third European parliamentarians' consultation on population, reproductive health and development will be held in Brussels in May next year. If hon. Members require further information they should contact the Overseas Development Administration in the first instance.

  Overseas Superannuation Programme
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the average pension 200
  payment made under the overseas superannuation programme in (a) 1994 and (b)

  Mr. Baldry
  Most overseas pensions are paid monthly, though some 20 per cent. are paid at less frequent intervals. The average pension payment in 1994 is about £420, compared with £431 in 1993.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the forecast number of pension payments to be made under the overseas superannuation programme for each of the next three years.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is expected that the number of pension payments will decrease about 4 per cent. a year in line with the decline in the overseas pensioner population, which is at present around 34,000. The forecast number of payments for each of the next three years is about:

  1995: 336,000

  1996: 322,500

  1997: 309,500

  Withholding of Aid
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those recipients of Overseas Development Administration bilateral aid which have had aid withheld following failure to adhere to International Monetary Fund and World bank reform programmes since 1985.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since 1985 there have been occasions for temporarily withholding promised balance of payments aid in support of economic reform, following slippages in implementing policies agreed with the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, in Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi and Zambia.

  In this period, balance of payments support for reforms in Nigeria was suspended as a result of serious doubts about the direction of policy. Balance of payments support, together with other forms of development aid, was discontinued in Somalia and Sudan for wider reasons.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries to which aid has been curtailed due to contravention of the Overseas Development Administration's good government criteria since 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  Significant cases of restrictions on aid, for a longer or shorter period, since the beginning of 1990 because of concerns over good government include Burma, China, The Gambia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Nigeria, Peru, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Sri Lanka and Zambia. In some of those cases, action reflected concern about other issues, notably economic policies, as well as good government. In addition, aid to South Africa was limited to non-government channels prior to a democratic Government taking office 1994.

  African Development Bank
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom's annual contribution to the African development bank fund.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1993–94, a payment of £1.8 million—equivalent to 1.9 million special drawing rights at the agreed rate of exchange—was made to the African development bank representing the final instalment of the paid-in element of the UK subscription to the fourth
  201
  general capital increase; and £18 million was drawn down again United Kingdom pledges to the African development fund.

  World Bank
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is the United Kingdom's annual contribution to the International Development Association arm of the World bank;

  (2) what is the United Kingdom's annual contribution to the International Finance Corporation;

  (3) what is the United Kingdom's annual contribution to the World bank;

  (4) what is the United Kingdom's annual contribution to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

  Mr. Baldry
  The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development Association and the International Finance Corporation are members of the World bank group.

  In 1993–94, a payment of $19.8 million—£12.9 million at the rate of exchange on the date of payment—was made to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This was the final instalment of the paid-in element of the United Kingdom subscription to the 1988 general capital increase.

  International Development Association resources are committed over three years, but donor contributions are drawn down typically over a 10-year period in line with project expenditure. International Development Association is currently drawing down resources against the 7th, 8th,9thand10th—current—replenishments. United Kingdom payments in 1993–94 totalled $209.3 million.

  In 1993–94, payments totalling £7.3 million were made to the International Finance Corporation, comprising the second of five instalments of $10.5 million—£7.1 million at the rate of exchange on the date of payment—of the United Kingdom subscription to the International Finance Corporation's 1991 capital increase; and £230,000 in support of International Finance Corporation advisory services for Africa.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the British Government's contribution to the World bank's fifth dimension arrangements for re-financing multilateral debt.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom does not contribute to the International Development Association fifth dimension, which is funded primarily by annual allocations from International Development Association loan reflows.

  Multilateral Aid
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he will(a) monitor Britain's contributions to multilateral aid and (b) ensure that those contributions are (i) well-spent and (ii) subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom participates actively in meetings at which overall policy priorities and expenditure proposals by multilateral organisations are discussed. The policies and programmes of the multilateral development banks are discussed and determined by their respective boards of directors, on all 202
  of which the United Kingdom is represented. For assistance channelled through the European Community, policy issues are discussed in the Council of Ministers of the European Union and project proposals are considered in management committees. There is frequent contact between ODA administrators and advisers with the senior management of the multilateral institutions, a major objective being to help improve the efficiency of their systems and procedures including evaluation. Contributions to multilateral organisations which are administered by ODA form part of the aid programme which is subject to scrutiny by Parliament.

  Women
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Her Majesty's Government have done to provide increased opportunities for, and participation by, women in education, training, planning and work in developing countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The enhancement of the status of women is one of the Overseas Development Administration's seven priority objectives. The 1994 departmental report on Foreign and Commonwealth Office expenditure describes progress in pursuing this objective. The 1995 report will do likewise.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to visit Ilford to discuss the future of manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  I hope to meet manufacturers from Ilford and the surrounding area early next year in the course of a series of meetings to promote manufacturing in London.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he will take to increase investment in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The most important influence on investment is a stable economic climate built on low inflation. Underlying inflation is at its lowest level for 27 years. My Department is helping companies to win in world markets through improvements in their competitiveness.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were in employment in manufacturing industries in June 1979 and June 1994.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Employment in manufacturing industry—Great Britain—was 7.3 million in June 1979 and 4.6 million in June 1994. The fall in manufacturing employment since 1979 reflects structural changes and sharply increased productivity.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to improve the competitiveness of United Kingdom manufacturing firms.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The White Paper, "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" sets out the most comprehensive agenda ever to raise the competitiveness of United Kingdom manufacturing firms. The Government are committed to work with business to
  203
  create a climate in which all United Kingdom companies can compete and beat the world's best.

  Small Companies
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to improve procedures to reduce the late payment of debt to small companies.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In the White Paper on competitiveness in May this year we announced a number of new measures to address the problem of late payment. The measures include:new prompt payment requirements for Government Departments and their agencies;
  improvements to court procedures for debt recovery and a review of the small claims limit;
  the implementation of proposals that public companies should state their payment policies in their directors' reports;
  the development of proposals for a British standard for prompt payment and
  work with trade associations, business links and others to improve credit management in small firms.

  We have also announced that we will re-examine the case for legislation for a statutory right to interest in two years if there had been no significant improvement.

  Domestic Utilities
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will initiate an investigation into standing charges on domestic gas, electricity, water and telephone bills.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Standing charges are a matter for utility companies and the independent regulators, and are subject to price controls. The Government see no case for an investigation.

  GATT
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest estimate of the likely benefits to the United Kingdom of ratification of the GATT Uruguay round.

  Mr. Needham
  The GATT has recently estimated that by 2005 the Uruguay round will boost annual world income by at least $510 billion. For the EU, the benefit would be around $164 billion—an annual increase equivalent to more than 3 per cent. of GDP. There is every reason to believe that United Kingdom income will increase in line with that of the EU as a whole.

  Manufacturing
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of output was accounted for by manufacturing in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Eggar
  The share of manufacturing in GDP was 28.5 per cent. in 1979 and 21.7 per cent. in 1993. Other main industrialised countries have also seen a decline in the share of GDP accounted for by manufacturing.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table of the size of the United Kingdom's non-oil manufacturing base for each year since 1979 assuming an index of 100 in 1979.
  204
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Index of Production for manufacturing industries, expressed in terms of 1979=100 is given in the table.

  Manufacturing Output (1979=100 in 1990 prices)

  Year

  1979

  100.0

  1980

  91–4

  1981

  85–8

  1982

  85–7

  1983

  87–4

  1984

  90–7

  1985

  93–3

  1986

  94–5

  1987

  98–9

  1988

  105–9

  1989

  110–6

  1990

  110–4

  1991

  104–4

  1992

  103–8

  1993

  105–1

  Source:

  Central Statistical Office.

  Note:

  Index includes mineral oil refining which accounted for 2 per cent. of production in 1990.

  Companies House
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the privatisation of Companies House.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with his Ministers over the future of Companies House; and if lie will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No decision has yet been taken on the future of Companies House.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 19 July that consultants were to explore further the possible contracting out of most of the activities of Companies House. Their report has now been received and is being considered.

  VSEL
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer the GEC bid for VSEL to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to refer the GEC bid for VSEL to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Director General of Fair Trading is currently investigating this proposed merger and he will advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in due course. A decision on whether or not it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be taken once that advice is received.

  Solvents
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussion he has had with industry with regard to replacing dangerous solvents with safe substances.

  Mr. Eggar
  Restrictions on chemicals must be based on sound science and an assessment of the risks attached
  205
  to their legitimate use, and I have had no cause to discuss with industry the phasing out of any solvents. There are regulations in place which restrict the marketing and use of certain chemicals used in industrial and consumer products. Providing these regulations are observed, products should be safe in normal use.

  Tameside
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department is giving to encourage firms to locate, or stay in Tameside.

  Mr. Wardle
  The services of INWARD, the regional development organisation for the north-west are available to Tameside as to other parts of the region. As Tameside is not an assisted area, regional selective assistance is not available. However, a business link outlet has been open in Denton since May to offer support to incoming as well as existing firms.

  Stagecoach Ltd
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding anti-competitive practices by Stagecoach Ltd.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has written to my right hon. Friend President of the. Board of Trade about the activities of the Stagecoach bus company. My right hon. Friend has also received several letters about the conduct of Stagecoach subsidiaries in particular areas.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the responsibilities of his Department in relation to the crash of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  There are no direct responsibilities, but my Department is contributing to research on explosion hazards to civil aircraft set up as a result of the Lockerbie incident.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the provisions made by insurance companies to meet compensation for mis-sold personal pensions.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My Department wrote on 25 October to all life offices asking them to provide, by the end of February 1995, revised estimates of their exposure to personal pensions misselling in the light of the criteria set out in the SIB statement.

  Gas
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to change the structure or remit of the Gas Consumers Council.

  Mr. Eggar
  The DTI/Ofgas joint consultation document published in May invited views on the future role and organisation of the Gas Consumers Council. I am still considering the issue and await the Trade and Industry Select Committee's report with interest. No decision has been taken yet.
  206
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of gas consumers will benefit from reduced prices as a result of the deregulation of domestic supply.

  Mr. Eggar
  Competition will exert a powerful downward pressure on prices and provide strong incentives for efficiency and improved service. It is not possible to estimate the outcome in detail, either in terms of the precise number of people who would benefit from reduced prices, or how large those reductions might be in each case. Independent suppliers have said they are confident of being able to offer average savings of around 10 per cent. on current British Gas prices.

  Insolvency Acts
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has received during the past 12 months on the subject of the Insolvency Acts with particular reference to bankrupt contractors' inability to pay sub-contractors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My Department has received a number of representations during the past 12 months regarding the position of sub-contractors under insolvency legislation when their contractor becomes insolvent. This is seen to be a particular problem in the construction industry. In July a report following a review by Sir Michael Latham of contract arrangements in that industry—sponsored jointly by the Government and the industry—made a number of recommendations. An implementation forum has been established to take the issues forward.

  Traditional Industries
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to help the traditional industries of Leicester.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The DTI already has in place a number of schemes that are helping industries in Leicester and elsewhere.

  The first business link in the country opened in Leicester on 27 September last year with £725,000 funding from my Department. Business link Leicester is part of a national network which will provide world class business support to all industries in Leicester.

  Business Regulations
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what further plans he has to remove unnecessary regulations on business.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  We are continuing our efforts to reduce unnecessary burdens on business. Latest developments include:The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act received the Royal Assent on 3 November. We shall be bringing forward the first orders under the deregulation order-making power after the new special parliamentary arrangements for their scrutiny have been put in place.
  The deregulation task force under Francis Maude is active on a number of fronts to reduce regulatory burdens on business. In Europe an EC expert group is looking critically at the impact of EC and national legislation on competitiveness and employment. The United Kingdom and Germany have also set up a high-level group of businessmen to scrutinise EC regulations and to stimulate specific deregulatory measures in Europe.

  Package Travel
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the operation and enforcement of the European directive on package travel.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The EC package travel directive has been implemented in the United Kingdom by the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 and, where criminal sanctions apply, is enforced by local authority trading standards departments. My Department will publish revised guidance notes to the regulations shortly.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the number of applications for regional selective assistance which were rejected in each development and intermediate area in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The latest complete information is given in the table.

  RSA applications rejected in the period 1 April 1993–31 March 1994

  DA

  IA

  Total

  East Midlands

  17

  13

  30

  North East

  21

  3

  24

  North West

  66

  57

  123

  South East

  —

  4

  4

  East

  —

  —

  —

  London

  —

  —

  —

  South West

  12

  8

  20

  West Midlands

  11

  46

  57

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3

  13

  16

  Total

  130

  144

  274

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the total amounts of regional selective assistance grants made in each development and intermediate area in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is published in the annual reports on the Industrial Development Act 1982, available in the Library of the House. Final figures on grants made since 1 April 1994 are not yet available.

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what form he plans to publish his response to submissions to the nuclear review.

  Mr. Eggar
  No decisions on either the form or the timing of the announcement of our conclusions have yet been made.

  British Coal
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will make a statement about the Government's sell-off plans for British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 12 October the Government announced that preferred bidders had been identified for the regional coal companies and certain care and maintenance collieries. Detailed discussions with the preferred bidders are continuing, with a view to completing the sales by the end of the year.

  New Investment, Hampshire
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's policy on attracting new investment in Hampshire.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government's economic policies have been directed to creating the right environment to encourage growth and investment. The low taxation and inflation levels the country now enjoys are a direct consequence of those policies. My Department's deregulation initiative helps to remove disincentives for investment by reducing the regulatory burden on companies.

  Investment from overseas companies in the United Kingdom is also a major contributor to the United Kingdom economy. My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau is active in promoting the United Kingdom to overseas investors and in ensuring, in collaboration with the Government offices in the regions, that any enquiries received are properly handled. All these activities help to attract new investment to the United Kingdom.

  We look to local authorities and other local partners such as training and enterprise councils to create at the local level the infrastructure and regulatory framework which will build on the Government's activities to produce an environment which is attractive to and supportive of investment.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Denis MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will veto any further applications for subsidies for European steel producers beyond those covered by the December 1993 Council of Ministers' agreement and if he will also endorse the policy of no more subsidy in the steel industry following decisions reached at the 8 November European Council of Ministers; and if he will make it his policy in future to intervene on behalf of industry.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Her Majesty's Government are committed to the December 1993 agreement and will continue to press for rigorous enforcement of the state aid rules. At the 8 November Industry Council we made clear the grave difficulties we would have in assenting to any further derogation requests. The free and fair operation of market forces is the best means of securing the long term prosperity of the United Kingdom steel industry.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences were applied for under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1985(a) in 1992 and (b) in 1993; how many in each case were in respect of applications made under part III, group 1 of the order; and how many of the applications were circulated to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  This question could be answered only at disproportionate cost. There will however he some details of licences issued and refused in the annual report of the Export Control Organisation to be published shortly. A copy of that report will be placed in the Library of the House and I will also arrange for the hon. Member to receive a personal copy.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when approvals were given to the British Nuclear Fuels for the acceptance by the German nuclear authorities for the return of conditioned radioactive wastes from reprocessing at Sellafield in the categories of(a) solid low-level residues, (b) MEB-Crud barium carbonate slurry, (c) radioactive hulls and ends, (d) centrifuge cake slurry and (e) vitrified high-level wastes; and how many further categories of waste remain to be approved for return.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This a matter for the management of British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Defence Equipment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list on a country-by-country basis the number of applications for export licences for defence equipment that were(a) received and (b) issued in 1993.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: This question could be answered only at disproportionate cost. There will however be some details of licences issued and refused in the annual report of the Export Control Organisation to be published shortly. A copy of that report will be placed in the Library of the House and I will also arrange for the hon. Member to receive a personal copy.

WALES

  Flooding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funding is available from Government Departments to combat the effects of severe flooding and the damage caused thereby; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local authorities are expected to make provision for responding to emergencies such as storms and floods when setting their budgets. In addition my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may provide extra financial assistance for disasters and emergencies, such as severe flooding under the Bellwin scheme in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Finance Act 1989.

  Loans may also be available from the social fund to individuals qualifying on grounds of hardship.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many representations have been made by his Department to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the subject of the export of live animals from Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has made to the Commission of the European Union on the subject of the export of live animals from Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office is in regular contact with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and about the export of live animals. The Minister of Agriculture, who has been conducting the negotiations and discussions with the Commission on behalf of the United Kingdom Agriculture Departments on the issue of 210
  live animals exports, is actively seeking agreement on new European Union rules.

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with local authorities regarding funding of arts provision in Wales following local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None, while the Arts Council of Wales has initiated discussions with transition committees.

  Minority Languages Charter
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Government will sign the European charter on minority languages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Government Departments with an interest in the European charter for regional or minority languages are still considering its implications for the United Kingdom. The decision on whether to sign the charter must take into account the situation of each of the indigenous minority languages spoken with the United Kingdom.

  European Union
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has been to European Union meetings to discuss matters appertaining to Wales in(a) 1993 and (b) 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I attend European Union meetings when it is appropriate and in the interests of Wales that I should do so. In the past month, for example, I have addressed the board of directors of the European investment bank during their recent very successful visit to Wales. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) has also met Mr. Jacques Blanc, the President of the EC Committee of the Regions. I also expect to meet a number of the incoming Commissioners as soon as this can be arranged.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales following his letter dated 29 June to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, (Mr. Llwyd), what further action he now proposes to amend section 44 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 following further consideration of European Court of Justice verdicts in relation to the acquired rights directive.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government are considering what changes may be necessary to legislation on redundancy as a result of the European Court of Justice's rulings. It will not be necessary to amend section 44 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 if changes are made only to the legislation mentioned in subsection (1).

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to publish a league table of TEC performances in Wales, in the form of the Department of Employment's initiative in England.
  211
  Mr. Redwood
  The 1993–94 performance of the 82 TECs in England and Wales was published on 25 August 1994 in the form of inter-TEC comparisons, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House.

  Health (Administration Costs)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the total spent by the family health services authorities on administration and the number of whole-time equivalents employed by the authorities in administration in the current financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  The amounts that family health services authorities in Wales have been authorised to spend in 1994–95 and the average number of staff employed in 1993–94 are as follows:

  FHSA

  £000's

  Staff (WTE)

  Clwyd

  1,386

  65

  Dyfed

  1,306

  58

  Gwent

  1,494

  87

  Gwynedd

  982

  51

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,917

  81

  Powys

  697

  30

  South Glamorgan

  1,629

  72

  West Glamorgan

  1,246

  56

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the total spent by the district health authorities on administration and the number of whole-time equivalents employed by the authorities in administration in the current financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  The total spent by Welsh district health authorities on administration in the 1992–93 financial year—the latest year for which data is available—was £26.554 million.

  As at 30 September 1994—the latest date for which data are available—a total of 3,014 WTE were employed by the authorities in administration. This does not include administration in hospitals or in other local centres.

  Source:
  Summarised accounts of health authorities in Wales.
  NHS payroll system and associated information systems.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give(a) the total spent by the NHS trusts on administration and (b) the total number employed in administration and management, in the current financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) the total spent by Pembrokshire NHS trust on administration in the 1992–93 financial year—the latest year for which data are available—was £1.785 million.

  (b) as at 30 September 1994—the latest date for which data is available—a total of 5,341 whole-time equivalent staff were employed in administration and management in the 24 operational NHS trusts in Wales.

  Source:
  Pembrokeshire NHS trust annual accounts.
  NHS payroll system and associated information systems.

  Badgers
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many licences have been granted by his Department for interference with badger setts following the Badgers Act 1991 and the Protection of Badgers Act 212
  1992; and for which purpose listed in section 10 of the 1992 Act such licences were issued.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Fifty-eight such licenses have been issued: 12 for the prevention of serious damage, 39 in connection with agricultural or forestry operations, six for work associated with watercourses or drainage, and one for fox control purposes.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers in Ynys Mon have(a) expressed an interest in the environmentally sensitive area scheme since it was launched (b) signed agreements under the scheme and (c) have already received payments under the scheme.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows:

  (a) 344

  (b) 81

  (c) 18

  Redberth-Sagerton Bypass
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the cost of survey work for the proposed Redberth-Sagerton bypass in each year since 1972; and what is his best estimate of the cost in this and subsequent years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Expenditure on topographical and geotechnical work for the proposed A477 Sageston-Redbeth bypass was incurred as follows:

  Year

  £

  1971–72

  3,400

  1972–73

  3,169

  1988–89

  2,000

  1989–90

  26,834

  1990–91

  8,881

  1991–92

  81,042

  1992–93

  23,545

  1993–94

  25,055

  Total

  1173,926

  1 Includes £58,369 for contractors' work.

  Estimated expenditure still to be incurred on such survey work is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1994–95

  120,000

  1995–96

  8,000

  Total

  1128,000)

  1 Includes estimate of £83,000 for contractors' work.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the responsibilities that his Department has lost since(a) 1975 and (b) 1979; and if he will estimate the numbers of staff or part-time equivalent who used to undertake these responsibilities.
  213
  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 November 1994]: The functions transferred from my Department since 1975 and the estimated numbers of associated staff are:

  Number of staff

  (1) Derelict Land (1975) to the Welsh development Agency

  Not available

  (2) Small Firms Service (1986) (to the WDA)

  7

  (3) Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre (1988) (to WHCSA)

  52·5

  (4) Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector (1992) (new Government Department

  74

  (5) Orbital Prosthetist Service (1993) (to WHCSA)

  2

  (6) Dental Services (1993) (to the Dental Practice Board)

  8·5

  (7) Divisional Medical Office (1993) (to the Benefits Agency)

  41·5

  Numbers 1 to 5 were transferred to other Welsh organisations.

  umbers 6 to 7 were transferred to joint England and Wales bodies.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the responsibilities that his Department has gained since(a) 1975 and (b) 1979; and if he will estimate the numbers of staff or part-time equivalent used to administer these responsibilities.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 November 1994]: The functions that my Department has gained since 1975 and the estimated numbers of associated staff at the time are:

  Number of staff

  Industry—1975

  82

  Ancient monuments—1978

  221

  Further education policy, excluding universities—1978

  24

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—1978

  536

  Regional development grant—1984

  78

  Training, enterprise and education—1992

  67

  The Secretary of State assumed responsibility for the Further and Higher Education Funding Councils in 1993; no additional staff are employed in the Welsh Office on these functions. Reform of the European Union's common agricultural policy has since 1992 generated substantial additional work for, and brought certain new responsibilities to, the Welsh Office's Agriculture Department. An estimated 90 staff are engaged on this work.

HEALTH

  Herbal Medicines
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has concerning the extent to which herbal medicines are banned in each of the other member countries of the European community; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Like the United Kingdom, other European Community member states restrict or ban the use of certain herbal ingredients which present potential safety concerns. We keep in close contact with other 214
  countries over safety issues and take action where necessary to protect public health.

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what form, when, through what procedures, and subject to what consent by the House she proposes to bring forward the proposed Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations, Pharmacovigilance and Related Matters) Regulations.

  Mr. Sackville
  We intend to lay the proposed regulations before the House shortly subject to resolving outstanding issues. The regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.

  Asthma
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of asthma cases indicated in the 1991–92 national survey of morbidity in general practice for those aged(a) up to four years, (b) five to 14 years and (c) 15 to 24 years; and what were the 1981–82 figures.

  Mr. Sackville
  The 1991–92 data are not yet available.

  1981–82:Patients consulting—rates per 1,000 persons at risk

  All ages

  0–4

  5–14

  15–24

  17·8

  26·0

  29·3

  16·6

  Rates are based on the number of patients who consulted at least once during the year for asthma.

  Mental Health Units
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the urgent review of the therapeutic suitability of mental health units within district general hospitals recommended by the mental health nursing review team is now under way.

  Mr. Bowis
  Copies of the report of the mental health nursing review team have been sent to all provider units. It is for them to ensure that the layout and working practices of their mental health units reflect the needs of patients. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department will publish a code of practice or protocol covering the use of covert surveillance techniques in identifying the possible abuse of children.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has no proposals to do so. The Department has, however, commended to the chairmen of all area child protection committees the high level of inter-agency collaboration demonstrated by Staffordshire Child Protection Committee in the production of a joint working protocol on covert video surveillance in hospital. Copies of this will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the turnover of each national health service trust in each year since its inception.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 18 May at column 517. The figures for 1992–93 have now been finalised. We expect information for 1993–94 to become available in December.
  215
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide details of the surpluses or deficits recorded by each individual national health service trust in each year since inception.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 May at column 295. The figures for 1992–93 have now been finalised.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which quangos her Department has abolished since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  A list of non-departmental public bodies abolished by the Department of Health and Social Security from 1980–1988, and by the Department of Health from 1989–1993 will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many quangos her Department was responsible for

  Non-elective admissions (general and acute) by region 1991–92 to 1993–94: England '000 finished consultant episodes

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Regional health authority

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Per cent

  Northern

  256

  47

  268

  47

  280

  48

  Yorkshire

  292

  48

  304

  48

  322

  49

  Trent

  333

  49

  348

  49

  368

  48

  East Anglian

  148

  49

  159

  49

  166

  48

  North west Thames

  212

  45

  234

  47

  236

  47

  North east Thames

  290

  49

  298

  49

  311

  50

  South east Thames

  253

  48

  262

  47

  275

  48

  South west Thames

  190

  46

  202

  48

  202

  49

  Wessex

  199

  45

  214

  46

  232

  46

  Oxford

  156

  48

  158

  46

  171

  46

  South western

  239

  47

  241

  45

  261

  46

  West Midlands

  382

  48

  394

  48

  414

  48

  Mersey

  210

  49

  218

  49

  242

  51

  North western

  337

  46

  344

  45

  360

  45

  Special HAs

  24

  22

  24

  21

  25

  21

  England

  3,521

  47

  3,668

  47

  3,865

  47

  Acute Nursing Care
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people over 60 years were recorded in the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years as receiving acute nursing care in an NHS bed.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Diethylstilboestrol
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the establishing of a national register of women who have been exposed to diethylstilboestrol between 1945 and 1975.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has no plans to establish a national register.

  Homicides Inquiry
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what steps she is taking to ensure that inquiries into homicides by mentally ill people, independent of the providers involved, are being set up in every such case as required by circular HSG (94) 27.

  Mr. Bowis
  The requirement to hold independent inquiries into homicides involving mentally ill people was re-emphasised in the draft guide to arrangements for
  216
  (a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which a number is available.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1979 the Department of Health and Social Security was responsible for 97 non-departmental public bodies. At 1 April 1993, the latest year for which data are available, the Department of Health was responsible for 50 non-departmental public bodies.

  Emergency Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency hospital admissions were made by region for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table shows the number of non-elective admissions in the general and acute sector for each regional health authority in England, in total arid as a percentage of all admissions for the last three years, from information collected by the National Health Service Executive. It is estimated that over 80 per cent. of non-elective admissions are emergencies.

  inter-agency working for the care and protection of severely mentally ill people which was issued to the national health service and local authorities for consultation on 10 October. Copies will be placed in the Library. When information about a homicide involving a mentally ill person becomes known to the Department, the NHS Executive or social services inspectorate seeks confirmation from the relevant authorities that action will be taken in line with the requirements of circular HSG(94)27, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mentally Ill Patients
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the timetable for publication of the report by the social services inspectorate on the inspection of local authorities' arrangements to support mentally ill patients discharged from hospital.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is anticipated that the report will be published toward the end of the financial year.

  Munchausen's Disease
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of Munchausen's disease by proxy have been reported in the last year.
  217
  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) on 24 February at column 353.

  Hair Dyes
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has concerning the health risks associated with the use of hair dyes; and what advice is given by her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  Materials which are not permitted in hair dyes are given in the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1989 which give effect to the Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EC. The European Commission is advised on health risks associated with chemicals in hair dyes and other cosmetics by the cosmetics working party and the Scientific Committee on Cosmetology. The Department is represented on the former and other United Kingdom experts are members of the latter.

  The Department is not aware of any information to indicate that chemicals in hair dyes pose any significant risk to health. Materials used in hair dyes are currently under review with the intention of producing a positive list for inclusion in the directive.

  Food Handlers
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how she intends to enforce the directive that requires all food handlers to be supervised and trained in food hygiene matters commensurate with their work activity; and what financial support is being provided to help industry meet any added costs of the proposals.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regulations to be laid in early 1995 will make clear that local authority food enforcement officers will enforce these and other food hygiene requirements. The Department has consulted on draft regulations, a draft revision to Food Safety Act Code of Practice No. 9 on food hygiene inspections, and a draft compliance cost assessment. The latter estimates costs arising from the requirement for food hygiene training, taking account of the fact that most food businesses already meet the requirement.

  Anti-epileptic Drugs
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment her Department has carried out of research carried out in(a) the United States of America and (b) countries of the European Union into possible side-effects in switching between branded and generic anti-epileptic drugs;

  (2) what research her Department has commissioned into the side-effects of switching between branded and generic anti-epileptic drugs.

  Mr. Sackville
  Evidence relating to the bioequivalence of generic and brand named anti-epileptic products is assessed at the time of licensing. Before a generic product may be licensed in the Untied Kingdom the company wishing to market the product must provide evidence to the licensing authority to show that the product is bioequivalent to the corresponding brand leader. As some anti-epileptic drugs have a narrow therapeutic margin, particular attention is paid to the issue of equivalence with these drugs during the licensing process.

  The Department has not commissioned any research into this issue. As with all medicines, the safety of
  218
  anti-epileptic drugs on the market is monitored by the Medicines Control Agency. Relevant research concerning generic inequivalence is assessed as part of this process. Appropriate action would be taken if evidence came to light of clinically important side effects occurring on switching between branded and generic anti-epileptic drugs.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many young people in secure accommodation have been the subject of violence at the hands of other inmates in each year from 1989 to 1993.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Psychotherapy Services
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects the current Departmental review of strategic policy on psychotherapy services to be completed; and if it will be published.

  Mr. Bowis
  The review is expected to be completed by April 1995 and a decision on publication will be made at that time.

  Complementary Medicine
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the efficacy of self regulation of alternative and complementary healers; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Professional self regulation, through either statutory or voluntary arrangements, is widely accepted as the basis for effective regulation of professions in the health care field.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has considered implementing a national register of therapists offering alternative healing and medicines.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. We encourage those groups of complementary medicine practitioners not covered by statutory registration arrangements, to develop voluntary registration systems based on agreed standards of education, training and codes of practice.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what checks her Department makes upon the activities of alternative or complementary healing;

  (2) what measures her Department has taken to monitor activities of alternative therapists and healers who are not governed by voluntary regulation schemes;

  (3) what measures her Department has taken to ensure that any member of the public who has been mistreated by an alternative or complementary therapist has recourse to disciplinary proceedings against that practitioner;

  (4) what measures are available to the public to ensure that a complementary therapist can be barred from practising if such action is necessary for the public good.

  Mr. Sackville
  This Department does not monitor the activities of complementary therapists. Whether on a voluntary register or not, they are at liberty to offer their services to the general public, subject only to those provisions of statute and common law which apply. For
  219
  example, there are restrictions on purporting to treat cancer and venereal disease and upon attendance at childbirth; and they are subject to relevant provisions of the Medicines Act.

  The Department recognises that membership of a reputable and well regulated profession—whether regulation is by statutory or voluntary schemes—is beneficial in the maintenance of codes of ethical practice and disciplinary processes. Members of the public are advised to check that a practitioner is a current member of a reputable organisation and carries proper indemnity insurance before accepting treatment. We also advise that they seek the advice of their general practitioner before proceeding.

  Where complementary therapy treatment has been provided in the national health service, dissatisfied patients may seek redress through the NHS complaints procedures. Where treatment has been obtained in the private sector, patients may pursue complaints through the disciplinary procedures—where these exist—of the professional group to which the practitioner belongs. They may also seek redress through the courts.

  Blood Transfusion Centres
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will meet the chairman of the National Blood Authority to seek reconsideration of the decision to close blood transfusion centres at Brentwood, Liverpool, Lancaster, Oxford and Plymouth.

  Mr. Sackville
  These matters are the responsibility of the National Blood Authority, which has undertaken a thorough and widespread consultation. Full consideration will be given to the results of the consultation before decisions are made.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will detail the average costs for the full time respite care provided by local councils and the health service.

  Mr. Bowis
  The cost for respite care varies across the country and depends on the type of care provided and it is for purchasers of this service to decide the best way of meeting individual needs in a cost effective way. Community care funding for this year included £20 million extra for respite and home care services rising to £30 million next year.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will detail the criteria and methods for assessing performance-related pay in the national health service for(a) doctors and (b) nurses.

  Mr. Malone
  We have no plans to introduce performance related pay for doctors and nurses.

  Operations
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will detail, by region, for each of the last five financial years,(a) the number of national health service operations by clinical specialisation undertaken in the private sector, (b) the number of national health service operations by clinical specialisation undertaken in the
  220
  private sector as a percentage of total national health service operations, (c) the number of national health service patients treated in the private sector and (d) the number of national health service patients treated in the private sector as a percentage of total national health service patients treated;

  (2) if she will detail, by region, for each of the last five financial years, (a) the cost of national health service operations by clinical specialisation undertaken in the private sector, (b) the cost of national health service operations by clinical specialisation undertaken in the private sector as a percentage of the total cost of national health service operations, (c) the average cost per patient of national health service operations by clinical specialisation undertaken in the private sector and (d) the average cost per patient of national health service operations by clinical specialisation undertaken in the state sector;

  (3) if she will detail by region over each of the last five financial years (a) the average length of stay for national health service patients by clinical specialisation treated in the private sector and (b) the average length of stay for national health service patients treated, by clinical specialisation, in the state sector.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the average length of stay by specialty in national health service hospitals in England is published in "Hospital Episode Statistics, Volume 1", copies of which are available in the Library. The latest published information is for 1991–92. The other information requested is not available centrally.

  Carers
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the contribution that full-time domestic carers make to care in the community.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government acknowledge the vital contribution to community care made by full and part-time carers. One of the key aims of our community care reforms is to ensure that service providers make support for carers a high priority. That is why community care funding for this year included an extra £20 million for respite and home care services, rising to £30 million next year. It is also why carers are involved alongside users when needs are assessed and plans made for them to be met and why we have encouraged local authorities to give carers the right to request that their own needs be assessed.

  NHS Pay Arrangements
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will detail new costs associated with establishing local pay arrangements in the national health service.

  Mr. Malone
  A major support programme has been mounted by the National Health Service Executive to assist trusts to prepare for establishing local pay arrangements. The estimated expenditure on this support programme in 1994–95 is £500,000. Any additional costs for individual trusts and other employing authorities will be more than offset by savings which they can expect from increased flexibility in the use of staff. Local pay will enable NHS employers to target rewards more closely to improvements in the quality and quantity of healthcare.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the proportion of entrants to adult training schemes who leave the schemes to take up part-time employment; and what it has been in each of the last 10 years for each of his Department's regions;

  (2) what is the proportion of entrants to training for work schemes who leave the scheme without a qualification; and what it has been in each of the last 10 years for each of his Department's regions;

  (3) what is the proportion of entrants to adult training schemes who leave the schemes without a qualification; and what it has been in each of the last 10 years for each of his Department's regions;

  (4) what is the proportion of entrants to training for work schemes who leave the scheme to take up part-time employment; and what it has been in each of the last 10 years for each of his Department's regions;

  (5) how many places were filled on each training scheme in each of the last 10 years;

  (6) what is the proportion of entrants to youth training scheme who leave the schemes early; and what it has been in each of the last 10 years for each of his Department's regions;

  (7) what is the proportion entrants to youth training schemes who leave the schemes to take up part-time employment; and what it has been in each of the last 10 years for each of his Department's regions;

  Training,Educational and Enterprise Programme Expenditure (£million)

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Job Training Programme

  232·9

  219·4

  286·2

  272·3

  Wider Opportunities Training Programme

  22·2

  26·0

  Other Occupational Training

  4·7

  7·0

  16·5

  24·2

  Open Tech/Learning

  18·1

  17·6

  14·5

  15·9

  New Job Training Scheme

  0·9

  66·9

  Adult Training

  200·8

  10·9

  Employment Training

  419·0

  1,096·6

  1,76·4

  131·4

  629·5

  Training for Work

  762·0

  Learning for Work

  14·0

  Workstart Pilots

  1·0

  Skill Choice

  7·0

  Open Learning Credit

  2·0

  Youth Training Scheme

  836·2

  869·9

  939·1

  1,064·9

  993·2

  976·0

  Youth Training/Credits

  823·4

  746·4

  617·0

  642·0

  Training and Education Support

  62·5

  56·4

  47·2

  52·3

  37·1

  39·0

  Training Access Points

  6·4

  Training of Trainers

  10·7

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications (Net)

  0·5

  3·7

  3·8

  3·0

  2·6

  3·7

  3·9

  4·0

  Careers Officer Training

  0·4

  0·7

  0·4

  0·5

  0·5

  0·4

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·1

  Careers Service Strengthening

  11·9

  12·5

  12·9

  13·9

  14·8

  17·0

  17·6

  18·7

  19·1

  21·0

  Career Development Loans

  0·3

  0·2

  0·7

  1·4

  3·8

  5·4

  6·9

  8·0

  Skills Training Agency (Net)

  3·6

  10·8

  -5·5

  -6·8

  10·5

  19·9

  4·3

  Residual Schemes

  10.0

  222
  (8) what is the proportion of entrants to adult training schemes who leave the scheme to take up full-time employment; and what it has been in each of the last 10 years for each of his Department's regions;

  (9) what is the proportion of entrants to training for work schemes who leave the scheme early; and what it has been in each of the last 10 years for each of his Department's regions;

  (10) what is the proportion of entrants to adult training schemes who leave the schemes early; and what it has been in each of the last 10 years for each of his Department's regions;

  (11) what is the proportion of entrants to training for work schemes who leave the scheme to take up full-time employment; and what it has been in each of the last 10 years for each of his Department's regions.

  (12) what is the proportion of entrants to youth training schemes who leave the schemes without a qualification; and what it has been in each of the last 10 years for each of his Department's regions;

  (13) what is the proportion of entrants to youth training schemes who leave the schemes to take up full-time employment; and what it has been in each of the last 10 years for each of his Department's regions.

  Mr. Paice
  As the information is contained in a large number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the amount spent by his Department on each training programme in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is provided in the following table:
  223

  Training, Educational and Enterprise Programme Expenditure (£million)

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Technical Vocational and Education Initiatives

  26·3

  40.6

  71·9

  60·7

  87·8

  129·1

  135·1

  140·7

  118·5

  119.0

  Non Advanced and Work Related Further Education

  65·6

  112·8

  114·9

  110·0

  101·9

  103.2

  105.4

  101.3

  103·0

  Special Temporary Employment Programme

  5·0

  Compacts/Education Business Partnerships/Education Initiatives/Careers Service Partnerships

  1·2

  3·6

  6·5

  12·5

  12·6

  12·0

  Enterprise in Higher Education

  5·8

  10·5

  13·3

  14·7

  13·0

  Careers Guidance Review Implementation

  6·3

  Careers Libraries

  6·0

  Other Education Initiative

  6·5

  National Record of Achievement

  2·3

  2·0

  Careers Service

  Enterprise Training

  4·5

  Business Growth Training/Business and Enterprise Training

  21·3

  48·0

  Business and Enterprise Support/Employer Investment in People

  161·8

  149·2

  132·0

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  80·1

  108·4

  149·7

  200·7

  196·7

  170·9

  133·1

  Local Enterprise Agencies

  2·0

  1·9

  1·9

  Small Firms Advisory

  1·1

  4·9

  7·7

  7·8

  Small Firms Information Service

  2·9

  2·8

  Small Firms Information Service

  0·9

  Other Enterprise and Small Firms Initiatives

  0·2

  0·4

  0·3

  1·8

  0·7

  0·7

  0·0

  Youth Enterprise Initiative

  1·5

  1·3

  3·6

  5·5

  4·4

  2·6

  5·0

  Local Initiative Fund

  9·9

  48·2

  49·7

  50·0

  TEC Challenge

  13·0

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme (net)

  10·8

  11·0

  3·7

  3·9

  5·7

  16·5

  27·5

  1·5

  Administration

  15·2

  21·1

  20·2

  20·6

  154·0

  191·1

  239·3

  196·5

  205·5

  198·9

  Note:

  Administration costs are included. However, prior to 1988–89 costs of administration were included in the main programme costs. From 1988–89 they are shown separately.

  Expenditure up to and including 1990–91 is for GB. Expenditure in 1991–92 is England/Wales and expenditure from 1992–93 is England only.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which quangos his Department has abolished since 1979.

  Ms Widdecombe
  The following public bodies, listed in the "Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies", the "Pliatzky Report", Cmnd 7797 January 1980, and editions of "Public Bodies" since its establishment in 1982, have been abolished.

  Executive Bodies

  Co-operative Development Agency

  23 Industry Training Boards as follows:

  Air Transport and Travel

  Carpet Industry

  Ceramics, Glass and Mineral Products

  Chemical and Allied Products

  Clothing and Allied Products

  224

  Cotton and Allied Textiles

  Distributive Industry

  Engineering (mainstream only. The Engineering Construction ITB remains)

  Food, Drink and Tobacco

  Footwear, Leather and Fur Skin

  Foundry

  Furniture and Timber

  Hotel and Catering

  Iron and Steel

  Knitting, Lace and Net

  Man-made Fibres Producing Industry

  Paper and Paper Products

  Petroleum (later, Offshore Petroleum)

  Printing and Publishing

  225

  Road Transport

  Rubber (later Plastics Processing)

  Ship Building

  Wood, Jute and Flax

  Industrial Training Research Unit Ltd.

  Manpower Services Commission (later Training Commission)

  National Dock Labour Board

  Underwater Training Centre

  34 Wages Councils as follows:

  Aerated Waters (England and Wales)

  Aerated Waters (Scotland)

  Boot and Shoe Repairing

  Button Manufacturing

  Coffin Furniture and Cerement Making

  Corset

  Cotton Waste Reclamation

  Dressmaking and Women's Light Clothing (England and Wales)

  Dressmaking and Women's Light Clothing (Scotland)

  Flax and Hemp

  Fur

  General Waste Materials Reclamation

  Hairdressing Undertakings

  Hat, Cap and Millinery (Great Britain)

  Lace Finishing

  Laundry

  Licensed Non-Residential Establishment

  Licensed Residential Establishment and Licensed Restaurant

  Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household Goods and Linen Piece Goods

  Made up Textiles

  Ostrich and Fancy Feather and Artificial Flower

  Perambulator and Invalid Carriage

  Pin, Hook and Eye, and Snap Fastener

  Ready-made and Wholesale Bespoke Tailoring

  Retail Bespoke Tailoring (Great Britain)

  Retail Food and Allied Trades (created in 1979 from the merger of 6 separate Councils)

  Retail Trades Non-Food (created in 1979 from the merger of 3 separate Councils)

  Rope, Twine and Net

  Rubber Proofed Garment Making Industry

  Sack and Bag

  Shirtmaking

  Toy Manufacturing

  Unlicensed Place of Refreshment

  Wholesale Mantle and Costume

  Advisory Bodies

  Advisory Committee on Homeworking

  Advisory Committee on the Resettlement of Ex-regular Members of the Armed Forces

  Advisory Committee on Women's Employment

  Advisory Group on Enterprise Training

  Advisory Panel on Deregulation

  125 Area (formerly District) Manpower Boards

  Careers Materials Advisory Committee

  Careers Service Advisory Council for England

  220 District Advisory Committees created under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944—replaced by 60 Committees for the Employment of Disabled People

  Industrial Language Training Advisory Committee

  Manpower Services Committee for Scotland

  Manpower Services Committee for Wales

  National Steering Group for Local Collaborative Projects under the Adult Training Strategy

  226

  Non-advanced Further Education Joint Consultative Group

  Open Tech Programme: Steering Group

  Quality Standards Group

  Royal Commission on the Distribution on Income and Wealth

  Services Resettlement Committee

  Special Employment Measures Advisory Group

  30 Special Programme Board and Area Boards

  Technical and Vocational Educational Initiative National Steering Group

  Training and Further Education Consultative Group

  Training of Trainers Advisory Group

  Tripartite Steering Group on Job Satisfaction

  Youth Training Board

  Youth Training Board Advisory Group on Content and Standards

  Your Training Scheme Certification Board

  Tribunals

  Levy Exemption Referees

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many quangos his Department was responsible for(a) in 1979 (b) in the latest year for which a number is available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Details of the public bodies associated with the Employment Department group in 1979 were published in the "Report on Non-departmental Public Bodies" (the "Pliatzky Report") Cmnd 7797 January 1980. In that year the Department was responsible for:68 Executive bodies (including 34 Wages Councils and 24 Industry Training Bodies);
  386 Advisory bodies (including 220 District Advisory Committees created under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944; 125 District Manpower Committees; and 28 Special Programme Area Boards);
  4 Tribunals (including the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal which was incorrectly classified as an advisory body in 1979).
  The Department is currently responsible for:

  11 Executive bodies;

  64 Advisory bodies (including 60 Committees for the Employment of Disabled People);

  4 Tribunals.

  Details will be published in the 1994 edition of "Public Bodies" later this year.

  None of these figures include the range of advisory committees to the Health and Safety Commission—currently numbering 22—which were incorrectly listed as advisory non-departmental public bodies in 1979. These committees do not have NDPB status and were removed from "Public Bodies" in 1991.

  Skills Levels
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is Britain's position in the World Economic Forum's skills league table.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The United Kingdom was ranked 18th, in respect of the availability of skilled people, out of the 41 countries covered in the World Economic Forum's "World Competitiveness Report, 1994". However the forum's findings are based on limited statistical evidence and put Japan well below the Philippines.

  Employers
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's estimate of the number of employers with 200 or more employees in each training and enterprise council area.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The available information relates to individual workplaces, not employers. The number of workplaces in each training and enterprise council area with more than 200 employees at September 1991 is shown in the following table:

  TEC

  Units

  Hampshire

  364

  Heart of England

  121

  Isle of Wight

  14

  Kent

  308

  Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire

  60

  Surrey

  215

  Sussex

  276

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  329

  Bedfordshire

  131

  CAMBSTEC

  104

  Essex

  277

  Greater Peterborough

  71

  Hertfordshire

  234

  Norfolk and Waveney

  189

  Suffolk

  121

  Aztec

  129

  CENTEC

  622

  CILNTEC

  320

  London East

  239

  North London

  134

  North West London

  95

  SOLOTEC

  223

  South Thames

  236

  West London

  276

  Avon

  251

  Devon and Cornwall

  222

  Dorset

  128

  Gloucestershire

  118

  Somerset

  92

  Wiltshire

  162

  Birmingham

  284

  Central England

  95

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  191

  Dudley

  53

  HAWTEC

  84

  Sandwell

  89

  Shropshire

  85

  Staffordshire

  216

  Walsall

  61

  Wolverhampton

  63

  Greater Nottingham

  160

  Leicestershire

  224

  Lincolnshire

  90

  North Derbyshire

  66

  North Nottinghamshire

  95

  Northamptonshire

  145

  South Derbyshire

  123

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  102

  Bradford and District

  114

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  120

  Humberside

  183

  Leeds

  206

  North Yorkshire

  138

  Rotherham

  56

  Sheffield

  118

  Wakefield

  78

  CEWTEC

  100

  228

  TEC

  Units

  Cumbria

  91

  ELTEC

  126

  LAWTEC

  184

  Merseyside

  191

  NorMidTEC

  121

  QUALITEC

  37

  Bolton and Bury

  97

  Manchester

  348

  METROTEC

  60

  Oldham

  45

  Rochdale

  34

  South and East Cheshire

  79

  Stockport and High Peak

  73

  County Durham

  117

  Northumberland

  44

  Teesside

  117

  Tyneside

  208

  Wearside

  63

  Gwent

  91

  Mid Glamorgan

  123

  North East Wales

  70

  North West Wales

  45

  Powys

  10

  South Glamorgan

  130

  West Wales

  124

  The table excludes Agriculture and Horticulture (Standard Industrial Classification 80, Activity Heading 0100).

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those parliamentary constituencies where the current level of unemployment is lower than in November 1990.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is available from NOMIS database in the Library.

  Construction Site Safety
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider amending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to allow the police the power to enforce its prescriptions with regard to ensuring proper supervision and securing of construction sites to ensure the safety of the general public.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I am satisfied that existing arrangements for enforcement of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 on construction sites and elsewhere are adequate and efficient. I have no plans to amend the legislation.

  Chemical Poisoning
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workplace incidents have resulted in death from chemical poisoning in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The following table shows the number of workplace incidents in the United Kingdom, as reported to enforcement authorities, which resulted in death from chemical poisoning:
  229

  Year (Commencing 1 April

  Number of Incidents

  Number of Fatalities

  1988–89

  13

  13

  1989–90

  7

  8

  1990–91

  14

  18

  1991–92

  11

  12

  1992–93

  7

  8

  These figures do not include deaths as a result of long-term exposure to chemicals, deaths arising from chemical poisoning reported to Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines, nor to local authorities in Great Britain for which figures are not readily available. Chemical poisoning is defined as exposure to, or asphyxiation by, chemicals and fumes, including natural fumes such as methane in sewers.

  Compensation Claims
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in how many cases compensation claims to industrial tribunals have exceeded the upper limit laid down by the Government in the past two years; and how many have been settled at or above the limit.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what plans he has to review compensation arrangements for successful applicants against unfair dismissal who win their cases in an industrial tribunal;

  (2) when he last reviewed the upper limit for compensation imposed on claims for unfair dismissal settled in the applicant's favour at an industrial tribunal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Following the last review, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State announced on 17 October 1994, in—"Limits on guaranteed payment and limits on a weeks pay; A report by the Secretary of State for Employment", HC 664, that the limits used for calculating unfair dismissal compensation were not to be

  Farm animals rejected as unfit for transport following veterinary inspection

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1994 March to September

  Cattle (including Calves)

  1,078

  839

  906

  1,257

  1,654

  Sheep

  6,950

  5,527

  13,722

  26,813

  13,083

  Pigs

  2

  —

  17

  —

  632

  Goats

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Totals

  8,030

  6,366

  14,645

  28,072

  15,371

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by country the number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy affected herds in member states of the European Union.

  Mrs. Browning
  The numbers of herds affected by BSE in member states of the European Union are not available. However, we understand that the numbers of cases of the disease in each member state as at 11 November 1994, or otherwise if specified, are as follows:
  230
  changed. The outcome of the next review will be announced next year.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many public appointments(a) he is responsible for making and (b) require his approval, including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if he will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies, (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [pursuant to the reply, 27 October 1994, c. 840]: I regret that figures quoted in my reply of 27 October 1994, were incorrect. The figures for public appointments which were stated to be taken from "Public Bodies 1993" also took account of a number of changes since its publication.

  The figures listed in "Public Bodies 1993" are as follows: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Employment is responsible for 3,434 appointments, including some which require his approval. A total of 221 of these are to executive bodies, 789 to advisory bodies and 2,424 to other appointments.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Transportation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has held and intends to hold with hauliers in relation to provisions for carrying small livestock.

  Mrs. Browning
  Officials have held one meeting with the various interests concerned with the carriage of small livestock by courier service. No further meetings are currently planned.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many livestock animals were classed as unfit to travel in each year since 1989.

  Mrs. Browning
  The available information is given in the following table, excluding 1993 when no figures were available. The figures relate to animals inspected prior to export from Great Britain.

  Member State

  Number

  Belgium

  —

  Denmark

  1

  France (to 1 September 1994)

  9

  Germany

  4

  Greece

  —

  Ireland (to 21 September 1994)

  97

  Italy

  2

  Luxembourg

  —

  Netherlands

  —

  Portugal

  10

  Spain

  —

  United Kingdom

  139,893

  Viral Haemorrhagic Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether approval for a vaccine for viral haemorrhagic disease will be under consideration at the next meeting of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

  Mrs. Browning
  I believe that the hon. Member has in mind the Veterinary Products Committee. I announced on Friday 18 November that a provisional licence for a vaccine against viral haemorrhagic disease in rabbits had been issued the previous day, following advice from the committee.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the papers submitted to the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products before they considered their advice to him on the use of BST.

  Mrs. Browning
  The EC Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products does not directly advise Ministers, but publishes formal opinions on dossiers submitted to it in accordance with directive 87/22/EEC. In the case of the two applications for BST its "Opinions and Evaluation Report" was published on 1 February 1993. Copies are available in the House Library as part of the consultation package on BST issued on 28 April 1994.

  In assessing dossiers the committee considers all available information, both published and unpublished, but details of the data it receives remain confidential in accordance with article 3(1) of the directive.

  Food Colourings
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what consideration has been given by United Kingdom approved authorities to bans on the use of E124 ponceau 4R in Norway and the United States for reasons of health risk to asthmatics, in relation to permitting use in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what consideration has been given to bans on the use of E110 sunset yellow colouring in Norway and Finland by United Kingdom approved authorities in relation to permitting use in the United Kingdom;

  (3) what consideration has been given by United Kingdom approved authorities to bans on the use of E104 quinine yellow food additive in Norway, the United States, Australia and Japan for reasons of hyperactivity, in relation to permitting use in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Browning
  We are aware that the colours E104, E110 and E120 can give rise to adverse reactions in a small minority of the population. Nevertheless, each of these colours has been assessed as acceptable for use in food both by United Kingdom and by EC expert scientific committees, and they are listed as permitted colours in the EU colours directive.

  As a general rule we do not ban the use of food additives which may cause intolerance reactions to a small number of individuals. But statutory ingredient labelling requires the presence of colours to be declared—and this should enable affected individuals to avoid food containing additives to which they react.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration has been given by the United Kingdom approval authorities 232
  to the use of food colourings by Messrs Mars in their food product M &Ms.

  Mrs. Browning
  All the food colourings used in this product have been subject to safety evaluations by expert scientific committees both in the United Kingdom and in the European Union. Such evaluations form the basis of food additive regulation.

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage hill farmers under 40 years to remain on the land.

  Mr. Jack
  Under the EC side of the farming and conservation grant scheme an enhanced rate of grant has been payable to established young farmers under the age of 40 who have taken out improvement plans. Farmer in less-favoured areas, which cover most upland areas in England, regardless of age may be eligible for higher rates of grant under the farm and conservation grant scheme. They are also entitled to hill livestock compensatory allowances and an additional supplement to the sheep annual premium scheme.

  Fishing
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing boats have been or are being decommissioned in each of the registered ports in the United Kingdom; what is the total estimated cost; what proportion this is of his targets in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The following table sets out the number of vessels decommissioned under the 1993 scheme, and those declared successful under the 1994 scheme:

  Country

  Port

  Number in 1993

  Number in 1994

  England

  Brixham

  5

  6

  Fleetwood

  10

  10

  Grimsby

  13

  14

  Hastings

  5

  10

  Lowestoft

  5

  12

  Newlyn

  2

  7

  North Shields

  17

  23

  Plymouth

  4

  7

  Poole

  1

  4

  Sub-total

  62

  93

  Scotland

  Arbroath

  3

  1

  Ayr

  4

  9

  Buckie

  4

  9

  Campbeltown

  2

  7

  Eyemouth

  8

  1

  Fraserburgh

  2

  2

  Lerwick

  3

  —

  Lossiemouth

  7

  5

  Macduff

  —

  2

  Mallaig

  4

  4

  Oban

  —

  1

  Peterhead

  3

  —

  Pittenweem

  2

  1

  Portree

  —

  1

  Scrabster

  1

  2

  Stornoway

  1

  2

  Ullapool

  1

  1

  Wick

  —

  1

  Sub-total

  45

  49

  233

  Country

  Port

  Number in 1993

  Number in 1994

  Northern Ireland

  Ardglass

  1

  2

  Belfast

  —

  1

  Kilkeel

  10

  5

  Portavogie

  17

  5

  Sub-total

  28

  13

  Wales

  Caernarfon

  —

  2

  Milford

  Haven

  —

  2

  Sub-total

  —

  4

  total

  135

  159

  234
  Expenditure on the 1993 and 1994 schemes is expected to total 16.7 million. I am encouraged that between them they will remove 4.8 per cent. of the fleet, assuming that all vessels successful in this year's tender are scrapped. With £8.3 million still available for next year, I am confident of exceeding my estimate of at least 5 per cent. for the whole programme to which column 417 of the Official Report for 7 July 1993 refers.

  Timberwoff Crossbreed Dogs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reported incidents of attacks on livestock by timberwolf crossbreed dogs there have been in each of the last four years.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: The Ministry has no records of attacks on livestock by timberwolf crossbreed dogs.

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

Pyramid Selling
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to increase restrictions on those forms of direct selling, involving pyramids or chain letters, which are likely to mislead the public about their effects.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we shall be consulting soon over changes to the legislation controlling pyramid selling and similar trading schemes. We want to ensure that potential and actual participants in trading schemes are protected from abuses which are peculiar to schemes with a pyramid recruitment structure.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that very satisfactory Answer. While members of the public cannot be protected from any foolishness of their own, are the Government concerned to deter the launching of apparently attractive and safe schemes which claim respectability, but which in practice can benefit only a small proportion of those who take part in them while losing money for the others, yet which are not presented as lotteries?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes. There is no end to the ingenuity of such criminals, but we have found a remedy for the worst of the current abuses. We have closed the three major funds and are in hot pursuit of the others. However, the law as it stands is clearly inadequate. We need to update it and to consult widely on how it should be updated.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, we are all convinced of the need to protect the public from the perils of pyramid selling and chain letters, but can the Minister tell us whether the Government regret that because it curbs free enterprise or because it means more regulation?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not believe that we regret it one bit.

The Benefits Agency: Administrative Errors
2.38 p.m.
Lord Benson Lord Benson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Having regard to the report by the National Audit Office that the social security department paid approximately £600 million in error last year, for how many years has this state of affairs existed; and what
272
changes of staff have been made and what other reorganisations are in progress in the department to prevent a recurrence.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the value of error represented 4.1 per cent. of expenditure and is a reduction from the 4.8 per cent. of the previous year. Improvement in payment accuracy is a top priority for the Benefits Agency and actions to reduce error include improvements to the computer system and to checking arrangements, extended staff training and a detailed review of all mortgage cases.
Lord Benson: My Lords, am I correct in thinking that the responsibility for that horrible state of affairs rests squarely on the shoulders of the Secretary of State and the accounting officer in the department? Is it not now essential to make changes in both those appointments?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Permanent Secretary at the department are very concerned about the report from the National Audit Office. As I have said, steps are being taken by Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, to improve performance. Indeed, the agency has set up a project steering committee to establish the cause of the inaccuracies and to ensure that steps are taken, both along the lines that I have mentioned and others, to reduce the level of inaccuracy and its cost.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, since we know from the recent annual report of the chief adjudication officer that in relation to some benefits over 90 per cent. of adjudications attract adverse comment at a later stage, and since a substantial number of them represent not overpayments but underpayments, can the Minister give us any indication of the proportion of mistakes that are rectified at review stage?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, no. I am sorry but I cannot give that answer off the top of my head. I would need notice of such a question. There is no doubt, however, that mistakes cause both overpayment and underpayment. We are concerned about both —on the one hand, from the point of view of the public purse and, on the other hand, from the point of view of the recipient.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, to return to the Question, is not something more than a registration of concern now required?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought that I had made it clear that I have done more than register concern. I have explained what the Benefits Agency has done since the National Audit Office drew this issue to its attention and spelt out to us the number of administrative errors that are made, as opposed to other errors that are made because the clients (either accidentally or deliberately) give Benefits Agency officers the wrong information. I do not want to sound too optimistic about it, but I think that there are some grounds for confidence about improvement. The

273
National Audit Office report shows that about two-thirds of such cases occurred in the first half of the year and that only one-third arose in the second half, by which time some of the improvements that I have mentioned had begun to feed through. I am informed that internal preliminary results from the Benefits Agency suggest that that improvement has been continued.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister say precisely where that £600 million has gone? Can he tell the House who, generally, were the recipients of that money? Does not a responsibility rest with those who were responsible for paying out those moneys?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the overpayments are received by the claimants, but the errors are made by officials of the Benefits Agency. We should not be in any doubt that income support is a complex system to operate and those operating it do the best that they can. As I have said, through better training and the use of computers, we very much hope to reduce that figure.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is there any record of the claimants who receive those moneys in error then taking the money back?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if we make an overpayment which is not the administrative fault of the department, we seek to have it repaid. In mortgage cases, in recent months we have recovered some £30 million paid as a result of mistakes in the mortgage payment system which is a complex system to operate. We hope that by the end of the exercise on mortgage payments that figure will have risen to £50 million.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is right when he says that the system is complex, but does not the problem lie in that? There are about 30 social security benefits. Is he aware that since the 1988 major legislative changes, which were supposed to stabilise social security for a generation, there have been about 10 Bills or major legislative changes to the social security system on average each and every year? Is it surprising that local staff do not have time to digest the detail and that mistakes are made? Is it not therefore understandable, but regrettable, that about 85 per cent. of all child maintenance orders have been found to be wrong and that on appeal over 40 per cent. of DLA assessments have been found to be wrong? Is it not time that the Government gave social security legislation a chance to bed down and for staff to learn its detail?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness has widened her question considerably from the Benefits Agency and income support to other matters. I shall be happy to discuss them when the appropriate Question is put down. I fully agree with her that the income support system is complex. One of the reasons for that, as she well knows, is that we are trying to do our best to bring help to people. in various circumstances. The system will inevitably be complex
274
unless of course the noble Baroness wishes to suggest ways to cut some of the devices that we have put in place to improve the system and bring more benefits to people.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the questions put by the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Benson. Is there any level of error over which the Minister thinks that there should be resignation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the errors here have occurred over a wide field. There are 70,000 employees in the system. I know that it makes a nice debating point to say that someone should be sacked, which I think is what the noble Lord is saying, but through the chief executive of the Benefits Agency we have taken some serious steps to attack the problem. I suggest that we await the NAO's report for next year to see whether those improvements have come through, as I suggested that they would.

NHS Managers: Staff Levels
2.47 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current number of National Health Service managers; and what was the figure five years ago.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, before 1985 there were no staff in the NHS described as managers. Following the Griffiths inquiry, general management was introduced and phased in over a number of years. In 1989 there were 4,940 general and senior managers. That increased to 22,540 in 1993. Since 1986 large numbers of administrative and professional staff, many of them nurses, have transferred to general management grades. Those transfers account for two-thirds of the increase between 1991 and 1992 and half of the increase between 1992 and 1993.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Notwithstanding what she said, is she aware that there are reports extant that nurses are deeply aggrieved by the fact that their numbers are running down, and that the number of health visitors is being decreased? Those staff are more vital to the health service than a surfeit of managers. Would it not be possible for the department to have talks with the nursing associations and health visitors about a problem which is causing them some anxiety?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no question of a reduction in the number of nurses. Since 1983 the number of qualified nurses has increased by 18,500. As to meeting with the Royal College of Nursing, the Health Visitors Association, and other nursing organisations, I met them last Monday.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not true that almost all those who work in the NHS, except the managers, recognise that there are far too many managers now? Is

275
it the Minister's view that the NHS has been better managed since that great influx of managers, or worse managed, as is the view of many people?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, those who receive treatment from the NHS recognise that it is now better managed. During the past year the number of patients treated has risen for the first time to over 8 million. That is twice the annual average of the 1980s and five times the number achieved under Labour.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not misleading to talk of a vast influx of managers when the figures given by my noble friend show that a large proportion of them relate to people delivering the service who are being given the proper managerial function within the service that they are delivering? If we put that together with her second supplementary answer, has not the net loss of places as a result been made up by the recruitment of new additional nurses to the system, which is why such a vast improvement of service delivery has taken place?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is right in that we rely on clinical staff to provide care and treatment. That is of paramount importance. When you enter a hospital, find it clean, cheerful and well maintained, the staff happy and well motivated, that the laundry works, the food is good and the medical records are at hand, you experience good management. We are giving better service, as shown by the British Attitude Survey published last week. It showed that dissatisfaction with the NHS had fallen and that there was a seven percentage point increase in satisfaction.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, what criteria are used for setting the salaries of the top managers? Figures were published only last week showing that top managers in the National Health Service have enjoyed percentage increases almost rivalling those of chairmen and directors of privatised public utilities. Is it not strange that we are seeing the salaries of managers in the NHS touching £100,000 a year, which is £20,000 a year more than the Prime Minister receives? Will the Minister enlighten the House about the substantial increases and who has taken the decisions relating to them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, trusts have the freedom to set their own levels of pay but few have moved away from the national terms and conditions. The rates of pay for regional general managers, district general managers and unit general managers are within wage brackets set by the Whitley councils. Last week publicity was given to five managers who are receiving salary levels of approximately £100,000 per year. All those managers were doctors who had a management function and also had distinction awards.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, as a former nurse, I know the good value of management at board level. Does my noble friend agree that much of the recent achievement in the National Health Service has been brought about by involving not only nurses but also doctors in general management?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Clearly, if we are going to improve the National
276
Health Service we must ensure that teams which include doctors, nurses and skilled managers are well established. The results show not only more patients being treated but also a considerable reduction in waiting times.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, although we may argue about whether the health service is getting better, does the Minister agree that the figures she has given show a 400 per cent. increase over eight years? That is 50 per cent. a year. How long will this go on?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, NHS managers account for just 2.6 per cent. of the NHS workforce and 3.6 per cent. of the salary levels. I do not believe that that is excessive. We need a National Health Service that is well managed. We are putting more investment into the service and the results are coming through.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend was helpful in giving precise figures. Do they include the National Health Service in Scotland and Wales? That is relevant to the figures she has given when such precision is offered.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the figures are for the United Kingdom.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, from what has been said today, it is clear that we are all aware that the Government would like a news blackout on the number of managers in the health service. We heard about that this week. I return to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick. It is clear that large salary increases are being given to managers in the health service. Do not the Government believe that that is inappropriate when they are recommending that in the statutory bodies there should be a pay freeze for doctors and nurses?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we shall be monitoring closely the management levels and the cost of management in the National Health Service. From April next year trusts must publish management costs in their annual reports. We have put a ceiling on health authorities regarding the increased number of managers that they can employ. Therefore, the situation is under control.
As regards the media and the National Health Service, I am always surprised when I visit hospitals and wards and go into the community that the people who have experienced the service have a totally different picture from that published in the press. There are two National Health Services: there is the health service that is there and the health service that is written about.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in answering a parliamentary Question in another place, the Prime Minister said that the salary increases of the privatised public utilities were the responsibility of the shareholders, and that directors and senior managers were accountable to the shareholders. In answering a

277
supplementary question, the Minister effectively said that trust hospitals are able to set their own salary levels. In doing so, to whom are the trust hospitals accountable?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, trusts are accountable to the Secretary of State and they have to publish the costs of their management. They are accountable; there is no secret about it. The matter has been widely published and the salary levels of chief executives are well known. Trusts must set up a remuneration committee composed of non-executive members who decide not only the salary levels but also the conditions of service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind what the Minister confidently said, and despite reports of midwives and nurses being somewhat disgruntled, will she consider talking directly not to the press but to the representatives of Britain's nurses, midwives and specialist doctors? That would greatly contribute towards resolving the difficulty that threatens our health service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no threat to the health service. It improves day on day, year on year. I have a continuing dialogue with those in the nursing profession and, as I said, I saw them last Monday.

EC Budget
2.57 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the annual expenditure of the European Union at the latest convenient date; and what was the comparable figure for five years previously.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, according to the European Court of Auditors, the outturn for the 1993 European Community budget totalled 69,021 million ecu in commitments and 64,498 million ecu in payments. The outturn figures for 1988 were 43,342 million ecu in commitments and 41,279 million ecu in payments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving that interesting information. In the light of the heavy increase during the past five years, are Her Majesty's Government exerting all the pressure that they can to restrain further growth in this expenditure?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the growth in expenditure by the European Community during the five years that I cited. On paper, the growth appears to be of the order of 50 per cent. About 10 per cent. is taken into account by growth in GNP and between 15 and 20 per cent. by growth in inflation.
Nevertheless, I assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government are concerned about growth in expenditure by the European Community, and that is why we secured the deal at the Edinburgh Summit in
278
1992. It limited further growth to 1.27 per cent. of GNP rather than the 1.37 per cent. that the Commission was seeking.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figure that he has given for the limit set at the 1992 Edinburgh Summit means an increase of £8 billion during the next five years? In view of the fact that the European Community budget is decided by qualified majority vote, thereby enabling the Commission to extend the budget up to the limits, will the Minister assure the House that in future expenditure will be approved where it ought to be approved—that is, by Parliament—instead of by Cabinet without consultation with or the agreement of Parliament?
Lord Henley: My Lords, such matters will be secured by Parliament when the own resources legislation comes before Parliament in due course. I must tell the noble Lord that I believe my right honourable friend the Prime Minister secured a very good deal on behalf of the United Kingdom at the Edinburgh Summit. He preserved the budget rebate in full, something negotiated by a Conservative Government and never negotiated by any Labour Government in the past. Indeed, no rebate was negotiated by a Labour Government. As I said, my right honourable friend preserved that rebate in full, and limited the growth to 1.27 per cent. rather than the 1.37 per cent. that the Commission was seeking.
Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord as regards the figures. The net cost of the Bill to the UK will be £75 million in 1995–96 rising to £250 million in 1999—that is, after growth and inflation are taken into account—compared with the net contribution that was payable in those years that are presently under consideration.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, can the Minister inquire into why the recent report of the Court of Auditors is apparently not able to be afforded by the budget, because it has never arrived here; indeed, we have still not seen it in this country, although it has been published in Brussels?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lord's question as to why the report has not yet arrived in this country. However, I believe that the noble Lord is right to draw the attention of the House to the report of the Court of Auditors into the 1993 budget and the concerns expressed therein. I can give the noble Lord the assurance that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is well aware of those concerns and recently, following the Anglo-French Summit at Chartres, he set out a number of ideas to deal with fraud, which include the Commission stepping up its spot checks for fraud and fraudsters, the European Parliament as a whole—and not just its budgetary control committees—acting on fraud, and the Council of Ministers acting on the Court's special reports on particular areas of the Community budget.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, when the Government produce such figures, I wish that they would do so in pounds sterling rather than in ecus so

279
that we can understand what we are discussing. Can the Minister confirm that the increase in expenditure in the EC or the EU—or whatever we have to call it these days—is 55 per cent. in percentage terms? Can the Minister also confirm that the taxpayers of this country pay no less than £10 billion to the EC and that only selected areas and persons receive any return? Therefore, the taxpayer is bearing a much larger burden than would seem to be the case if we merely take into account the net contribution of £3.5 billion, as it will be next year.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's first point, whenever I next answer such questions I shall seek, if it is possible, to put the answer in pounds sterling rather than ecus. I can confirm that, on paper, in the years that I quoted, there has been a growth of somewhere around 50 per cent. I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's figures in that respect. However, as I made clear when responding to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, much of that is made up by the growth in inflation and the growth in GNP which pushes up the size of the budget.
As regards the noble Lord's latter remarks, where he seemed to imply that the deal we are getting out of our membership of the EU is not a fair one, I must simply say that I do not agree with him. We have considerably reduced the potential rise in the size of our net contribution. I see considerable benefit—as, indeed, do most people—in our membership of the EU.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend make it clear whether or not the report of the Court of Auditors is being obtained and will be made available to your Lordships and to the people of this country? If it is not, why not?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall have to look into the matter. However, I hope that I can assure my noble friend that a copy of the report will be made available to the Library of the House.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, in his replies to other noble Lords, the Minister made several references to the Edinburgh Summit and to the European Community (Finance) Bill which is the outcome and which will shortly be before Parliament. However, can the Minister confirm that the demand made by the Prime Minister in another place last Wednesday that that Bill should be passed, "in all its essentials", was meant to imply that a vote on any amendment whatever would be a matter of confidence?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister meant exactly what he meant them to mean; namely, that the
280
Bill has to be passed in all its essentials. I look forward to debating that Bill with the noble Lord when it comes before the House.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as regards any publication which is made available to this House or to the British public, can we be sure that it will be written in English?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that I can give an assurance that such a publication will be written not only in English but also in clear and good English such as my noble and learned friend would like to have, so as to enable him to understand it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what the Prime Minister meant his words to mean?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my right honourable friend meant exactly what he meant by those words.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, is not one of the problems with the European budget that an ever-rising figure is set from the top and the Commission then decides how to spend it; in other words, it is a top-down budget? The result is that moneys are spent to try to use up the amount available instead of setting the budget in the traditional way by first finding out what is needed and then having a cut-off point to the debt.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I recognise the point that my noble friend makes. However, that is how the EU works and that is why we were very keen to limit the amount of growth that was obtainable within the EC budget. I can assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government are certainly not complacent with regard to EU expenditure. We shall continue to strive to achieve good management and to strive against waste in the EU budget.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee
3.6 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee—

L. Beaumont of Whitley,

L. Charteris of Amisfield,

V. Cranborne (L. Privy Seal),

L. Dainton,

E. Ferrers,

L. Gibson,

L. Glenarthur,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

B. Hamwee,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

L. Hayhoe,

B. Hollis of Heigham,

281

B. Hylton-Foster,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Kimball,

L. Mackay of Clashfern (Lord Chancellor),

L. McIntosh of Haringey,

V. Oxfuird,

L. Peston,

L. Richard,

B. Serota,

Bp. Southwark,

L. Stewartby,

L. Stoddart of Swindon,

L. Strathclyde,

E. Strathmore and Kinghorne,

L. Taylor of Blackburn,

L. Tordoff.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I must apologise to your Lordships, and especially to the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Kempston, for an error in his name which appears on the Order Paper. It should of course read Lord Clark with an "a" and not with an "e". With your Lordships' permission, that error will be put right.
Moved, That the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee—

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

E. Arran,

L. Brabazon of Tara,

L. Clark of Kempston,

L. Colnbrook,

V. Cranborne (L. Privy Seal),

L. Dean of Harptree,

L. Dormand of Easington,

L. Elliott of Morpeth,

E. Ferrers,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

L. Henley,

L. Hesketh,

B. Hylton-Foster,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Lester of Herne Hill,

L. McIntosh of Haringey,

L. Mackay of Clashfern (Lord Chancellor),

L. Morris of Castle Morris,

L. Mustill,

L. Richard,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strathclyde,

L. Tordoff,

L. Weatherill.—(The Chairman of Committees. )

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed as the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session—

L. Aberdare,

L. Airedale,

V. Allenby of Megiddo,

L. Ampthill,

E. Arran,

L. Broadbridge,

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Cocks of Hartcliffe,

B. Cox,

L. Elliott of Morpeth,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

B. Hooper,

E. Listowel,

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

B. Lockwood,

L. Lyell,

L. McColl of Dulwich,

L. Murton of Lindisfarne,

V. Oxfuird,

B. Serota,

L. Skelmersdale,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strathclyde.—(The Chairman of Committees. )

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.7 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by Lord Wade of Chorlton—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:

"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in opening this Session of the adjourned debate on the gracious Speech, it is expected that the principal topics for debate will be the environment and agriculture. I know that your Lordships will be looking forward, as I will, to hearing the two maiden speakers who have added their names to the list of speakers for today's debate.
This Government have a long-standing commitment to the environment. We first set out our strategy for environmental action in the 1990 White Paper, This Common Inheritance. It was the first comprehensive strategy for the environment to be agreed by the whole Government, not just by the Department of the

283
Environment. It surveyed all aspects of environmental concern, from street corner to stratosphere and from human health to endangered species.
The White Paper contained a commitment to regular updates and reports on progress. To ensure that the whole Government continue to play an active part in developing and implementing our environmental strategy, it established the system of Green Ministers in every department.
We have followed the White Paper with annual reports which record progress on commitments to action and set new targets. The next will be published in the spring, and for the first time will also report on progress towards commitments outlined in the UK Strategy for Sustainable Development. As your Lordships will know, the 1992 UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro, known as the Earth Summit, was an important milestone in the development of international policies for the environment. The UK took a leading role in the negotiations there and signed historic agreements including the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Biodiversity Convention and Agenda 21.
Agenda 21 set out a framework for involving people from all sectors of society in action to bring about sustainable development throughout the world. It called on national governments to produce their own plans for sustainability. In January this year we published the UK Government's response. Four White Papers were launched by the Prime Minister on 25th January 1994— Climate Change—The UK Programme, Biodiversity—The UK Action Plan, Sustainable Forestry—the UK Programme and Sustainable Development— the UK Strategy.
As with our annual White Paper reports, the whole of Government were involved in putting together the strategy. It reviews the state of the UK environment and looks ahead to the year 2012. It identifies what needs to be done to achieve our goals for a more sustainable future. In doing so it moves beyond purely environmental policy. Both economic growth and the state of the environment affect the quality of life for current and future generations. But words alone will not achieve our aims for a sustainable future. Action is needed to put sustainable development into practice.
One of the first issues we must tackle is that of pollution control. In introducing our plans for the new environment agencies we intend to improve the arrangements for a more integrated approach to pollution control which will ensure proper regulation without undue restrictions on industry. The new agencies will reduce the number of independent regulators in each of their areas, and will improve the prevention and control of environmental pollution. As mentioned in the gracious Speech, the Government intend to introduce at the earliest possible opportunity a Bill to establish an Environment Agency for England and Wales and a Scottish Environment Protection Agency. In addition, this Bill will contain the following measures: powers and duties of the agency in relation to contaminated land, and amendments to powers and duties of local authorities to achieve consistency, arising from the inter-departmental review of policy on contaminated land and liabilities; new requirements to
284
enhance the agency's abilities to deal with pollution from abandoned mines; provisions to support industry-led schemes for producer responsibility for waste; provisions to modernise existing Scottish nuisance controls; provisions to give environmental powers to fisheries regulators, including the Environment Agency; measures to establish new independent authorities for the 10 national parks in England and Wales and to revise parks' purposes; an enabling power for the preservation of hedgerows of particular value; and new arrangements for the payment of grants for purposes conducive to conservation. I am very pleased to be able to confirm the measures which will be covered by this Bill, and I am confident that they will strengthen the delivery of our environment policies.
The new environment agencies will have major responsibilities for controlling industrial pollution and wastes and for the regulation and improvement of the water environment. The agencies will be good for the environment and good for industry: they will benefit business by bringing together the different regulatory regimes in single bodies for each country, but not at the expense of environmental protection. The agencies will promote a more integrated approach to environmental protection; they will provide a strong independent voice to influence the adoption of better environmental standards and practices; and they will contribute to sustainable development by promoting high quality, integrated environmental protection, management and enhancement.
Establishing the agencies represents an important step in taking forward government policies on sustainable development. The White Paper earlier this year set out the key principles and broad strategy: it spelt out the need to combine economic development with protection and conservation of the environment. This involves basing decisions on the best available scientific information, taking precautionary measures where necessary, considering the ecological impacts and ensuring that responsibility for costs follows the "polluter pays" principle.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before the noble Viscount proceeds, will he explain to the House why there is a separate agency for Scotland but not for Wales?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the agency is taking over the work done by HMIP and the NRA and that is how it is based at the moment. There is a different legal system in Scotland which requires the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
My right honourable friend announced in another place last Friday that my noble friend Lord De Ramsey has accepted the important and demanding post of chairman of the Environment Agency Advisory Committee. We look forward to seeing the agency's holistic approach to sustainable and integrated control of environmental pollution take shape under his chairmanship.
In October we published a draft of the provisions of the Environment Agencies Bill which dealt with the establishment of the two new agencies. This new initiative has enabled interested parties to inform

285
themselves of the details of the proposed legislation before we introduce it to Parliament. We have listened carefully to the concerns which have been raised over the wording of the agency's conservation commitments, and my right honourable friend has had the opportunity to discuss this with Lord de Ramsey. We wish there to be no doubt whatever over both the conservation and the sustainable development role of the agency. As my right honourable friend has announced we have therefore amended the wording; the legislation will provide a clear duty not simply to consider conservation issues in relation to all the agency's functions but to further conservation as appropriate.
I am optimistic that the inclusion of national parks legislation in the Environment Agencies Bill will meet our long-standing commitment to safeguard the future of the parks. We intend to legislate to establish new National Parks Authorities for the 10 parks in England and Wales, to revise the parks' purposes, and to introduce a duty on public bodies to have regard to parks' purposes in carrying out their own functions. Overall, we expect these provisions to bring about a number of advantages for the care and protection of the parks, including a greater clarity of vision and self-confidence, a higher profile and a freedom for the national parks authorities to manage their own affairs.
Producer responsibility for waste is an innovative approach to tackling the problem of waste management. It is in line with the objective of achieving sustainable development and it gives industry a chance to produce a cost-effective, industry-led solution. The initiative challenges industry to assume an increased share of the responsibility for the waste which arises from products it places on the market. The result will be a boost in the re-use, recovery and recycling of waste. The packaging industry, and the work of the Producer Responsibility Group, the PRG, is perhaps the best known producer responsibility initiative. However, Ministers in the Department of the Environment and in the Department of Trade and Industry are in discussion with representatives of a number of other waste streams. The packaging industry was universal in its demands for supporting legislation to avoid the risk of "free-riders", who might seek to avoid their share of the responsibility. We are responding to that wish, and that expressed by representatives in other waste streams, to provide legislative support, by including measures in the agencies Bill.
I am sure that noble Lords present today are all aware that a Bill to reform the law for future agricultural tenancies was introduced to your Lordships' House on 17th November. I do not intend to say a great deal about the Bill because the debate on Second Reading is due to take place next week and my noble friend Lord Howe will deal with that topic of our debate today in his winding-up speech and in detail next week.
However, I shall say this. The tenanted sector is a vital part of our agricultural industry. The availability of land to rent is crucial for young people who cannot raise the large amount of capital required to buy a farm of their own. The long-term decline in the amount of rented land in England and Wales—from 90 per cent. of the
286
total agricultural area in 1910 to about one-third now, and still falling—has been much analysed but so far has not been halted.
The existing agricultural holdings legislation discourages landowners from letting land due to the degree of security it confers on tenants and its complexity. The Government's proposals for farm business tenancies represent a simplified and flexible framework of legislation which would give parties much greater freedom to negotiate their own tenancy arrangements.
The Bill would enable tenancies to cover a wider range of rural enterprises in which farming is the main, but not necessarily the exclusive, business. Parties will be able to agree what activities can be carried out on the holding, which will mean that diversification will be easier. The industry's ability to respond to market and policy changes will be enhanced.
Tenants will have a right to full compensation for the value of their improvements, provided the landlord gave consent. Parties will be free to decide the length of tenancy which best suits their particular needs, but there will be a requirement for either party to give at least a year's notice of the end of the tenancy.
There has been extensive consultation on the subject of these reforms with a wide range of interests. The package which is now before the House is fully supported by the main organisations representing both landlords and tenants, as well as the professional bodies. We believe that the reforms will lead to more land being made available to rent, which will benefit farmers in general and new entrants in particular. The reforms will not only encourage new dynamism and investment in the agricultural industry but will contribute to the future well-being of the rural economy as a whole.
We are conscious of the important part the countryside plays in people's lives. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 12th October our plans for a rural White Paper. Its subject will be working in and enjoying the countryside.
That White Paper will be another example of the whole government approach to environmental policies. Jointly produced by the Department of the Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with contributions from all government departments, it will present a coherent view of government policy for the countryside and will demonstrate the integration of rural affairs across all departments.
The issues it will address will include the impact of agricultural policy on the countryside; ways to provide development in the countryside in a sensitive and well-designed manner; the dynamic relationship between towns and cities and the countryside, the sophisticated nature of economic activity in today's countryside and the importance of encouraging further economic development and diversification; the recognition of local identity and the role of local government; and policies to respond to the decline in biodiversity and to protect and enhance the wider countryside as well as the most valued landscapes and habitats. However, the White Paper will not be about

287
quick fixes, nor instant initiatives. It is intended to develop a long-term strategic framework for the future of our countryside.
I have mentioned that the rural White Paper will review policies to halt the decline in biodiversity. Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan was one of the four White Papers launched last January as part of the Government's response to Rio. It provides a strategy and a way forward for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in the United Kingdom. Putting it into practice requires a partnership among all sectors. The Biodiversity Steering Group appointed to advise the Government on the implementation of the plan has representatives from central and local government, the nature conservation agencies, scientific and academic institutions, industry, farming and land management and the leading voluntary conservation bodies. A key task for the group is the development of specific costed targets for species and habitats for publication in late 1995, European Nature Conservation Year. Those targets will be the baseline against which trends can be monitored.
I have mentioned the agency's role in sustainable development. But action is needed by all sectors of society if we are to make real progress towards our goals for a more sustainable future. Our strategy for sustainable development is not an end but a beginning. As I mentioned, the Government will publish their first sustainable development annual report in spring 1995, monitoring progress on commitments during 1994.
The strategy makes it clear that all sectors have a role to play: central government, local government, business, NGOs, individual citizens. To ensure that appropriate action is taken we have launched three new mechanisms which will work for sustainable development.
The Government Panel is an independent panel which will advise the Government on implementation of the strategy. Convened by Sir Crispin Tickell, the panel has met three times so far. It is currently looking into four main topics: environmental pricing and economic instruments, ozone depletion, depletion of fish stocks and environmental education. It will publish its first annual report early in 1995.
The second new initiative is the UK Round Table for Sustainable Development. The sustainable development strategy stressed the need to develop partnerships between the key sectors. The round table will bring together representatives of different groups to discuss the issues of sustainable development and to identify what action needs to be taken. It offers a new opportunity for partnerships. We have therefore been careful to take account of all views in setting it up. There has been lengthy consultation on the scope, format and membership of the round table, and it is hoped that it will soon have its first meeting.
However, we must not forget that it is the actions of individuals in their everyday lives that will make a difference in our quest for a more sustainable future. Recent surveys conducted by my department have shown that people remain concerned about protection of the environment. It may not always be at the top of the list, but it remains a long-term concern.. People are interested in very local environmental problems such as
288
litter and noise, as well as global issues like ozone depletion. The good news is that people are mostly optimistic and believe that a lot can be done.
We recognise that, if people are to translate their good intentions and concern for the environment into real changes in lifestyle, they need up-to-date and accurate information so that they can make informed choices about the environmental impact of their actions. That is where the third new initiative we have established comes in. "Going for Green" will encourage people's interest in the environment and make sure that they understand the real consequences of the choices they make as consumers, at work and at home.
A national campaign committee chaired by Professor Graham Ashworth, Director General of the Tidy Britain Group, has been set up. Its aim is to promote the vital messages of sustainable development to the public in clear, unambiguous language. It will organise national promotional events and projects for local action. The committee has already met three times and is reviewing the work already going on in the voluntary sector, local government, the Churches and many other groups. "Going for Green" will build on that work to encourage everyone to take practical action for the environment. We are determined to follow up the publication of our response to Rio with positive action.
I have already outlined action for sustainable development, which is our overarching objective. To quote the definition given by Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, sustainable development is:
"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
That definition was used in the Brundtland Commission report for the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987. We used it as the starting point for our own sustainable development strategy.
I have outlined today our action to follow up that report. I have introduced to your Lordships our plans for the establishment of the agency which will act as a cornerstone for our sustainable development policy. It has a unique opportunity to influence the adoption of better environmental standards and practices. The three new initiatives we have introduced will help to translate the aims set out in our sustainable development strategy into action involving everyone. Our Rural Development White Paper will ensure that rural concerns are reflected in the development policies across government, and we are following up the biodiversity action plan by setting specific costed targets.
Finally, I should like to assure your Lordships that the environment and the countryside remain at the heart of this Government's policies. I look forward to hearing a lively debate on these very important issues.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Viscount has rightly reminded us that today we are discussing environment, agriculture and related matters. With the noble Viscount, I look forward to the maiden speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Ellesmere, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood.

289
In dealing with these matters I have to declare two interests, as your Lordships require: one as President of the Campaign for Rural Wales and the other as President of the Federation of Economic Development Authorities. I declare the latter because, after dealing with environmental matters, I shall have something to say about local government, leaving my noble and expert friend Lord Carter to deal with agriculture when he winds up from these Benches. I emphasise that both positions carry no remuneration. It is therefore not a pecuniary interest. In fact, somewhat to my regret and the regret of my bank manager, both constitute a negative pecuniary interest in the sense that I am out of pocket as a result. However, I take it that that is of no concern to your Lordships.
Let me start with the environment. The noble Viscount said that the Government have a long-standing commitment to the environment. I readily confess that I had hoped for much more than appears in the gracious Speech. I had hoped to be able to welcome the announcement of improved standards for reducing pollution from cars. I had hoped to be able to greet with enthusiasm a number of important measures: new laws on air pollution and dangerous wastes; new grants to encourage more small woodlands in lowland areas; legislation to safeguard common land on the basis of the Common Land Forum; and legislation to protect public access to the countryside through footpaths. My hopes were in vain. However, before noble Lords opposite jump up to say that I am being too ambitious, that those demands are unrealistic and that no one in their right senses would do all that, they should know that I am only listing—and listing verbatim—the commitments made in the Conservative Party manifesto of 1987. I repeat the year: 1987; I have not yet got to 1992.
To be honest—I always seek to be honest with your Lordships—I hardly dared to go back to 1983. I lost heart when I opened the Conservative manifesto of that year and found the words:
"The worst problems of air pollution have been resolved".
I hope not to be a cruel man, and at one point I had thought that to remind noble Lords opposite of what was in the 1983 manifesto, in the middle of the biggest asthma epidemic of our century, might have been overstepping the mark. But there it is in black and white, and it is a measure of the complacency of their party in these matters that that sentence comes back to haunt them.
But we must be fair. The 1992 Conservative manifesto promised us a new environment agency. We now have it presented to us in the gracious Speech, and indeed in the speech of the noble Viscount. But, again, I must confess to being rather baffled by the Government's approach to the matter. We are told that the Bill is to be introduced in your Lordships' House, not today, but perhaps next week. We were, of course, told the same thing about the paving Bill promised in last year's gracious Speech. I remember welcoming the principle of that Bill last year, just as I now welcome the principle of this Bill. That Bill never saw the light of day; but I will let that pass. It is this week, next week, sometime, never, as the old jingle goes.
290
Before the new Bill is even published, the Secretary of State is conceding in another place, as he did on Friday last, that he has already decided to amend the wording of the Bill to provide, as the noble Viscount said, for a clear duty to be laid on both agencies in a manner which environmental organisations would prefer. He also told us the other measures that the Bill will contain. Those have been confirmed, and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for confirming them in his speech today. But not only that; the Secretary of State went on to announce the membership of the agency for England and Wales, explaining, however, that it has to be an advisory committee for the moment,
"while legislation is going through Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/94; col. 310.]
I do not wish my objections to reflect in any way on those who have been invited onto the agency, all of whom I am sure will do an admirable job. The noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, is to be chairman. I congratulate him upon his appointment. As a former president of the Country Landowners' Association, and as a Conservative, I am sure that he is well qualified. I was also interested to see on the list Mrs. Shirley Jackson, a fellow of the Society of Practitioners of Insolvency, although I am not sure that that does not introduce a rather sinister note into the activities of the proposed agency.
However, the point that I wish to make is that it seems odd, to put it at its mildest, that your Lordships are to be invited to debate a Bill which we have not yet seen, the contents of which seem to be amended from day to day, apparently setting up two agencies with powers that we do not yet know—and before any of that happens, the Secretary of State is already announcing the membership of one of the agencies. The Secretary of State for Scotland, if I may say so, seems to have been much more discreet, as has the Secretary of State for Wales, who according to Mr. Gummer is allowed one appointee on the new agency.
Furthermore, and on top of all that, I now learn from my honourable friends in another place that the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment is to take evidence on the Bill. As far as I am aware—and I am open to correction—the dates fixed are 23rd and 30th November and the Secretary of State himself is to appear in person before that committee on the 30th. I am sure that we shall learn a great deal from his evidence—perhaps even the noble Viscount will learn something that he does not already know. Whatever the outcome, the least it seems to me that your Lordships should do is to postpone reading the Bill a second time—that is, assuming that it is introduced in the first place—until we have had an opportunity to read the glosses which the Secretary of State will no doubt wish to put on the various measures in the Bill when he is under interrogation by members of the House of Commons committee. We will no doubt accommodate ourselves to that process. Nevertheless, to use a rather crude expression, it seems to me an odd way to run a railway, and I am by no means sure that it is not derogatory to your Lordships' House.

291
Let me move from the particular of the Bill to three general comments about environmental policy. First, I very much hope that we can begin—and I think that the noble Viscount started along this road—to debate environmental matters not just in terms of stopping people doing things in order to protect the environment but in positive terms—the jobs that can be created in industries and services that are and will increasingly be necessary for environmental improvement.
New technologies are developing new ways of reducing environmental damage and new skills in handling the damage that has already been done. There is a whole new wealth-creating sector that is at present only in its infancy. Recent estimates put the benefit in terms of jobs at anything up to half a million in Britain alone. We must —and I say again "must"—make sure that we in the United Kingdom are at the forefront of this new technology. It is no use pretending that we can only compete in the old industries. We have to compete in the new. The new industries embrace the whole area of environmental technology, of engineering and electronics, of rescuing the real and frequently dirty planet on which we have to live. That should not be seen as a chore. Far from it; it should be seen as an opportunity to create wealth and employment. We should be able to rejoice in the opportunities rather than, as many now do, complain about the restrictions.
My second point follows from the first. Here again I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. If we are to look positively at environmental matters, we must all be involved —not just those who are involved with what are known as "green" issues, such as myself, but all of us. Here it seems that we are making some progress. In the agricultural world, thanks at least in part to the efforts of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, it is increasingly being recognised that agricultural and environmental policy should be integrated. That is not the case at present. Furthermore, the key—the essential key—to that process of integration lies in the redirection of agricultural support mechanisms away from production support towards environmental incentives.
In industry, too, the CBI—not naturally a political friend of my party—has taken welcome note of the matter, recommending to its members what it calls its "Environment Business Forum" which enjoins on participants, as noble Lords will know, the nomination of a board-level director with responsibility for the environment and the publication of a corporate environmental policy statement. All that is very good, although I sometimes wonder whether it is so welcome in the City of London.
My third and last point concerns local government. I hope that your Lordships will agree that there can be no serious effort on the environment unless local authorities are fully involved and, indeed, are fully committed. The opportunities for local authorities to improve their own local environment are almost endless. But nothing is worse or more demoralising than being told by Whitehall that your projects are worthless, that you will be given what you are given on the basis of an arcane Whitehall calculation called standard spending assessments, and that if you want to raise further funds from your electors you will be capped.
292
I have brought local government into our debate partly because of its importance to the environment, which I have tried to explain—and which I am sure all your Lordships recognise—but partly because I believe that in local government we now face a situation that is not far short of critical.
Let me explain. Those who are involved in local government have lived through many changes in the past few years. Probably the most traumatic was the episode of the poll tax. Apart from the trauma that that involved in itself, the resolution was almost worse. It turned out that local authorities were to be subjected by central government to a rigorous system of central control, control of how much they could spend and how much they could raise from those who were supposed to be their constituents.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? Is he satisfied that a local authority can be capped against money it has raised which does not come from central government? Can capping apply to that?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. A little later in my notes I have: "assume intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls". However, he rose rather earlier than I expected. The answer to his question is: yes, local authorities can be capped and they are capped on the amount of council tax that they can raise from their electors. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord and that I may now delete the assumption of an intervention from him.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord must not swank because he has an answer!
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I return to what I was saying. On top of all that —capping and the standard spending assessments—we have what is politely known as "local government reorganisation". I say "politely" because in practice I believe that the whole exercise is little more than a shambles. Scotland and Wales—where there is no conceivable Conservative majority —have had a new structure of local authority imposed on them by what, in my part of Wales at least, they call the "English Parliament". England, on the other hand, has had the continuing rigmarole of the Banham Commission which has led to the most bitter disputes, many of which were led by noble Lords opposite. They seem to me—and I confess that I speak somewhat as a Welsh outsider—to have more to do with sentimentality and party political advantage than the efficient organisation of local services.
So there it is. That is the crisis in local government. I believe that it is a sign of the Government's acute embarrassment over the whole procedure that the future of local government found no mention either in the gracious Speech or in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater.
Noble Lords will be aware that our debates during this Session on the environment, local government and agriculture may be matters of some controversy. This will particularly be the case with the Environment Agencies Bill—both what is in the Bill and what is not.

293
That is as it should be. But points of controversy should be openly and honestly debated in this House, and decided accordingly.
I have to say to your Lordships that in this respect I have noted a marked change which occurred in the spill-over period of the last Session. I am not sure why it was, but it seemed that there was a kind of "reserve army" of noble Lords opposite who appeared on those occasions when they were called in. I believe that in certain parts of the press they are known as "backwoodsmen". But why? Why "backwoodsmen"? Is it a new environmental agency? Where are the backwoods? Are they camps in which those noble Lords live and have their being, only to be let out to trudge through the Government Lobby under the lash of the Whip? Is there perhaps a gulag out there, somewhere in the north or in Scotland, with elaborate systems of control?
If so, my message to noble Lords of the gulag is simple but clear: relax; take it easy. Life in the gulag is good. It is much better than sitting around in the Library or in one of the bars, in constant fear of prowling Government Whips. Let those who do the daily business of this House get on with it without being submerged from time to time by a sea of strange faces blinking in an unaccustomed light.
We now know that there may be fewer opportunities in future. We are informed that the Government will do all that they can to consolidate to avoid controversy. Conservative Central Office appears to be suggesting a news blackout on the NHS. Perhaps it will go a little further, with a news blackout not just for the NHS but for some other little local difficulties as well: perhaps on the activities of some former members of Westminster City Council, the Scott Inquiry, or reports from the Ritz Hotel in Paris.
I gather from the reaction of many noble Lords opposite that they think what I am saying is distasteful and vulgar. In answer to that, I would say that they in their turn do not realise that Mr. Maples was right: their Government is regarded by the people of this country not merely as distasteful and vulgar but as corrupt, uncaring and incompetent. The sooner noble Lords opposite recognise that simple fact, the sooner we may get some sensible government. And if they cannot get it into their heads, they should stay at home and let others get on with running the country.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he saying that Members of this House, who probably know most about the environment and who play a huge part in creating and managing the environment of this country, should stay at home and not attend the House when that is the matter under discussion?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am not saying anything beyond that those who come on a daily basis—and the noble Baroness is a regular attender at this
294
House—should participate in debates. I have made my point. I think the noble Baroness understands fully what I am saying, and I leave it at that.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we have today a rather shorter list of speakers than on the other days of the Queen's Speech. It is nonetheless a very distinguished list, and we look forward to a very interesting debate. We look forward not least to the two maiden speeches—from the distinguished scientist, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and from my noble friend Lady Thomas, who has immense experience in local government and knowledge in the field of transport.
The future of the British countryside needs to be ensured. Nowhere can that be more effectively argued and fought for than in this House, where, if the role of the hereditary peerage in the legislature can be defended at all—and I repeat "if"—it is surely in this area, where so many of their roots lie.
It would seem that there are three things which we, the people of this country, need to do. Each one of them has its roots deep in the past, and each one has added urgency today. The first is the preservation of the ecology of the countryside and, as a subset of that, the superficial parts of it which we tend to label "the environment". The second is the repopulation of the countryside, stimulated by the supply of suitable jobs which will serve to make the provision of services for those who live there considerably easier. The third is the preservation of a native, healthy and humane agriculture. None of those things is easy in today's climate. It would be foolish to pretend that they do not sometimes get in each other's way. But all three are essential.
In the first of these areas, the ecology of the countryside, the creation of an environment agency proposed by the Government cannot in itself be a bad thing. But its aims and duties must be spelt out; and it must not join the increasing clutch of matters which can be altered at the whim of Ministers without serious reference to Parliament. There are many of your Lordships—not least on the Law Lords' Benches—who I am sure will have a good look at that aspect of the legislation as it passes through this House.
Following the 1990 environment paper and the 1994 UK sustainability strategy, it is disappointing that the Environment Agencies Bill appears not to place environmental duties on all government departments. That is essential. The promotion of environmental and sustainable policies is not one governmental job among others; it is of overriding importance. In principle, it has been accepted by this Government. We now need to see its acceptance in practice.
To that end, it is vital that we work to a series of targets for individual actions: for instance, for the increase in the numbers of various threatened species and the reintroduction of others such as the pine marten, which has apparently become extinct in England since the last Queen's Speech. It is therefore, I would have thought, a great mistake to rob any body of its environmental duties, however much it is to be centralised or made more efficient. I understand that it

295
has been proposed that the environmental duties should be taken away from the National Rivers Authority. That would be an extremely backward move.
Again on the general issues raised in this respect—I am not yet trespassing into a Second Reading speech on the Environment Agencies Bill, which after all we have not yet seen—the Government must not pursue their course of taking all power away from the people by continuing to emasculate local government. If there is one area where local government has shown its worth recently, and not least in the many authorities that are controlled by Liberal Democrats, it is in the management of waste disposal and the whole ecological field. This is archetypally a local government responsibility and ought to remain so. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will touch on this matter, as indeed may well the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas.
While I am on the subject of pollution, I should like to ask the Government what their plans are for implementing the recommendations of the Donaldson Report on shipping, safety and pollution. I have today tabled a no day named Motion to discuss the worthwhile recommendations of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution in the field of transport.
We now understand that the important Bill with which we shall deal shortly will include the long-overdue measures on national parks. Here once again we come across the need for duties to be placed on all departments to ensure that activities affecting the parks are compatible with or further national park purposes. Defence mechanisms must be erected to ensure that the parks have the highest status of protection and that development within them is allowed only in exceptional circumstances where there is a demonstrable national need and no available alternative. I am delighted to hear that there will at least be some action on hedgerows in the course of this Session.
On the creation of rural jobs, there are at least two possible prongs to the Government's attack. The first is the creation of non-farming jobs, something that is aided by the development of distance working. The second is interlocked with my third major theme—the creation of agricultural jobs. We all know that GATT is killing off diversified agriculture everywhere. If Britain is to compete in world markets and at home against world competition, we have to specialise and produce in bulk, which is ruinous to the countryside and to the environment. But for the moment we have to work within those constraints, even in agriculture. We have to save what we can from what could be a mortal blow to rural Britain and western Europe. That means that we must search diligently for the areas in which we can help and encourage farmers—especially the small and part-time farmers—without actually breaking any of the international rules that we have accepted. Perhaps in that area we have something to learn from France.
The Government will have to rethink extensively their agricultural policy, with the changes in the composition of the EC to include Scandinavia and the necessity to help eastern Europe, which is the subject on which my noble friend Lord Mackie will touch. In the area of the common agricultural policy, the Government are
296
confronted, as they well know, with the situation that the more the squeeze is put on farmers from set-aside, quotas or bad prices, the greater is the temptation to indulge in intensive and environmentally damaging farming practices. That is an intolerable Catch-22 situation.
Far the easiest way to overcome that, and one which ought to appeal to this Government given their hatred of sticks, is to be a little less niggardly with the carrots that they offer, and in particular the carrots that they offer for organic farming, including support for existing organic producers. They must stop thinking of organic farming as an area of cranks—which it is not, as no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, will explain later to your Lordships —and realise that it offers them a way out of the intolerable situation in which farmers find themselves. It may be that the Agricultural Tenancies Bill, with its more flexible approach to the conditions of leases, will present at least a minor step forward in this field as well as being worth while in its own right.
The time will come—indeed, it is well overdue—for a strategy for the countryside which will integrate the welfare of farming and the preservation of the environment. If I properly understood the noble Viscount, he claimed that such integration already existed. To many of us and to those who work in the countryside, it is far from clear that such a thing does exist. The Government have every reason to take that to heart for the welfare of the nation as a whole, the sake of the countryside and their own sake.
The growth of Liberal Democrat representation of the countryside in Parliament, and above all in the local authorities of the shire counties, is not unconnected with the fact that the party opposite seems to have lost its one time—long ago one time—gut feeling of how to ensure and preserve a healthy countryside. For the short time that they are in power, they must try to lead us back or make way for those of us who will.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Ellesmere: My Lords, some of your Lordships will know that by training I am a scientist. Therefore it will come as no surprise that I propose to devote my maiden speech largely to the subject of science and how it affects or may affect the rural economy. I was trained as a physicist during the exigencies of war. That was so that I might go and service His Majesty's radar equipment. But I had the good fortune later to join the band of physicists who played a part in the development of molecular biology, a subject which has so much enlarged our understanding of how living creatures are organised and how they function in terms of the chemical substances, the molecules, from which they are composed.
Your Lordships may also have noticed from my choice of title that I owe some loyalty to Ellesmere, which is the small country town in Shropshire where I was born and grew up. My recollection of those days and my continuing connection with Ellesmere have made me deeply aware of the dramatic changes with which our rural and agricultural economies have had to cope over the past years. Some of those changes have

297
been due to scientific and technical developments; others to the changing political and economic environment. I well remember, as I am sure do many of your Lordships, summer days in the harvest field when whole communities turned out to help with the reaping, stooking and catching of rabbits. All of that has now gone, to be replaced by the modern version of the solitary reaper on a combine harvester.
In case noble Lords may think that I paint too idyllic a picture of the good old days, I must also recall the natural shocks to which the farming community was subject; for example, the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease which ravaged our herds of cattle from time to time. One of the latest and most serious of those outbreaks originated in north-west Shropshire. I well remember the devastation that it caused. It is therefore a great satisfaction to me that, in my last days in Oxford as a working scientist, some of my colleagues, led by Dr. David Stuart, worked out in complete detail the three-dimensional structure of the foot and mouth disease virus—that is to say, the way in which the atoms are arranged in that substance—opening the door to new ways of devising remedies or combating the incidence of that disease.
I also remember that in my schooldays my alarm clock was the sound of milk lorries on their way from the local dairy—we called it the milk factory—to collect the milk from surrounding farms, which was then pasteurised and sent on to London by rail tanker. At least in Ellesmere that is now all in the past. As your Lordships know, there are now restrictions on the production of milk. Furthermore, the collection of the milk that is produced in the Ellesmere area has been transferred elsewhere, partly, I understand, in response to the vagaries of European Community funding.
But the farming community is very adaptable. This is where my involvement in science comes in. For many years I have been concerned with watching over the activities of the research councils and in advising the Government on the resources that are needed and how they should be deployed. That experience brought me closely into contact with various Members of your Lordships' House: the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, during their distinguished terms as chairman of the Medical Research Council; and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne (whom I am glad to see in the Chamber and to whose speech I look forward) during his far-sighted period as chairman of the Agriculture and Food Research Council.
My period as chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, which noble Lords may remember was abolished at the end of last year, included many exciting developments in science and its application; but none more dramatic than the development of molecular biology and its application to medicine and to agriculture. Your Lordships will remember, for example, the sheep named Tracy which was bred to produce in her milk the important anti-haemophilia drug, Factor IX. Tracy is now the senior member of a small flock of sheep, whose members produce, among other things, alpha antitrypsin, which has great promise
298
in the treatment of emphysema. Those of your Lordships who may be concerned about shortness of breath will no doubt take a great interest in that development.
At the same time there have been great advances in plant breeding and in plant biotechnology. The advances in conventional plant breeding that have greatly increased grain crops around the world—the so-called "green revolution"—will be well-known to your Lordships. What may be a little less familiar is the remarkably rapid progress that is being made in the use of plant biotechnology to introduce new properties in the crops we grow and, indeed, to develop new crops.
Those noble Lords who were fortunate enough to attend the meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee last Monday will have heard excellent accounts of those developments and their potential environmental hazards by Brian Heap, the director of the Babraham Research Institute of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and John Krebs, the director general of the Natural Environment Research Council. My brief summary draws heavily on what they had to say.
Those developments involve the introduction of new or foreign genes into existing plants to produce so-called "transgenic" plants. Those plants may have increased resistance to pests and to diseases of various kinds. Or they may produce new, high value products that could be previously produced only by complex chemical processes. For example, scientists in the United States recently produced a potato that is resistant to the Colorado beetle and developments are in progress, both here and in other countries, that will allow the production of biodegradable plastics in potatoes; of antibodies (normally thought of as an animal product) in potatoes; and of modified fatty acids in rape.
In the USA in 1992, for example, there were 161 permits for field trials on transgenic plants on some 700 sites as compared with only five in 1987. Clearly rapid progress is being made and I am happy to say that scientists in the UK are in the forefront of this branch of science. Your Lordships may therefore look forward in the future to looking out on crops producing antibiotics and other fine chemicals in a developing revolution that may again transform the agricultural industry and the rural economy.
But your Lordships will be aware that I am painting a glowing picture of the prospects. As with all scientific developments, there is also a potential downside. Many people are deeply concerned about our new-found ability to interfere with nature and there are undoubtedly hazards to be guarded against as well as affronts to sincerely held beliefs. Our research councils—the Natural Environment Research Council, the BBSRC, the Medical Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council—are actively concerned with those issues.
Your Lordships are well aware of the extent to which those developments are hedged about with regulations, both national and international. I shall not go into that any further except to say how widely appreciated was the report on this subject by the Select Committee on Science and Technology chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. I am sure that your Lordships

299
will agree on the need for eternal vigilance if we are not to be hamstrung by well-intentioned but unnecessary regulations.
That brings me finally to the vital question of public understanding of these developments. Happily we are now moving away from an unfortunate period in which scientists complained that, "If only the public understood what we are trying to do, opposition would vanish". Of course, public understanding of science is important, and I am sure we all hope that our education system will now settle down to providing the understanding of these and other matters that well-informed citizens need.
But scientists' understanding of the public is also important and it is a pleasure to note that increased efforts are being made on that front. Just a few weeks ago a consensus conference was held at the Science Museum, organised by John Durant, at which 16 lay people made an intensive effort to understand what is going on in plant biotechnology and produced recommendations on the measures that would allay their and other people's concerns. That meeting was financed and organised by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council—the successor body to the Agriculture and Food Research Council—and I am sure that we shall see increased efforts of that kind over coming years. Indeed, only this morning in Oxford, under the auspices of the Natural Environment Research Council, there was a public meeting to discuss the recent field trials of a virus engineered to combat the depredations of the cabbage-white butterfly caterpillar.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that these efforts are necessary and it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the important part that your Lordships have played in promoting scientific research and its effective control and dissemination over the years. I hope that the House shares with me the hope that present advances will indeed greatly benefit our rural economy.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, it is an immense privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Ellesmere, in his maiden speech and, on behalf of the House, to congratulate him on what was a most eloquent contribution. If any of us had fears that anyone who was an expert on molecular biology would be speaking of matters beyond our comprehension, we were quickly and almost literally brought down to earth. We were shown that this was a subject of profound importance and interest for anyone concerned with agriculture, with marine life and so much else besides.
Perhaps I may add that it is a particular privilege to follow the noble Lord because he was educated at University College, Cardiff, of whose successor institution I have the privilege of being president. We very much look forward to many more contributions from him in this House. Education may be taking place outside the House but it will certainly be taking place here as well. Many of us will emerge with a much greater knowledge of these affairs than we had before.
It was helpful of the Government to publish draft clauses to the environment Bill well before the gracious Speech. It was unreasonable of the noble Lord, Lord
300
Williams of Elvel, to criticise them for bringing forward amended clauses as a result of the representations received on that draft Bill. It was an almost unprecedented gesture by the Government to publish a draft at that stage. We have yet to see a large part of the Bill. I do not propose to discuss it in detail today. It seems likely that when I see the Bill I will give a warm welcome to a great deal that is in it. I am a strong supporter of the principle of establishing an environment agency that embraces the work of the NRA, HMIP and the waste regulatory authorities. It is also excellent news that we are to have clauses to establish new independent authorities for the national parks. If those clauses replicate the provisions that we debated on the initiative of my noble friend Lord Norrie, they, too, will have my enthusiastic support. I give an equally warm welcome to the news that we are to see significant proposals on contaminated land and abandoned mines, and industry-led schemes for the recycling of wastes.
It seems to me that some of the initial criticisms that have been made of the proposed legislation are misdirected and unfair. Certainly, they have been overstated. However, I have to say that that is partly the Government's fault. If they had responded sooner to some of the advice given to them about sensitive issues, they might have been able to give more positive answers to legitimate questions than they provided initially. Furthermore, if one puts it about that the present chairman of the NRA is not to be considered as a prospective chairman of the new organisation because he has been too robust and independent and "has gone native on the environment", it is not surprising that environmental bodies gain the impression that the Government's intention is to create an organisation that is less robust and independent. It is also unfair to my noble friend Lord De Ramsey, whose appointment I warmly welcome. I am sure that he and his colleagues will do a first-rate job once the team has been strengthened, as I think it must be, with one or two people of the right experience of the water environment, and once it has got used to the peculiar way in which the Government sometimes conduct their business nowadays.
The Secretary of State is a friend and former colleague. I was saddened and puzzled that, until he telephoned me two hours before the announcement of my noble friend's appointment, the future of the NRA and its employees and its wealth of knowledge and experience appeared to be so low on his agenda that he had not met or spoken to me since he dined as my guest on 20th June. I might perhaps have been forgiven for having begun to reach the conclusion that the advice and expertise of the NRA board, its admirable staff and excellent advisory committees, for whom as chairman I speak, were not of much interest. Yet, when I met the Secretary of State earlier today he responded encouragingly and positively to the points that I put to him. He could not have been in a more helpful mood. He is to attend a meeting of the NRA board for the first time next February. I am afraid he will find that there are fences that need to be mended; and that, as a consequence of his handling of this immensely

301
important matter, morale in the NRA has been dented; and that the organisation which he rightly praises is bewildered and uncertain. However, enough of that.
The central point I make this afternoon is to suggest that when passing legislation of this kind we sometimes delude ourselves into imagining that what matters more than anything else is the Bill and the precise wording of its clauses. Of course, the Bill is important and it is foolish to argue that precision in drafting is not of some significance. But what people have to realise when organisations like the NRA or the proposed environment agency are set up is that there is a factor at least as important as the legislation itself. I refer to the role that is likely to be performed by the Government in implementing the Bill.
To begin with, the fact that one puts something into a Bill does not necessarily mean that it will be done. When the Government introduced the Water Act they indicated that the system of statutory water quality objectives and the methods that would be established to bring those into effect would be the keystones of the regulatory arrangements. More than five-and-a-half years later we have no statutory water quality objectives.
We live in a parliamentary democracy, and it is right and reasonable that responsibility for the way in which quangos operate and implement their powers should rest with Ministers who are answerable to Parliament. But that means that Ministers and their departments will have a huge influence on the ability of the agency to carry out its functions. To give an example, provision was made in the Water Act for appeals against revised discharge consent conditions to be made to the Secretary of State. Over the next few years, approaching 2,000 appeals were made against revised consent conditions proposed by the NRA. Not one of those was ever settled by the department, who finally completed the drafting and consultation on a set of rules which meant that the whole lot would be passed back to the NRA. One company, Yorkshire Water, appealed against almost all the tightened consent conditions.
I am sure that the department would argue, quite correctly, that the issues were important and complex and that there was a need to develop a clear and consistent policy. However, the fact that the process has taken so long and left individual disputes unresolved means that over quite a long period environmental protection has been less effective than it should have been.
In citing examples in this way, I am uncomfortably aware that I may be doing an injustice to those in the department who have had to grapple with some formidable problems. Mine may of course be a partial view. The last thing that I wish to do is to be unfair to conscientious civil servants. I seek to make the point that the new agency will be able to carry out its formidable responsibilities in an effective and timely way only if the appropriate divisions of the Department of the Environment are adequately staffed and deal promptly with the considerable number of policy decisions that will remain to be taken within government. Almost everything that the agency does—its regulatory arrangements, charging schemes,
302
corporate plan and financial arrangements—has to be approved by Ministers. The Bill is replete with phrases such as "with the consent of the Minister", "dependent on ministerial instructions or request" and "the guidelines given through the management statement". Those who have read the draft management statement will know exactly what I mean.
I cannot help noting that, while time and again it says that the agency is to act on the advice or with the guidance of Ministers, there is not a single reference to the possibility that perhaps it is a good idea occasionally for Ministers to listen to the advice of the agency. It takes two to tango. If one has a department which cannot dance or insists on treading on the toes of the agency, one will have difficulties. In the coming months what Parliament will be doing is establishing a partnership, and everything that follows will depend on whether or not that partnership works. Parliament would do well if it spent as much time probing the intentions of government about their general approach to these issues as to the detailed examination of clauses. That is particularly important at a moment in history when one knows that deregulation is the flavour of the month. One senses that there are a good many in government, and indeed outside, who are quite anxious that the scope of the agency should be limited.
Much will depend on the approach of the board and employees of the agency itself. There is great potential in the fact that the agency will be in a position to publish a state of the environment report. I hope that the Bill will provide that it is a requirement that the agency should do so. That will represent a powerful weapon, as is the ability of the agency—indeed, I hope it will be the determination of the agency—to put all the facts, monitoring results and its concerns openly on the table. Make no mistake about it. The ability of the agency to perform will depend on its ability to move the Government to work with it effectively, not just by internal discussion but by the manner in which it presents its arguments out in the open. I do not believe that there is any other way that that can be done.
I say this because I have significant doubts about the present intentions and determination of the Government on some issues. At times they look rather like a relative of the push-me-pull-you. That is a little unfair to that lovely beast, who, you will remember, can look both ways and always be at least half awake. A short time ago under one Secretary of State the DoE sought to replace regulation with economic instruments. There are very powerful arguments for the use of economic instruments, at the very least as tools to reinforce command and control regulation. I believe that the Government made the mistake of seeking to put together a comprehensive system to replace regulation instead of more measured and moderate steps to supplement it. Having failed in the attempt, they now, regrettably, seem to have abandoned it altogether.
There are three issues which I think will attract particular attention when the Bill comes before the House. There is the crucial requirement that the agency should have a duty to produce an environmental report. There has been concern about the draft clauses on conservation. Discussions between the NRA's officials

303
and officials within the DoE on this issue have reminded me of disputes conducted between mediaeval theologians. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has listened to the points put by the NRA and others and has published a new draft clause. However, even the mediaeval theologians might have been flummoxed by the complexity of what we have now been offered. I am sure that the intention is right, but we shall have to examine it closely to make certain that it does give us the strong conservation duty that is needed.
The other matter that has stirred up controversy is the clause about cost benefits. I have no difficulty at all with the idea that the agency should be subject to a cost benefit requirement. What I do find difficulty with is the possibility that there may be no mechanism for actually dealing with that requirement. We need to have answers to some pretty important questions about whether the clause is going to be strictly applied to almost every single minor move made by the agency, or whether it is going to be broader brush than that. But, however broad the brush, the agency must have adequate access to information from third parties. It must have the means to arrive at broadly acceptable estimates of costs and benefits. If it fails to do so, it seems likely that its decisions and actions will be challenged, by appeal either to the Secretary of State or to the courts.
That takes me back to statutory quality objectives, because the arrangements so sensibly designed by the Government in 1989 would enable proposed improvements to be debated, cost estimates rigorously tested, and the public to be informed and consulted about options, costs and benefits. There may be other ways in which the environmental regulator can discover the costs of regulatory proposals before the regulations are put in place and can conduct a sensible dialogue with all those affected, but nobody has yet told me about them or explained what is wrong with the schemes we already have and which the Government have held in abeyance now for more than five and a half years. Fortunately, I think that the Government are beginning to get the message, and I sense that perhaps we shall see proposals quite soon that will take us forward.
Well, where do we go from here? The NRA in the last 18 months or so of its life will continue to be as independent, as robust, and as open as it has always been, and I believe that the new agency must follow that path as well. I am confident that any agency that wishes to be effective will reach the conclusion that this is the only sensible way forward. Therefore, to those who are worried about the future and doubt the intentions of the Government, I finish on an optimistic note. Though he sometimes makes it rather difficult for us to do so, I really do believe that the Secretary of State is genuinely concerned about the environment and wants a strong agency. Knowing the huge input to the new agency that will come from the NRA and its workforce, we do not need to be too anxious, because I am confident that the lessons that the NRA has learnt and put into practice will be absorbed by its successors and that even if
304
occasionally they get their feet trampled on they will somehow succeed in dragging their partner round the dance floor.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Ellesmere. I had the pleasure of hearing him as an expert witness on one or two occasions on Select Committees and he was very impressive indeed; and this afternoon he has been no less impressive. I hope that we shall hear him very often.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, suggests that government attitudes are more important than clauses. I agree with that. He is indeed right. But well worded clauses are the only defence we have if a government's intentions seem to stray from the path. Therefore, when the Bill finally comes before us, we must do the best we can to make it watertight.
I give a cautious welcome to the Environment Agencies Bill. It has to be cautious, and I shall explain a little later why. Integrated pollution control is obviously better than the piecemeal approach we have had until now, even though, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, pointed out, there are serious omissions as far as we can tell. But I would feel much more confident if the agencies were described as environmental protection agencies, as the American equivalent is. I am sorry that it was not felt necessary or desirable to include that word. It would at least give the agencies the air of what so many of us hope they will be.
My confidence was not improved by the appearance in the draft of the weakest possible form of words for conservation duties, to which other noble Lords have referred, "having regard to the desirability of", instead of the much stronger responsibility which the NRA and others enjoyed before. The fact that the Secretary of State in a speech last week agreed to accept stronger wording does not console me since he did so only after assuring us that he considered the old phrases to mean the same as the new. That leaves us in doubt about which interpretation he will place on them or which interpretation will be placed on them by the new body.
The agencies will be required to minimise the burdens on industry. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, had something to say about that. Given that, as far as I can see, business people seem to be in the majority on the list of names already announced, I am just a little uneasy about how this requirement may be balanced with the agencies' other responsibilities; and why does there not appear to be a scientist of any kind on the list of names? I could be wrong about that. Perhaps the noble Earl who is to reply will correct me if I am. We will need to examine this aspect very closely during the passage of the Bill and perhaps make some recommendations for improvement.
I am aware that this is not the time to embark on a Second Reading speech but I must mention one other aspect of the Bill and explain why I am cautious about it. I was delighted to hear that the long awaited legislation for national park authorities was to be

305
included and that it would be almost identical to the Norrie Bill which was discussed in this House and passed with enthusiasm earlier this year. But in a speech yesterday to the Council for National Parks, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside implied that many of the desired effects would be achieved through guidelines rather than through requirements on the face of the Bill. Again, I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply will correct me if I am wrong, but we should be very careful about the wording of that part of the Bill when it comes before us. As we all know, guidelines are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I hope I am wrong. Therefore, my welcome for the Bill must be qualified pending closer examination of the structure and composition of the agencies and indeed of the proposed means they have of achieving their aims.
I particularly welcome in today's debate the grouping of environment and agriculture—at last an acknowledgement that any discussion on conservation of the countryside cannot be separated from agriculture and its effects! In a briefing which I am sure many of your Lordships will have seen, English Nature stressed the importance of an integrated view of countryside management. It suggests that countryside management should include a holistic view and advises that agriculture should be environmentally sustainable. It suggests a redirection of CAP moneys to embrace environmental benefits if the industry is to move to more sustainable practices. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Carter will have something to say about that at the end of the debate.
The encouragement of organic farming was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I believe that it has a real contribution to make towards a sustainable farming industry, particularly towards maintaining biodiversity. Demand for organic produce in the United Kingdom outstrips supply by between 60 and 70 per cent. We have to import the balance —quite often from doubtful sources and we are not sure just how "organic" the organic imports are. It would make sense at least to fill that gap with British produce. Of course, I understand that it may be many years before organic farming can make a substantial contribution to the needs of this country and I do not suggest that we should aim for that in the near future.
One way of encouraging organic farming in this country would be to take a more realistic view of its funding. As far as I can discover, the funding of organic farming in the UK is lower than in any other member state. The United Kingdom offers £70 per hectare in the conversion years one and two; £50 for year three; £35 for year four and £25 for year five. That is a pittance by any standards. Germany, by contrast, offers £200 per hectare for the conversion years and £150 per hectare thereafter. If we really want to encourage organic farming, we shall have to come to terms with the need to finance it better.
On the whole, however, I am encouraged by the noble Viscount's speech which opened the debate. At least he is saying the right things. We shall watch the Government's attempts to put what he has said into practice. I believe that the present Secretary of State for
306
the Environment has the right aims. Although I often differ from him on how those aims can be achieved, I am nevertheless encouraged by many of the things that he says. I hope that we can go forward from here to a really useful Bill.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, your Lordships' warm welcome to all new Members is known even beyond this House, and has been gladly received by me. I only hope that by the end of this short speech I shall not be craving your Lordships' indulgence because my voice is at that rather peculiar stage when one does not know what is going to come out when one speaks, a squeak or a groan.
As my noble friend said, I have spent the past 12 years mostly engaged in local government. In fact, I spent 10 years in local government and the rest of my time attempting to enter the elected House of Parliament. I tried most earnestly to achieve that end. Indeed, I tried quite recently to become a Member of the European Parliament. It was during that campaign that the suggestion was made to me that I might allow my name to go forward in order to join this House. That shows how providence may close one door, but opens another.
During my years on Surrey County Council, I was always a member of the highways and transport committee. I know that that is not considered to be a woman's subject, but I have always enjoyed it and found great interest in it. Indeed, I am now chairman of the highways and transport committee. I do not think that it is an accident that Surrey was one of the first counties in this country to draw up a transport plan. It resulted from the fact that in 1989, when we first began to consider drawing up such a plan, Surrey was already suffering twice the national average of traffic. We now have nearly three times the national traffic average, so the impact of traffic on the environment in every way is something about which Surrey's residents are deeply concerned.
I had the good fortune to serve—albeit in a rather junior capacity as a member of a small group—on the first working group that produced that transport plan. The main principles of the plan were based on the realisation that we could not satisfy the apparent demand for road transport,
"without unacceptable financial and environmental costs".
That statement was a response to the then recently published Government forecasts which indicated that we might expect within our lifetimes to see a doubling in the volume of traffic going past our homes. I think that it was that which set us going.
Obviously, we had a wide range of main objectives. We wanted to maintain our strategic network so that the heavy traffic would be encouraged to drive along that rather than seek ways round it. We wanted to achieve what is called, in the current terminology, "modal change", so we put forward methods of increasing public transport and promoting walking and cycling.
We also had social objectives. Although Surrey has a very high percentage of car ownership—again, one of the highest in the country—even in Surrey some people

307
do not have access to cars and many people find all modes of public transport difficult to cope with. We had objectives to relate to those points. We hoped that our planning procedures might ensure either that there was development only in key locations where sufficient transport networks or facilities were available—I am not talking only about road networks, but about other types of transport also—or that the developer might fund appropriate transport provision. By that, I do not mean simply improving roundabouts or building a new road; I mean providing better bus services or contributing to improvements in rail links, if that could be arranged.
Perhaps I may say at this point how much we have all welcomed the recent policy guidelines discouraging out-of-town shopping centres. Such centres have led to an enormous increase in traffic in our county. When we drew up our structure plan, we had originally planned to have 12 such shopping centres, but we have 15 already and more are in the pipeline. When those have been built—if they are ever built—I hope that we shall be able to resist future such planning applications.
Subsequently, we have modelled our policy on those objectives, and have contributed to increasing the bus services. This year, for example, £0.5 million was put into our budget to increase the bus services serving our secondary schools. I do not think that I need to state the difference that is made to the volume of traffic on our roads in the morning peak when schools are working as compared with when they are not. If we can reduce the number of cars travelling to and from our secondary schools —and, incidentally, make young people aware that there are other modes of transport besides the private car—we think that we shall be doing something useful. We have also supported a large number of studies into improving rail transport, particularly in south London, and relating to access to Heathrow.
Interestingly enough, in the course of some of our activities we have done a good deal of opinion sampling. Your Lordships might be interested to hear some recent results. The citizens of Surrey feel that road congestion, air pollution and crime against property are, in that order, some of the most important problems that they face. As a solution to congestion, they favour improving public transport and improving the facilities for walking and cycling. Many people feel that the roads are now so dangerous, particularly in our villages, that they dare not walk along them. Therefore, they use their car when going to buy a loaf of bread, particularly if they are taking a child with them.
Perhaps your Lordships will not be greatly surprised that the least favoured solutions are charging for the use of motorways in order to improve or increase the road network, and discouraging the use of cars by increasing the costs of travel for motorists. So, the two areas in which the Government have recently intervened are not very popular with motorists, especially the suggestion about increasing the cost of petrol. I should have thought that that was a statement of the blindingly obvious. If one is in government, I do not need to remind noble Lords that one needs to take popular opinion into account if one possibly can.
308
We are currently revising our transport plan, and among other things we are seeking to determine some targets against which to measure whether we have been successful. I find that an interesting concept. Although we were the first county to produce a transport plan, other counties—many of them, as my noble friend said, with considerable input from the Liberal Democrats—have outstripped us now. They have gone further down the road upon which we first started. It will be interesting to see whether we can set ourselves targets; for example, for modal change. Can we try to see that more people use the trains and buses and cycle, especially over short distances? Can we use those targets as a measure of our success in achieving our policy objectives?
Among other things that we have done, we organised jointly with SERPLAN—whose chairman of course is a Member of your Lordships' House—a three-day conference last March which was well attended on all three days, and for which invitations were sent to a large number of people. As a result of that, we are developing a transport plan for the south-east, because today we lack a transport strategy for the country.
I regret that in the Queen's Speech we see no recognition by the Government that they have a role to play in setting a strategic context for the efforts of local government. I thank noble Lords for listening to me so patiently.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, it is a very great privilege and honour on behalf of the whole House to be able to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, on her excellent maiden speech. She is, outside the House, a well known campaigner for many causes. Today, inside the House, she has proved to be a speaker of great distinction, despite the problems with her voice. I am glad that we did not have a squeak or a croak; but we congratulate her most sincerely. Few of your Lordships may know that she has conducted carol services in such diverse locations as Moscow and Havana. If today's performance is anything to go by, I feel certain that in a year's time she will be conducting your Lordships. I hope that we shall often hear from her.
With help from the right quarters and careful planning, I believe that there is an exciting future for some sections of agriculture; but let us first dwell on the serious black spots—the danger areas, if I may so call them. I refer first of course to the hill farmers. I remember when I represented Scotland on the European Land Owning Organisation that I had the honour to invite its president to come to Scotland on a fact-finding mission. He was to see for himself the terrible problems facing the landowner and the farmer. I shall never forget when he looked at a barren, snow-covered Glenshee mountain face how difficult it was to persuade him that it was home to 3,000 blackface ewes. The plight of the hill farmer, I am sure, will be pointed out later by the noble Lord, Lord Geraint.
The hours that those poor people work, their conditions of work, remind one of Victorian sweat houses. Their net income pro rata must be the lowest in the country. In 1992–93, 30 per cent. of all hill farmers

309
earned less than £5,000 per annum. Their incomes have in fact now fallen back to 1991–92 levels. Over the past two years Her Majesty's Government have cut the HLCAs as incomes rose, and I believe that it is now their moral duty to restore them to 1992–93 levels. I must make a plea that they are not further cut in the Chancellor's Budget.
I also make a plea that the price of petrol does not go up in next week's Budget. When it is increased, people living in rural areas are severely disadvantaged as they have no option other than to use their own transport. I know of one farmer who has a round trip of 102 miles to buy a pint of milk and a loaf of bread. I am sure that many of your Lordships, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, may have even further to travel. In the countryside it is a very serious consideration.
The Government, I believe rightly, have set a low inflation course, as we heard in the gracious Speech. To raise the tax on petrol would, however, fuel inflation and defeat the Government's aim. Fuel in rural areas, it must not be forgotten, is already considerably more expensive than it is in urban conurbations. The noble Viscount will remember well what it was like to live in the scenic Cheviot Hills, far distant from shops; and, sadly, today there are a good deal fewer of those than when he lived there. The noble Earl the Minister is well respected within the farming industry, and I hope that he will mention these points to his right honourable friend the Chancellor.
At this juncture I should just like to say how grossly unfair I believe it is to impose VAT on fuel. Last summer —which, even in Scotland, was considered hot—I guarantee that every person living in a small cottage in the countryside lit a fire. I do not believe that the same could be said for a small cottage in the home counties, and therefore VAT on fuel is a tax upon where one lives. For the elderly in particular I believe that this is terribly unfair and discriminatory.
As we all agreed in the debate on 10th October, the CAP needs to be reformed, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, "pulled up by the roots". It saddens me greatly that this is due to total incompetence. If we think back to the 1970s, we were told, "More food is required. Drain the wetlands, and here is a grant". Now we are told, "Stop. Set it all aside; and here is a grant to do so". I believe that it is madness—total madness—and I do believe that Her Majesty's Government must take measures to ensure that that type of situation does not happen again.
Another black spot is the appalling plight of the pig farmers whose incomes are now less than they were 20 years ago—20 years ago, my Lords! If we compare these hard-working pig farmers—or indeed the hill farmers—to Eurocrats sitting on large, inflation-proof pensions, with mega holiday entitlements and not a particularly onerous workload, I feel certain that the comparison would be unjust, unfair and positively immoral. I am sad that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is not in his place today, because I feel certain that he would be one of the first to agree.
310
Enough of the gloom—and how much I enjoyed the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Phillips, and the little bit of optimism that I detected in it! After the war, farmers accepted the challenge to change and to adapt; and what a great success they have made of that challenge. I believe many of us are now ready for a further challenge, but with short-term help from Her Majesty's Government—and I emphasise "short-term". Given the tools, the advice and research, we can restore land use to a full capacity and thus maximise the income not only for rural communities but also for the country as a whole.
There is, I believe, no reason why industrial crops cannot make considerable contributions to our balance of payments, and here I am referring to bio-fuels, straw, bio-mass chemical production, which includes lubricants from oilseed rape, biodegradable plastics and paper from cereals and sugar.
Let us hope that research done in this countries is not, as so often happens, developed for use elsewhere. It is a horrific statistic that here in the UK the Government spend 2.1 per cent. of GDP on research and development, which is almost a full percentage point less than what is spent in Japan. I strongly believe that a co-ordinating centre needs to be set up to maximise the use of all research and development being carried out all over the country so that we can compete on a world-wide basis.
We must all believe in the future but we need a helping hand from the Government to set us on course. I end with a quotation from the then Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Gummer, who said at his party's 1990 conference,
"Under this Government the future of farming is secure".
It may well be too late; but, for all our sakes, let us hope and pray that it is not.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I consider myself particularly privileged to be participating in a debate with two such notable maiden speakers. As a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which reported recently on transport, I naturally followed with particular interest the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I agreed with so much of what she said.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in his excellent maiden speech, made it evident that during the years we have had much opportunity to work together. I am only too delighted that he is able to contribute to our affairs. It will come as no surprise to your Lordships to hear that at the first meeting of the Select Committee on Science and Technology after its reconstitution the first item will be to co-opt the noble Lord as a member.
I was delighted too that he reminded us how dependent agriculture is on the biological sciences, even on molecular biology. I could not help remembering that when, as an apple grower, I spoke to a distinguished audience of scientists I was able to remind them that even the physical sciences were once totally dependent on apple growers. After all, where would Newton have been without us?

311
My noble friend the Minister began by referring to the Earth Summit. The national action plans, which have been produced in order to meet our commitments made at that summit, form a good framework within which all our environmental policies must be set. I detect agreement from all sides of the House that we require a holistic approach to environmental issues. It is also agreed that the Government must set the framework and that they have done so in the four documents which constitute the response.
Equally, we acknowledge that the Government have taken on commitments which imply ultimately a degree of regulation. The Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion requires us to phase out the use of such chemicals. That requires regulation. The commitments relating to CO2 levels that we entered into at the Climate Change Convention will require massive intervention either with economic instruments or by regulation. The Biodiversity Convention also implies the meeting of stringent targets.
We also accept that it is much easier to work in a European or international context because the element of unfair competition cannot be so obviously used as an excuse to do nothing. We have recently seen legislation to implement the habitats and species directive of the European Union.
Nevertheless, there is a debate which my noble friend Lord Crickhowell put most cogently. It is between industry and the environmentalists on the balance of regulation as against the balance of voluntary agreements. To put it another way, it is the balance of green taxes against incentives of one kind or another. In a sense, that debate is encapsulated in the two words "sustainable development". It implies, on the one hand, that environment is considered but, on the other hand, that development is essential for the economic prosperity which we clearly recognise as an objective for all nations. Perhaps in our debate we have talked too much about the environmental agencies, and we must not have a Second Reading debate. However, the debate has been polarised by our reading between the lines on whether the Government intend to deregulate environmental issues or to impose firm standards on industry, including the public at large. Clearly, people are unsettled by those issues. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell made clear, at times the Government's attitude has been ambivalent at best.
It is reasonable to explore the extent to which regulation is appropriate and the extent to which it may be undesirable. Industry is clear that its competitive status should not be jeopardised by inappropriate regulation. It is also clear that without economic growth it is difficult to see how we shall pay for the measures that will be required for environmental enhancement.
The first and obvious conclusion to draw is that we must beware of inappropriate regulation. That is not as uncommon as it may sound. Many of us recognise that the nitrate level for drinking water of 50 parts per million was an example of inappropriate regulation. It was not based on good scientific evidence and it put an enormous cost on water companies. That money could have been much better spent on other areas of the environment.
312
A more obvious example is the German waste recycling system. It was full of good intentions, but the proposals, which were badly thought out and regulated, caused total chaos in recycling industries throughout Europe.
Equally, industry recognises that in that regard some regulation is necessary. The gracious Speech refers to an industry-led scheme for recycling. The proposal comes from industry itself and is an excellent way of ensuring that it will be widely adopted. However, it requires regulation, as is recognised by the CBI and other bodies.
In some sectors we have suffered because our competitive status has been hindered by a lack of clear regulation. The refrigeration industry in this country appears to be losing its market share. The reason is that the domestic market is not regulated as stringently as some of the markets to which it is exporting. The result is that we are importing refrigeration goods that are unacceptable in other markets and clearly we are not in a position to export elsewhere. Our motor manufacturing industry lost an opportunity to market the catalytic converter merely because our regulation was not pressing as fast as other markets. With hindsight, the catalytic converter was bound to be introduced but, alas, we were not forcing our technology to adopt the new systems.
In essence, it must be accepted that regulation should be based on good science. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, reminded us that the regulation of biotechnology should be based on good science. It must be based on well-informed, well-disciplined risk assessment. Again, perception and risk assessment are often different. However, at the end of the day, regulation must be based on firm risk assessment and not merely on what people perceive. The Consensus Conference, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is important in bringing to the public the issues in a way that is easy for us all to understand.
Cost benefit analysis is another area that causes considerable consternation among environmentalists. Everyone must accept that there must be an element of cost benefit analysis. Clearly, it is unacceptable to have environmental measures at any price. It may be that the discipline of cost benefit analysis is not yet sophisticated enough. How does one take a long-term view about the value of a species? How does one prevent discounting short-term advantage? Rightly, those are the issues about which environmentalists are concerned. It is not a question of discarding cost benefit analysis but of making sure that it is sufficiently robust to include such kind of information.
I welcome the fact that the new agency to be chaired by my noble friend Lord De Ramsey will now be given very much more specific terms of reference in the legislation. I understand from my noble friend the Minister that the agency will now be asked to further the conservation as appropriate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that that means some very clear objectives—for example, reports to the Secretary of State and to Parliament each year as to how much has

313
been achieved and against what parameters. We must know precisely how positive measures have been taken to promote environmental issues.
As the debate is about agriculture and the environment, perhaps I should declare an interest as a farmer. I should also declare a number of interests on the environmental side. I am a member of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, of the sustainable development panel and of one or two other things.
As regards agriculture, we have an industry which is highly imbued with any amount of economic instruments available to be adapted if one so wishes. Yet, at present, we have area payments, set-aside and price support, all of which deliver very little environmental benefit. It would not be beyond the wit of man, even if we were to concede that we could reduce the support for agriculture—as clearly must happen —to realise that we could get very much greater environmental benefit out of that degree of economic involvement in the industry.
I do not much mind whether one goes for the organic farming system, to which reference has been made, or for extensive or intensive farming systems. One must have sustainable agriculture. However, leaky systems are unacceptable. I believe that noble Lords will recognise that one can get just as many leaky systems from extensive farming as one can from intensive farming. We must ensure that the system protects soils, waters and air.
I am all for favouring market niches, if that is what organic farming represents. But please let us understand that, by sustainable agriculture, we mean competitively produced food of high quality, especially safety quality, produced by environmentally benign systems which also take account of animal welfare considerations.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it is not really surprising that there is no mention in the gracious Speech of what has been called,
"the greatest act of corruption in the history of local government".
I tried to get in touch earlier today with the noble Earl who is to reply to the debate to warn him of my intention to refer to the City of Westminster. I hope that he received my message. I note that he nods his head in acknowledgement.
The description that I quoted did not come from a hostile politician; it came from an eminent Queen's Counsel, Mr. Andrew Arden, QC, after reading the 750 pages of the preliminary report of the District Auditor, with its 12,000 pages of evidence. As many noble Lords will doubtless be aware, Mr. Arden is the author of several works on local government law and on housing. I refer of course to what the popular press have called Westminster City Council's "Homes for Votes Scandal".
Mr. Arden continued:
"Not corruption in the conventional sense but corruption of the machinery of the authority itself, given over to Party gain in a way—and to an extent—that is absolutely without precedent. Nothing prepared me for such a naked abuse of power, people and resources. I would have said it was unthinkable".
314
I could go on to quote many more trenchant comments in the responsible press, but perhaps it is sufficient to say that the District Auditor's provisional finding is that Dame Shirley Porter, the leader of the council, and nine other members and officers of the council should be barred from office and surcharged a total of over £21 million.
In 1986, the ruling Conservative administration of the council came within a whisker of losing control; so a policy called "Building Stable Communities" was introduced. As a result, a number of marginal seats were recovered and the majority of the ruling party rose from four to 30. That was against the national trend at the time. How that was achieved is the subject of the report which is now being examined in public hearings at which the burden of proof lies with the 12 objectors, who needed legal representation; that is, the 12 citizens of Westminster.
The comment of the Observer was:
"It is outrageous that private residents should be left to scratch together money to make the case".
It is certainly unfortunate that justice, which Disraeli, no less, described as "truth in action", so often depends on money. Perhaps that could have been avoided if the Government had decided on a judicial review at an earlier stage. But the present procedure is in train, it will continue until the end of the year and may end up in the High Court next year.
There are members of the Conservative Party—for example, Mrs. Kirwan, the former housing chairman—who revolted against the policy. She gave evidence showing how the deed had been done and how local government officials became embroiled. That is a good example that this need not necessarily be a party issue, although on the face of it it must be.
When replying to the debate, I hope that the Government will feel able to give an assurance that they recognise the seriousness of what has been exposed and the need to root out political corruption before it becomes the norm. I believe that many will agree that the illegitimate use of political power, by whichever party employs it, is in the end an even more dangerous form of corruption than the bribery or the personal misbehaviour of politicians.
For that reason, I thought it right to raise the matter this evening. But in the end we are all in it because if we do not keep the parties clean the electorate may come to the conclusion that democracy itself is inevitably corrupt. That would be a very wrong and disastrous outcome. The truth is quite the opposite. Democracy is the form of government in which wrongdoing can be and is exposed. It is one of our most important duties and we must not shirk it, especially not in this Chamber which depends on a representative parliamentary democracy that it does not yet share.
Perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to a letter which appeared in last Sunday's Observer. It was written by Mr. Roy Hattersley MP and was supported by many distinguished people, including my noble friend Lady Jay and Helena Kennedy QC. The letter draws attention to the fact that the 12 objectors are strapped for cash. As I have already said, the matter may

315
well reach the High Court at the end of the year. But even now the objectors are already deeply in by having to try to match the considerable resources deployed by Dame Shirley Porter and her friends. And this in spite of having been helped by much reduced fees accepted by their legal advisers, including Andrew Arden, QC. It is unfortunate that justice so often depends on money. Our noble and learned Lord Chancellor is, I hope, going to do something about that before very long. However, if any of your Lordships in any part of the House feels able to help, I know that it will be most welcome from all and any source.
The 12 residents are striving to raise £200,000 and if the matter goes to the High Court they will certainly need that. Remarkably, they have already reached £65,000. I hope contributors will include supporters of the Government. There are those of us, including Conservatives, as I have shown, who do not always confine our perception of wrongdoing to members of other parties. I hope that Mr. Hattersley's internal post will be heavy in the next few days.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is a little unfortunate that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, has slipped out of the Chamber for a moment for I would have wished to thank her for her remarks, with which I have a great deal of sympathy as a man who has spent much of his life toiling in county government. I particularly wish to say how much I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Ellesmere. It really was a pleasure to listen to, and more importantly it gives me the pleasure of thanking him as one of the leading scientific figures of so often unsung teams of researchers on whom simple farmers like myself depend for the enormous increases in productivity that we have been able to achieve over past years and some of the developments that are still going on.
The conjunction of environmental and agricultural issues in a single debate is a fortunate one. For many people agriculture, as custodian of the countryside, has a major responsibility for the environment. A simplistic view is that if we can reduce urban ugliness and keep the countryside attractive all is well. I wish things were so simple. Before the commencement of this debate on the gracious Speech, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, invited my noble friend the Leader of the House to request the Select Committee on Sustainable Development to consider the meaning of the words "sustainable development". That committee, which very kindly tolerates my attendance, may well be equal to the task; I must confess that I am not. There is too much that we cannot know with any certainty. The strategic environmental issues arising as a result of population growth, which is the main motor for pollution, will be dealt with only as a result of concerted international action; but will that happen? There are hopeful signs. However, the possibility of environmental degradation as a result of economic or technological development can only be assessed within the limits of current knowledge. We can only travel hopefully and use the information and tools that are available to us.
316
With that preamble in mind the House will probably be relieved to hear that I intend to talk about agriculture, or more specifically, as I prefer, farming. It cannot be said too often that farmers as custodians of the countryside are dependent upon the level of their profitability if they are to fulfil their custodial responsibilities. The farming community at large will welcome the arrival of the Agricultural Tenancies Bill and wish it God speed through the legislative process. It is facile to say that it is too little and too late. There has been no agreement within the wider agricultural industry as to what was necessary by way of reform until this time. With generous helpings of hindsight, it might have been better if those who were responsible for some of the earlier legislation in this field had stayed their hand.
Security of tenure across the generations, together with Finance Act provisions that penalise let land for inheritance tax purposes, have done their work. Farmers out in the real world, which is unsentimental, commercial and very competitive, have been developing their own solutions. It is to be hoped that the Agricultural Tenancies Bill will assist that development, but at best that assistance can only be slow as the Bill cannot upset existing agreements and it will be a very, very long time before they have all expired.
In the meantime the needs of farmers and the pressures upon the industry are forcing an evolution that will transform our traditional way of looking at farm organisation. These pressures are perhaps best illustrated by discussing the problems that would face an imaginary landowner with a small farm of, say, 100 acres who has a reasonable and not wholly inaccessible house, and at the same time the problems faced by a young man who has appropriate training but no agricultural background and limited capital who wishes to become a farmer.
First, the problems of the putative farmer: in times past, although it was never easy, it was possible for an energetic young man to hire a small block of land, buy perhaps a score of cows, some sheep, a few pigs, an old tractor and a few secondhand implements and make a modest living as a result of total devotion to hard work. Today, however, besides energy, knowledge and ambition, he will need a considerable block of capital. An ordinary milking cow at present costs around £500. It is interesting to note that six months ago it would have cost more than twice that sum and in six months' time that may well be the case again. Who can say?
Sheep cost around £60 a head and we could select an arbitrary figure for machinery of £5,000. Then there are things called quotas, as we have heard, and set-aside regulations. Milk quota currently trades at 60p per litre of annual production. That is approximately £3,000 for the production of an average cow, which I should say is only about half the production that my older brother would expect to get from his cows. If the landlord has a quota, it is a tradable asset and its value will be assessed in the rent by raising it. Sheep are on quota too, quota trading, I believe, at about £30 per head. With banks as cautious as they must be today, how can any young man overcome such problems? The set-aside regulations raise another obstacle. Eligibility for

317
set-aside payment requires two years of occupancy and this reduces cash flow in the start-up period. What a nest of problems!
Let us now consider the reverse side of this coin—the landowner's problems. The first advice that he will probably receive is that, if he lets his land, he will put at risk 100 per cent. relief from capital transfer tax on inheritance because let land attracts only 50 per cent. relief. That position is now changing, as the Bill we are to consider shortly, with the creation of farm business tenancies, which are short-term but continuing agreements subject to conditions of notice, in conjunction with the latest guidance from the Capital Taxes Office that 100 per cent. relief may be available where the value of tenant right has little impact on the freehold value, should be of help to our landowner and reduce his qualms. However, I expect that many valuers, accountants and even lawyers will become rich before those matters are finally determined.
Then there is the matter of the farmhouse. Because of its situation it would probably command rent of approximately £100 per week in the open market. There is no conventional system of agricultural production on a farm of that size that can carry an overhead cost at that level unless the system of farming is highly capital intensive. Indeed, because of that factor, my land agent friends tell me that one of their most difficult tasks is assessing the proper rent for small blocks of land.
Our landowner has family commitments and must do what he can on his children's behalf. So what happens? Somebody, probably one of his advisers, mentions management agreements, and our friend finds himself facing a hardened professional farmer. He finds that he could let the house separately. He finds that he can earn a return that is greater than he would be likely to earn if he did all the work himself and certainly greater than any return he could gain from letting. He finds that there is apparently no downside risk on the inheritance tax front. I say "apparently" because the validity of some arrangements that have been entered into may yet be fought through the courts. I do not need to say any more about that particular problem. The conclusion is inevitable.
Farming practice is moving ahead of the legislative framework which surrounds the industry. The creation of farm business tenancies is a bold and imaginative attempt to reverse to some extent some of the ossification created by our legislative predecessors. However, the industry is moving on. A century ago only 15 per cent. of farm land was in owner occupation. Today the figure is 65 per cent. and there is an increasing trend for either landlords to buy out their tenants or tenants to buy out their landlords' interests.
Add to that a rapidly increasing number of highly professional farmers who are prepared to tailor their services to suit the needs of individual landowners and who, because they can offer real economies of scale and highly technical cultural techniques, can offer the landowner a better return than he can earn himself, and the picture of the future begins to emerge.
318
I expect land to go increasingly into owner occupation, with the owner playing a real part in the management of the farm while much of the work is undertaken by farmer-led, very efficient management companies.
There is little point in deploring that trend, even if the tax man shakes out some of the agreements which presently exist, which I hope he will not be able to do. This House recently considered the report by the Select Committee on the European Communities on the implications of the expansion of the European Community. One conclusion enunciated during the debate was that the Community could have expansion or the common agricultural policy but it could not have both. In any event, the common agricultural policy is vulnerable because its high cost may become politically untenable. Farmers out there in the harsh real world are contemplating life without the CAP. Some of them are already mapping out the way ahead.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise with a number of apologies to make. First, I must apologise to the Minister for the fact that I shall not be present when he winds up the debate. Needless to say, that is for the usual inescapable reasons, which overtook me against my will. I grovel. It is a practice I deplore, but I feel that I may not be missed.
Secondly, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I advised my noble friend that she did not need to listen to every speech, that it was permissible to go out for a cup of tea and that only Ministers have to listen all the time. She was prepared to stay but sensibly accepted my advice.
I have read the gracious Speech, and I find that I have an excuse for everything that I have to say. If I say something for which there is no excuse, there is the great phrase:
"Other measures will be laid before you",
to which one can add, "or not".
First, I should like to welcome the Agricultural Tenancies Bill. It is a useful measure and will bring a little more land into conventional tenancy, which is socially very desirable. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is a brutal, nasty man. He told the truth about what is happening, and he laid out the facts extremely well. It is true that a great many able farmers are taking over from landlords who are not noted for their competence in business, and are operating agreements which give them a great deal of land, and they manage it extremely competently. We are rapidly moving towards a situation in which competent people will find land to let under some form of agreement to suit them. In living memory—in mine certainly, but I am an old, old man—landlords were desperate to find tenants who would farm their land. That situation may be recurring in a different form. However, I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who knows all about these matters, will go into detail on the subject.
The next point which I want to raise, which is not mentioned in the gracious Speech, has already been addressed competently by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer.

319
I should like to correct the noble Lord on one point. He said that perhaps I had gone many miles for a pint of milk. I have gone many miles for a pint of something else, but not for a pint of milk. What the noble Lord said about hill farms is perfectly true. The Government behaved miserably. Because hill farmers had had a better year, which did not bring them up to anything like the standard enjoyed by the vast majority of people in this country, the Government took £50 million in two years from the 60,000 hill farmers of this country. I trust and hope that they will reverse that policy.
They ought to do so for many reasons. One is that I do not know what you do with the hills unless you farm them with sheep and cattle and keep the population there—the crofters of Scotland and the hill farmers of Wales and elsewhere. If you do not do so, you have removed an economic stay which keeps the population there. In the highlands of Scotland one would leave nothing except sporting estates on which one would encourage many rich people to come and shoot grouse; and where would one get the people to manage those estates? Such farming is an integral part of the maintenance of the beauty and the use of the hills and their outlet for the ordinary people of this country.
It is absolutely essential that the Government think again on the policy of reducing the support which hill farmers receive to make their hard life tolerable, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, and, more importantly, to give them a standard of living which will encourage their children to continue to farm. At present there is no inducement to do that.
My next point concerns the CAP. There was reference in the gracious Speech to the issue. It must be strongly in the mind of everyone who has anything to do with the CAP. As it stands, the CAP is in great danger. The critics are becoming increasingly confrontational, saying that the policy is an absolute piece of nonsense. When considering the different devices that we use to seek to make the policy work, one realises that the critics are right. The situation has reached an extraordinary stage.
Sweden, Finland, and possibly (but only possibly) Norway, will be coming into the European Union. Those are countries with high cost agricultural support. With regard to Norway, the policy is purely social because without it large areas of the country would not be populated. We have a problem with those countries which is easier to address than in regard to the next batch of obvious entrants. I refer to the most advanced Eastern European countries: Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic. It is absolutely natural, right and proper that they will seek entry. However, at present we are doing such countries enormous harm because we are pushing heavily subsidised grain and other products into their market. We have increased exports to them while their exports have been reduced in proportion. Therefore we have in that respect a tremendous problem. In the view of most people, it is absolutely essential that those countries enter into the Community. They have great stretches of very good land. They have competent people who with training will be able to farm extremely well, and their production will come on to the European market.
320
Those countries also have a great advantage: they do not have a CAP. I have cited the figures previously, but they are useful. A tonne of barley in the East European countries fetches about £70 to £80. The wage for a month for a man on the land is about £20. Therefore a tonne of barley will pay a man for three or four months. In this country a tonne of barley will pay a man for about three days, or perhaps four if one does not pay him much. That situation places the current CAP of the European Union in grave danger. The situation must be addressed.
I have no doubt that the Minister has been thinking about the situation and will have had sleepless nights about it. It is right that that should be so. However, I must congratulate a committee of the English and Welsh NFU on producing a document entitled Real Choices. I have no doubt that the Minister has seen it. It puts starkly the choices before this country and the European Union. There are two real choices. One is completely to decouple: to allow prices to fall and pay direct area payments, payments per head, or whatever it may be, to farmers. The other has great attractions: it is to buy out farmers, leaving them totally without support in a free market system. I refer to buying them out by means of a bond which could be paid for 10 years, and sold on the market if necessary, which would provide support for a period of change-over.
Those are both fairly brutal solutions. However, they are solutions which the Minister, this country, and Ministers in the Community must consider. The sooner they face the problems and produce some forward thinking on the matter, the better it will be for all of us. I do not envy them the task but the situation must be faced because at present no one believes that the existing CAP can last beyond the present period—that is, about three further years.
Lastly, I wish to say something on the environment as it affects agriculture. I wholly agree that we have to have sustainable agriculture. I wholly agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who said that we have to have modern systems. We must have all the aids for production. Those were instanced by a scientist. I refer to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Ellesmere. We must have fertilisers and methods of controlling pests. We must ensure that such methods are sustainable. It is not possible to return to the system which made my native county of Aberdeenshire fertile. It was a rigid system involving three years of grass crop, one year of oats, one year of turnips, and followed by oats and undersowing with grass. One then had a gradual build-up of fertility which turned Aberdeenshire from a blasted heath into a fertile agricultural area within 100 years. I do not think it is possible to return to that system, but some of my smart and able farming friends in the area are growing crops and working forms of rotation—ploughing back, green manuring, and so on—which appear to sustain the land. However, we need absolute scientific evidence that it is so doing. It is not enough to say that only the old systems, or organic farming, can keep up the sustainable land and can improve it. We have to consider new systems. We have to condemn systems which do not keep up the fertility of the soil. Research is absolutely essential.

321
I refer again to my native land. I do not always agree with my noble friend Lord Beaumont and other environmentalists, but it is true that we all have to work at the situation. However, with regard to the highlands of Scotland, if the corncrakes are pushing out the crofters, then my vote is for the crofters.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am one of many in this Chamber who are delighted that a major Environment Agencies Bill is to be introduced shortly into this House.
I have taken a close interest in the Government's environmental programme in recent years. I believe that I have commented on every Bill with an environmental dimension which has passed through this House since 1989. Your Lordships may know that there is a special place in my heart for national parks. My own Bill to establish free-standing authorities for all national parks in England and Wales passed successfully through this House last Session. I am therefore particularly glad that the Secretary of State for the Environment and indeed the Minister in his opening speech this afternoon both confirmed that the Government's Bill will achieve what my own Bill sought to do.
It is now nearly four years since the National Parks Review Panel published its report. We have been awaiting legislation ever since to implement its recommendations. All along, the Government have promised to act. The Edwards panel, as it is known, made a large number of important recommendations, some requiring legislation. I was pleased that the Secretary of State confirmed on Friday that the Government will be establishing free-standing authorities for national parks. I trust that the legislation will be on the same lines as my Private Member's Bill.
The Minister has confirmed today that the Bill will also revise the park purposes. I should welcome clarification that both the conservation and enjoyment purposes for which the parks were designated will be revised in line with the recommendations of the Edwards Report. But it is vital that these changes are the right changes if we are to put national parks on a sound basis for the next century. In particular, the way the parks are to be enjoyed needs to be more carefully expressed in the statutory purposes.
National parks receive 100 million visits each year. It is essential that those who do visit do not destroy the very qualities they come to enjoy. Parliament's challenge is to ensure that the parks are for quiet enjoyment, away from urban pressures and noisy motorised sports.
Further, economic activities in the parks should be environmentally sustainable. The Government have made a number of welcome commitments to the concept of sustainable development and this fact has been highlighted by the Minister today. Nowhere is this more important than in our national parks which cover 10 per cent. of the land area of England and Wales and are part of the critical natural assets of this country.
National park authorities should be able to work with those who are responsible for the social and economic welfare of the parks. These efforts must ensure that the
322
needs of park communities are met in ways that sustain and, where possible, enhance the environmental qualities of the parks.
The Edwards panel made two other important recommendations requiring legislation, and it is not yet clear whether the Bill will include these. They are, first, that a duty should be placed on all Ministers and government departments to promote the interests of national parks; and, secondly, that a test should be applied to all major development proposals in national parks. This would permit damaging development only if there is a proven national need and there is no alternative means of meeting that need. To rely on planning policy guidance for such a test is too weak and in any case excludes important forms of development such as energy and road projects. I shall be very concerned if these measures, which are Edwards Report recommendations, are not included in the Bill.
I have concentrated in these brief remarks on the parts of the Bill which will affect national parks. But I shall also be scrutinising the rest in order to satisfy myself that the progress achieved by the Government in recent years is carried forward. I am particularly interested in whether the Government's commitment to environmental policy integration will be taken forward by the Bill. So I shall be exploring the potential for duties on government Ministers to promote the environment as part of their wider responsibilities.
I shall also wish to explore the concerns raised by environmental groups about the environment agency and to examine closely the welcome announcement that there will be measures for hedgerow protection in the Bill.
Environmental legislation rightly arouses great interest in this House and there are so many expert opinions that I foresee many long nights ahead. But there can scarcely be any legislation more important than ensuring that we leave an environment worth inheriting to our children and our grandchildren. I therefore relish the weeks ahead.
5.54 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I welcome the announcement in the gracious Speech that the Government will continue to promote enterprise, to reform agricultural tenancy laws and to strengthen the delivery of environmental policies. It is particularly on the delivery side that I should like to address your Lordships. However, I cannot go on without paying tribute to our two maiden speakers. I thought that their contribution was outstanding. On these Benches I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who referred to the Natural Environment Research Council. I have some recent experience of that body and it has an outstanding contribution to make.
The measures that have been announced are potentially good news for the countryside. I also applaud the recent appointment of the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, to the chairmanship of the advisory committee on the new environment agencies. His is an impressive track record, not least in environmental matters, and I wish him well.

323
Noble Lords may wish to note that I, like many others, am a landowner and I also farm within a national park. I am also a chartered surveyor and a member of the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union. So I have both a strong personal and a professional reason to be interested in rural land management. Furthermore, I have an involvement in the use of information technology in this area.
It is really about land management as part of the delivery system that I am concerned this evening. Whatever the precise use of our rural areas, they require active and positive management, not least to provide for employment and for the goods and services which are so urgently required in some areas. My father used to describe graphically the appalling state of the countryside in the 1930s when effective management simply disappeared because of economic circumstances. Even now, some of our most important habitats and landscapes—often in marginal agricultural areas—are at risk from poor and absent management of the right sort. Failure of the delivery system is therefore an extremely serious matter. Non-management is practically never beneficial in the long run.
Like any other activity, land management requires sustained commitment, motivation, the deployment of resources of time and money, a vision or target and the prospect of benefit at the end. In other words, to use just another term, it is a conventional socio-economic model, even if we refer to it by some other name such as farming, forestry or sporting. It is also a technical resource in its own right, with an enormous amount of empirical knowledge and experience which is not replicated elsewhere.
The management systems in our countryside have to meet the minimum standards of compliance which are set for the industry sector as a whole: health and safety, employment, environmental protection and animal welfare. Those costs all have to be paid for out of the activity in question. The more marginal the profitability of the activity—for example, for agriculture or forestry—the greater the risks of failure and the greater the chance of management being redeployed to safer ground. So it matters how easy or difficult it is to comply with the requirements of regulators or how far those requirements add to administrative or other costs.
Referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said in his opening comments, it is a terrible mistake to make the requirements a chore. We must regard them as positive matters which are attractive objectives. After all, if ultimately it is impossible to manage land in a traditional manner, or for that matter in any alternative way, the question has to be asked: why waste time on it? Standards are comparative. I raise the point as to whether the British public will insist on cheap food from abroad at world prices and on environmental standards at home which make existing agriculture uncompetitive. I think that that is an important issue which we have to address. I know that the Minister is aware of the problem.
The countryside is, above all, about people, but land managers are human beings and they are involved in local businesses and employment. They have the same aspirations as the rest of the nation. They respond to risk
324
and cost in broadly conventional terms and they try to be proactive and positive-thinking businessmen. But they are in something of a dilemma.
First, management of the countryside is increasingly being dictated from outside the industry: by local planning authorities, political lobby groups and environmental agencies, and—yes—by central government. There does seem to be the appearance of very little discussion and very little investigation going on as to what happens on the ground. Theory is all very well, but it is time now, as much as anything else, that those regulators started investigating how things actually work, and, if necessary, doing a little retraining themselves rather than expecting the industry to retrain itself in aspects that are set externally.
Secondly, the industries that currently pay for management costs and the management process have been severely affected by the constant chopping and changing of policies, and particularly by unintegrated environmental standards. To judge by the talk of cross-compliance, it seems to me that that may get worse. I wonder how many of those who advocate farm plans have ever tried to draw one up. It is not easy. However, I hope that I detect correctly that the Government propose to do something about all that. I was pleased to note the noble Viscount's comments about an integrated approach for the future.
Thirdly, environmental targets are simply not being set. On the ground it often appears that there is an aimless set of management prescriptions which concentrates on methodology without stating clearly the objectives that are being aimed for. Worse still, thresholds of compliance are being set which, because they are set nationally, may be appropriate in one location but could be quite senseless in another. The system is simply inflexible. Like the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, certainly those on the ground find it terribly confusing. After all, what happens when one day those targets are reached—the ultimate preservation order perhaps? I do not know what the answer to that question is, but it is a matter about which we need to think.
The results, I am afraid, are all too obvious. Land managers are telling their offspring in many instances that there may be only a limited future in the sector. We hear time and again of the concern of constituency Members in another place that their farmer constituents say that there is no future in this sector. That is a terrible thing to have to admit. Income and employment in the traditional sectors of our rural areas are, I am afraid, in marked decline. The risk is that disinvestment will follow. In the meantime, some are reconfiguring their operations so as to get maximum return on their most fertile land and profitable areas of endeavour. That, of course, is producing an intensification which may itself be unsatisfactory.
My plea is therefore quite simple. If the Government are serious about management systems and the delivery of environmental policies that are something more than job creation schemes for bureaucrats, they have to rethink what they are doing. Environmental land management schemes are sound in theory but need a great deal of fine tuning. Land managers need proper,

325
long-term partners and shared objectives. They need to discuss the issues that lie before them on an equal basis with competent and experienced officials. The risk is that the environmental straitjacket that now looms in some areas of our more heavily protected countryside may be just as damaging as the pursuit of production in agricultural products was beforehand. I have said previously in this House that good management follows attractive prospects. That always remains the case.
So much for the theory. I now wish to touch on one or two particular experiences of my own. In the rest of my speech I speak on my own behalf. Not so long ago I contemplated a management scheme for a woodland fringe area to enhance a colony of a nationally rare butterfly within a site of special scientific interest and in accordance with guidelines set by an acknowledged national expert. Not one agency was prepared to assist with any sort of grant aid for a project which for me would have been totally uneconomic in any sort of farming terms and would have been nothing other than a loss-making activity. It was outside the parameters of some agencies, and in the case of others there was said to be no money. Unless my holding, a hill farm, starts making very significant profits, that work will almost certainly never be done.
Consultation is another area on which I have touched before. In many instances it is supposed to take 28 days but regularly takes months, even for quite simple applications. It slows forward management to an absolute crawl. The response has to be not to apply for grants, unless it is unavoidable, and to try to avoid having to consult. A price is being put even on simple dialogue, and that price is too high.
Tree planting is another vexed area. On marginal land it is often relatively uneconomic, and it is therefore peculiarly awkward when, for landscape reasons, agencies and others insist on species that simply do not do well in that location—either because they are not windfast or for some other reason. That does not make any sense. I am a great believer in the idea that, if one does not plant something that will be worth while for a future generation, the likelihood is that it will not be looked after. I could add to those examples with instances where there seems to be a level of official ignorance about how things work in practice and some very partial interpretations of the law or fact. That sort of approach destroys confidence among land managers in the way in which governance is being pursued in this area. It is vitally important that there is more talk with land managers. They may be the only people capable of delivering the environmental objectives that are set by the Government.
6.6 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, it was a great pleasure to hear the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Ellesmere and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. The noble Lord gave a fascinating speech. It is not surprising to hear that he has immediately been co-opted to your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology. The noble Baroness gave clear proof of the need for public transport and indeed of how
326
vital it is to the evolution of a sustainable environment. The noble Viscount the Minister who opened the debate said that he was interested in having a policy that was not an end but a beginning, and that it was to be a combination of agriculture and environment. I welcome that approach most clearly.
Noble Lords on all sides of the House have mentioned the subject of organic farming. Perhaps I should take this moment to declare my interest as a patron of the Soil Association. Noble Lords may appreciate that that is one form of patronage that comes quite cheaply.
I wish to speak about the organic aid scheme—though I hope not too deeply in the method of a Second Reading speech. The scheme has been in force for a year and there seems hardly a bud in sight, although it has had all that time to bear fruit. The scheme is ungenerous. It is too small in its concept of trebling the organic acreage—which would still be an infinitesimal proportion of the farming land of this country. It would not fulfil the aim of creating the critical mass that would make organic produce competitive in the home market. Rather than 100,000 hectares—which is what is sought—we should go for 1 million hectares. So much for the scale. The scheme is perhaps ungenerous in the aid that is provided. It does not match the allowances that are given to organic farmers in the European Union. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, clearly pointed out, in the German Länder some 5 per cent. of land has already been converted to organic farming, and east Germany has converted 3.5 per cent. That is way beyond the limit of the 100,000 hectares that is being considered in this country. It is not worth mentioning a figure as small as that if there is to be any effect at all.
Organic farmers are also concerned with what they see as the dead hand of the Treasury in the matter. They see the support given as divisive and derisory. In terms of value it is about one third of what their partners in Europe receive. We are in fierce competition with the Europeans, who have some 60 per cent. of the home market. In that sense the aid scheme is not only derisory but unfair. No wonder we are suffering fierce competition.
Regarding divisiveness, the aid is available only to new starts and not to existing organic whole farm (symbol associated) farmers. In such circumstances, why should existing established organic farmers bother to help their neighbour convert to a new and difficult system which involves re-learning the arts of their forefathers? In last year's debate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, emphasised the quality and skill involved in farming organically. Those vital points demonstrate the need for adequate support for organic farming.
In terms of the environment, we need to implement the decisions of the Rio Conference. We need to reform the CAP which subsidises intensive farming to the tune of £1.175 billion a year. We need to reform set-aside, which is another £140 million thrown down the drain. In the meantime, we are generously supporting ESAs and the stewardship campaign with some £65 million.
Perhaps I may here take up the point made by my noble friend Lord Selborne about the need for extensive farming in all directions. I do not suggest that organic

327
farming is the only one, but that all forms of extensive farming should be developed. Indeed, the country is doing a great deal in providing £65 million to that end.
What is the organic farmer getting? He is getting £1 million. Is not that derisory? In all these areas organic farming makes a defined and useful contribution; but the opportunity is being wasted. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, who unfortunately is not in his place, showed the need for friendly farming. It is the organic farming system which has been developed and is the basis of the new venture of understanding that there should be friendly farming. That is why I believe that organic farming needs special support from this Chamber. Indeed, it deserves it.
On the occasion when the Minister opened the Organic Harvest Month, in the somewhat unusual venue of Waterloo Station, The Times leader reported:
"Mr. Gummer, of course, is now looking at farming more for the damage it does than the crops it raises … the intensive farming of arable land, especially in East Anglia, has drenched the ground with fertilisers, polluting rivers and groundwater … All this has been done in the name of efficiency. And abundance has been the result—indeed abundance throughout Europe on a scale that its people can neither eat nor store".
Surely that says it all.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to prevail upon his right honourable friend to review the organic aid scheme. I believe I can say that there is some sympathy on the part of my noble friend towards organic farming, especially in view of the kind speech that he made at the 50th anniversary dinner of the Soil Association. We truly need his help if we are to make a fully sustainable environment in the kingdom, which I am sure is the aim of all concerned in this matter. It would be in sympathy with the gracious Speech, which I am glad to commend to your Lordships.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, enough has been said over the past few days about the shortcomings of the gracious Speech: notable omissions and lost opportunities. However, today I shall not dwell on those aspects.
I should like to begin my contribution to the debate by congratulating the Government. I do so because they promised to produce a White Paper on agriculture—but not just on agriculture. I understand that the paper will take into account the place of agriculture in the development of the rural economy and will encompass the social and environmental changes that are taking place in the countryside.
That is a very welcome move and one that has been advocated for some time by Liberal Democrats. Life in the countryside as I knew it has changed beyond all recognition. Thousands of jobs in agriculture and related industries have vanished; some 100,000 alone went between 1971 and 1987. Holdings have increased in size and declined in number. In some areas farmers have been forced to become part-time farmers and have had to look for other ways to supplement their income. I hold the view—I have given it once or twice before—that the majority of farmers in Wales. 80 per cent. to 90 per cent., will be part-time farmers by the end of this
328
century. I have nothing at all against that, so long as the people remain in the countryside and have a reasonable standard of living.
Over the years there has been a pattern of declining services, from vanishing public transport to fewer village schools and scarce provision of health and social services. It is not only in our towns and cities that we see deprivation today. Life can be very bleak for young and old in the rural areas, where there is a shortage of affordable housing, few jobs and minimal transport. We need to look at those things seriously if we want to maintain a fair balance between the needs of the rural dweller, the protection of the environment and the necessity of encouraging a viable and thriving agricultural economy. Therefore I welcome any move to bring meaningful discussion on these topics into the political arena.
Naturally, I consider agriculture to be the focal point of any discussion on the countryside. Farmers have traditionally been the backbone of the rural economy and their labours have formed the British landscape to a great degree. Over recent years they have had a rough ride and deserve to be given some credit for staying in there. They should have adequate support to carry on. A sensible plan for the future could give them the stability that they need.
We have all been appalled at the extent of the fraud uncovered in the operation of the common agricultural policy. What we should do now is to make sure that any system of support should go towards helping those farmers who are genuinely in need of that support. In this country we should encourage the family farm and also give more incentives to those farmers who wish to diversify and achieve environmental goals.
I have always been very keen to see new blood in the fanning industry. We must do everything we can to encourage young people who wish to take up agriculture as a career. Therefore I was very interested to learn of the Government's latest proposal for changes in agricultural tenancy, mentioned in the gracious Speech. They should be examined carefully, as the provisions are crucial for the development of farming in today's economic climate. I am not entirely uncritical of the proposals, but tenancy reform is badly needed if relationships between landlord and tenant are to be maintained and improved. I understand that we shall have the opportunity to discuss the proposals next Monday.
I turn to the plight of hill farmers. Hill farming and the live export of animals to the Continent are the two burning issues in the agricultural industry at the moment. In this regard I declare my interest because I am one of the beneficiaries from the system of hill livestock compensatory allowances. I was also involved with exporting live animals and carcasses to the Continent over many years, though I have now given that up.
The confidence of hill and upland farmers in relation to the long-term viability of their businesses has been seriously undermined over the past two years. Today farming unions in England, Scotland and Wales are calling for the restoration of money cut from the HLCAs during the past two annual reviews with no further cuts

329
this year. The Government used a rise in incomes during those years as a reason for cutting their financial support, even though around 30 per cent. of hill farmers received an income of less than £5,000 in 1992–93. Experts now forecast that incomes will drop this year. The National Farmers Union is insisting that such farmers are provided with the necessary resources to ensure that the essential fabric of the countryside can be maintained. It said:
"If the Government is serious in its intentions towards hill farming then it must acknowledge that restoring the confidence of those working and living there must be a priority".
As was mentioned earlier in the debate, there is a danger that unless the current generation of hill farmers has the ability to invest in the future of their businesses then younger generations will think twice about following such an occupation. Sir David Naish, president of the National Farmers Union, also holds that view. He said,
"That would be bad for farming, bad for allied industries, bad for the countryside and bad in terms of the public's ability to continue to enjoy such areas".
I turn now to the export trade of lambs. The United Kingdom is the largest lamb producer in Europe. In the 1980s, as production increased, UK producers also became major exporters of sheep meat and live sheep. Since the removal at the beginning of 1992 of the export clawback—a tax on exports equal to the variable premium paid to farmers—exports have increased substantially. In the past 15 years the United Kingdom has moved from being 57 per cent. self-sufficient and heavily reliant on imported New Zealand lamb to being a net exporter of sheep meat and live sheep. We now export 43 per cent. of all the lamb, mutton and live sheep we produce each year and the trade is important to our balance of payments.
In 1993 total lamb exports were worth almost £400 million; that is, £4,300 to every lamb producer in the country, many of whom farm in marginal areas. The trade is dominated by the export of carcasses, although live sheep exports have risen in recent years. Estimates for 1993 indicate that around 80 per cent. of all exports were as carcasses—123,000 tonnes or the equivalent of 7 million carcasses—and 20 per cent. were live sheep, or 1.9 million head.
Live sheep exports have increased substantially in recent years from a total of 582,000 head in 1990 to 1.9 million in 1993. Research by the Meat and Livestock Commission in the early part of this year indicates that 80 per cent.—1.6 million—of all live sheep exports are consigned to France, with the remainder going to Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. A small number of those sheep may have been re-exported to Spain and Italy. Within France almost three-quarters of the sheep are consigned to the north-west quarter of the country—Brittany, Normandy, the Vendee and the Loire area. The remainder go mostly to the south-east of the country, south of Lyon.
Restrictions on the time or length of journeys, in order to constrain live sheep exports, may be a severe constraint on the national movement of breeding, store and finished sheep from the Scottish islands and
330
Highlands or the more remote parts of upland England and Wales. The sale of sheep or lambs to farmers elsewhere in the country is the only option that many hill and upland farmers have. It is therefore important that legal changes to satisfy one interest group should not be detrimental elsewhere in the industry.
I am pleased that the Meat and Livestock Commission is acutely aware of the public concern about the welfare of sheep exported live and attaches great importance to trying to ensure that those fears are allayed. The Meat and Livestock Commission is helping to fund, with the Ministry, studies into the precise impact on their welfare of the way in which sheep are handled—transportation, loading and the resting of sheep in transit. The Meat and Livestock Commission is also helping and encouraging the industry to operate to the highest standards of animal welfare.
As a hill farmer, having been involved with the meat trade all my life and having exported thousands of live lambs to the Continent, I feel that all finished or fat lambs should and must be slaughtered in this country. I hope that this Government will take heed of the views of the majority of farmers on that issue. In the meantime, I ask them please to get their act together with other European governments regarding animal welfare regulations. It is a very important matter and should be resolved sooner rather than later.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, the debate on the gracious Speech has been well supplied with excellent maiden speeches as well as the eloquence one has come to expect, but never fails to enjoy, from other noble Lords, and was started so elegantly and gracefully by my noble friends Lord Wade of Chorlton and Lord Lindsay.
Although much has been said in the gracious Speech about NATO, peace in Bosnia, preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons, terrorism, Europe, GATT, foreign aid, drug abuse, human rights, South Africa, Hong Kong, former communist countries, linking up with Asia and the Pacific, something about debt, the Channel Tunnel link and discrimination against the disabled, not much was said about environment or agriculture except for the new environmental agencies and the changes in agricultural tenancies about which we have been speaking today. There has also been much said in relation to organic farming and I shall be grateful to my noble friend if he can define "organic farming" when he sums up.
Nothing at all, as far as I can see, has been said about the heritage and conservation. Does that mean that the Government have lost interest in it, have washed their hands of it, have abandoned it altogether? Yesterday I went to the AGM of the Historic Houses Association, and here I must quickly declare an interest. Not only are my husband and I members, but we live in a beautiful, slightly decayed pink castle where, when it rains, water pours not only through the roof where the slates have worn out but sometimes comes up through the ground-floor plumbing like a fountain as well. Our house is only open to selected tours—and of course

331
friends—but it is set in the heart of our garden which we love and work at and which is always waiting to welcome visitors.
Anyone who lives in an historic house with an historic garden is very lucky to do so, whatever the inconveniences. The President of the Historic Houses Association said that living in an historic house was rather like breast-feeding a dinosaur which can never be weaned. What he did not say—which is perfectly true—was that one would not do it if one did not love the dinosaur. Which brings me back to the gracious Speech.
The Government will continue to implement policies and programmes responsive to the needs of the individual citizen. Historic house owners are individual citizens, too, just as much as anyone else. The Minister has said that the countryside is at the heart of the Government's conservation and environmental thinking. If not the heart, our historic houses are the jewels with which the countryside is decked.
There are three areas in which individual citizens who live in historic houses open to the public can very well be helped. The first is a lower rate of VAT on repairs to listed buildings. All buildings need repair but listed historic buildings tend to need more repair than others. In France, 95 per cent. of the costs of running a house open to the public can be claimed back in tax relief. Even a listed house which is not open can claim back 50 per cent., and that is for running costs. I am suggesting that there should be tax relief only on repairs.
The second area is capital gains tax. If you live in an historic house and money is desperately needed for repairs, anything that you sell may possibly be subject to capital gains tax. If the money from the sale is not spent on riotous living but is devoted to the repair of an historic house, it will be a very real help if capital gains tax can be waived on this issue. After all, if the house or property in question belonged to the Government and not to a private person it would cost the taxpayer a good deal more to maintain; or do we want to live in a country in which there are no privately owned historic houses?
The third area is that glorious financial bonanza: the national lottery. Although I bought a ticket last week—and will do so again—I have not won anything yet. I do know someone who bought two tickets and won £20. A large part of the profit—possibly as much as £300 million—will go to the heritage section. Not a penny of this can be paid out in grants to individual historic house owners, although in areas other than heritage, perhaps football or something else, individuals can benefit. In the heritage sector only government-run properties and the National Trust can receive grants.
We have a Conservative Government. Surely the policy of the Conservatives is to conserve; or in the field of heritage is it only to conserve properties which are publicly owned? Historic house owners do not throw stones, but they, too, are individual citizens with their own very specific needs. Surely the principles of the Citizen's Charter should apply to all citizens. Historic house owners are fast becoming an endangered species.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I should like to focus my few remarks in today's debate on the intention of
332
Her Majesty's Government to ratify the GATT treaty. While I appreciate that the evolution of this treaty has been a process that has lasted some 40 years, I am particularly anxious about the potential effects of the treaty on animal welfare.
Clearly, people are deeply concerned about the environment and the welfare of animals. In many cases such concerns have been dealt with in international agreements, such as the International Whaling Commission's decision to introduce a moratorium on commercial whaling and the European Union's decision to ban the importation of fur pelts caught by the leg-hold trap. However, there is growing unease that the GATT agreement may not give due weight to such animal welfare and environmental concerns. With the new powers of the soon-to-be-created World Trade Organisation, there is a strong fear that disputes will tend to act against those countries which actively promote higher welfare or environmental standards.
Perhaps I may summarise the principles that I believe and hope can still be embodied within the GATT agreement. I deal first with the protection of the global commons. I believe that the GATT committee on trade and the environment should produce an interpretive statement on Article 20 of the treaty to the effect that conservation of exhaustible natural resources includes resources held in the global commons: for example, action to protect whales or other cetaceans in the high seas.
The second point is respect for international treaties. Action derived from international treaties should be exempt from challenge. This would recognise that important treaties, such as the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), would be granted equal status to GATT. There must be reassurance that such treaties do not have subservient status in comparison with the general agreement.
The third point is the open settlement of disputes. So that future disputes can be minimised and rulings gain more legitimacy, it is important that outside bodies can submit evidence to dispute panels and that the decision-making process is open to scrutiny in the same way that a court is. There is a fear that the GATT disputes procedure can be unduly secretive, and this need not be the case.
The fourth point, which is terribly important, is concern over Article 3 of the agreement. A statement of clarification should be produced which is unambiguous as to the fact that action by any country may apply to the way that a product is created and not just to the product itself: for example, the way that fur-bearing animals are caught and concern over the cruel leg-hold trap, rather than the quality of the finished pelt itself.
Another example is the use of BST, which is a growth hormone drug that is used in certain countries to increase milk production. This drug causes an increased incidence of mastitis in cows. This is extremely painful. Should we be obliged to buy from another country this kind of product produced with the help of this drug, having already banned its use in our own? So that there is no misunderstanding, these principles should be incorporated into the treaty, thereby recognising that unnecessary suffering to animals is quite unacceptable.

333
The final point is the recognition of standards. International standards are set to a recognised minimum and not a maximum, but states should be allowed to legislate for higher animal welfare or environmental standards if they wish without being penalised by the World Trade Organisation. That is the principle adopted in European legislation. I would be very grateful to the Minister if he were able to reassure the House on this point.
In conclusion, the United Kingdom has always been a leading voice in matters concerning cruelty and suffering. We have legislated against cruel farming systems such as the veal crate, sow stalls and tethers. In Europe, we have pressed for tighter legislation concerning the transportation and slaughter of animals. I believe that the British people support those humane advances and that there will be a huge public reaction if the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade adversely affects the higher standards that we have already achieved.
I was very interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, statistics on sheep exports. Even though 20 per cent. are exported live, I heartily agree with him and look forward to the time when all our livestock is slaughtered near its source and travels abroad only in carcass form. In that regard, I believe that we still have a long way to go.
6.39 p.m.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, first, or should I say almost last, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the two maiden speakers on their excellent speeches. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, will forgive me if, as a fellow scientist, I pay an especial welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Ellesmere.
I have not spoken in a debate on the Address before and I fear that my speech might be better suited to a Second Reading. My comments are specific to the proposed Environment Agencies Bill, but many of the issues I will raise are those that we shall have to address generally in order successfully to manage our environment. So I hope your Lordships may on this occasion indulge me.
In the setting up of any business, there are a number of obvious considerations. What do you want to make or do? How will this be achieved? Where will the necessary funds and resources come from? And what is the likelihood of success? It seems to me that the setting up of the new Environment Agency for England and Wales requires a fundamentally similar approach, but do the proposed Bill and the draft management statement issued with it provide all the answers; and, if likened to a business plan, how successful might these be?
At this point I should declare that I am an employee of the National Rivers Authority, one of the organisations which will be incorporated into the new agency. I do therefore have a vested interest in it being a success!
334
The role of the environment agency is spelt out in a draft management statement prepared by the Department of the Environment. In this statement, the agency's overall aim is declared as being:
"To help promote sustainable development through high quality, integrated environmental protection, management and enhancement but in all its decisions, the Agency must give proper regard to economic as well as environmental impacts".
Two aspects of this will, I believe, give rise to much debate during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House; first, there is the goal of sustainable development, which is notoriously difficult to define—so much so that no attempt has been made to define it within the draft Bill. Instead, it is stated that Ministers will, from time to time, give guidance upon this matter to the new agency. Will the nature of this guidance be revealed to your Lordships as the Bill passes through this House?
Leaving that aside, how much emphasis will be placed upon development and how much on sustainability? Will this requirement for sustainable development lead to a weakening of the agency's regulatory and operational activities? And what targets will be used to test sustainability?
Secondly, within the overall aim of the new agency, the phrase,
"Having proper regard to economic as well as environmental impacts",
is also open to various interpretations. Many environmental groups fear that this requirement could be used to constrain both the scale and pace of the environment agency's activities.
In his speech, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell supported the concept of cost benefit analysis in relation to the future agency's activities. However, he questioned the actual mechanisms by which costs and benefits will be established and debated as well as the extent of their application to the new agency's activities. These are important practicalities that need to be considered.
Concerning the same issue, I was particularly struck by a recent article in New Scientist which quoted David Kinnersley, who, incidentally, was the architect of the legislation that set up the NRA, as saying:
"Often firms complain about the terrible burden of cleaning up. But if they are forced to do it, they frequently find ways to reduce costs that could not be foreseen at the start".
The Aire and Calder project is an outstanding example of this happening in practice, albeit in this case it was a voluntary initiative. Initiated by the Centre for the Exploitation of Science and Technology and funded by the NRA, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, Yorkshire Water Services and the British Oxygen Foundation for the Environment, 11 companies in the Aire and Calder catchment participated in this project. It was established to demonstrate the benefits of waste minimisation and cleaner technology. As a result, these companies have made savings of more than £2 million within the first 18 months, with a further £2 million to be saved over the next two years. Here is a clear demonstration that reductions in pollution and

335
improvements in profitability are not mutually exclusive. But Mr. Kinnersley was also quoted as saying:
"The Agency needs to have a duty to reduce damage to the environment without knowing precisely what it will cost. You simply don't know in advance".
Those who are actively involved in these matters would, I feel sure, agree with that statement, at least in certain situations.
This raises the wider issue of what exactly is meant by cost in this context. When "having regard to economic impacts", the agency must surely include environmental costs; and will there be a recognition that the environment cannot and should not always be valued solely in monetary terms?
Moving on to how the agency will be structured and run, this has been considered in detail by Touche Ross, who prepared a report for the Department of the Environment entitled Options for the Geographical and Managerial Structure of the Proposed Environment Agency. In its response to this report, the NRA pointed out that the study appeared to have concentrated overly on administrative needs rather than examining the fundamental aim of the new body. Consequently, the NRA has recommended to government that environmental need should be the main criterion used to assess the various options proposed in the Touche Ross report. It is therefore encouraging that the Secretary of State for the Environment, when announcing the publication of the draft legislation, stated:
"It will, first of all, need to take an integrated approach to providing effective environmental protection, integrated to take account of impacts on air, water and land and integrated geographically so that interconnected systems like river catchments are considered as a whole".
These views have already been supported by the NRA and are the product of its hard won experience over the past five years. Furthermore, the NRA's revised model for the agency is the only one which gives a strong link between regulation and operation; which provides for local delivery of services within natural geographic boundaries; which is locally accountable through statutory regional committees; and which proposes local multi-disciplinary teams providing a single point of contact for customers. It seems to me that this is the model most likely to deliver the Government's aims and mission for the new agency.
To return to my analogy of a business plan and the question of funding, the setting up of the agency will require considerable resources, and some fear that a failure to provide adequate resources for its start-up would be detrimental. An additional fear is that in setting up the agency the effectiveness of the organisations involved will be decreased. Dr. Tom Crossett of the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection was recently quoted in Environmental Business as saying:
"The Bill represents change without development and predicts a large amount of resources being used up during the transition, with little net gain to environmental protection".
This is indeed a danger, as anyone who has been through a major reorganisation will recognise. Government will need to provide adequate funding and manpower if the agency is to get off to a successful
336
start. There are, of course, many other funding issues, such as the exact nature of the cost recovery charging scheme, but I am sure these will be debated in full at a later date.
Lastly, I should like to say a few words about what the draft Bill does not contain. When I first drafted this speech, I highlighted what I regarded as a major omission with respect to the wording of Clause 7 of the Bill. I was therefore delighted when I read the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for the Environment that he had decided to amend the wording of the agency's conservation commitments in Clause 7. However, to my mind and as I understand it, there still remains an anomaly in that the duty to further conservation will not apply to the pollution control function of the new agency. Especially for pollution control in the aquatic environment, this would be a retrograde step.
For the past two decades water pollution control regulation in the United Kingdom has been based on the setting of environmental quality standards for the protection of aquatic life. Thus, conservation objectives are already at the heart of the regulatory system. There are already numerous binding commitments through EC directives to meet water quality standards for the protection of aquatic flora and fauna. Commitments have previously been given by government that conservation interests would be incorporated into the statutory water quality objective scheme. The proposal that the agency should only,
"have regard to the desirability of",
conservation in its pollution control activities would leave it with no clear direction and could weaken the basis for future pollution control regulation.
However, that is far from the only omission from the draft Bill. There are a number of issues for which no provisions have yet been made. I refer, for example, to provisions to address the problems of contaminated land and abandoned mines; to add incentive elements to the charging scheme provisions; to introduce specific statutory powers to carry out preventive works to reduce pollution in the aquatic environment; to allow drought orders to be made on the application of the agency on environmental grounds; and there are others.
I started this speech by posing some important questions that need to be answered if the new environment agency is to be a success. It seems to me that much further work will be required in order to provide answers to these questions, thereby ensuring that the environment agency will contribute more to environmental protection, management and enhancement than its predecessor bodies.
We need to build on the experience and expertise of our existing agencies. We need agreement on how to measure sustainable development and environmental improvements in a broad sense, not just in economic terms. The new agency must deliver environmental

337
protection, wherever possible in collaboration with industry, but, where necessary, fully supported by an effective regulatory framework.
6.51 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I knew that I would learn much during today's debate, particularly about agriculture. I confess to being very much an urban person. Indeed, on becoming a Member of your Lordships' House, I was a little surprised to be asked by one of your Lordships whether I farmed. I know that I am not the only urban Member of this House—perhaps I should say "suburban"—because the last two speakers and I live within about a mile and a half of one another.
I knew that I would learn a good deal from today's maiden speakers. I might have expected to learn something about potatoes, but I less expected a reference to biodegradable plastics in connection with potatoes. I certainly did not expect to hear a reference to Tracy. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will refer to Tracy in future debates in this House.
I am particularly delighted to be able to welcome the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I am glad that providence opened the door of this House to her. Perhaps I may share with your Lordships my belief that I owe my own political career to my noble friend. Her assistance with my first election for a local authority was probably directly responsible for the 22 votes that made up my victory.
We have inevitably talked much this afternoon about the new environment agency, or ENVAGE as we seem to be expected to call it in the brief. I have noted references to ENVAGE and to SEPA, the Scottish environment protection agency. As the Minister said, the environment is a consensus subject.
Partnerships are imperative. However, as well as partnerships, we need standard bearers and standard setters. We need targets as well as monitoring. I share the concern of those noble Lords who feel that the sights of the agency need to be set on real protection, not merely on reaction in the event of problems.
We have talked also about the fact that today's political climate calls for deregulation. I suspect that environmental protection is an area in which we need regulation in order to change our culture before we can think about deregulation.
We have also talked today about the objectives of the agencies. I share the concern of those who feel that the promotion of such objectives should be spelt out and that guidelines, guidance or management statements—whatever terminology one wants to use about wording that is outside the scope of the legislation—will not be as satisfactory as words on the face of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to that point.
I am sure that we were all interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who talked about the need for the Government "to implement" their proposals. In the noble Lord's view, words are perhaps of secondary importance. His description of the experience of the NRA is salutary. I hope that when it comes to the environment agency the
338
Government will confound the psychologists' view that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. I hope that lessons will have been learned.
We have referred to the cost criterion. The question should not be: are environmental benefits worth the money? but: can we afford not to provide environmental security? I hope that Treasury control will not mean that in this area the watchdog is without teeth.
It has seemed ironic to me for some time that we should have awaited the arrival of this new quango so impatiently while criticising the general role of quangos in our society. One area in which democracy and accountability will be affected by the new agency is waste regulation. As in the counties and elsewhere, local authority waste regulators in London will be swallowed up by the new authority. About 1,100 staff and a budget of —43 million for England and Wales will be affected. Waste is not a glamorous subject but it is important for many reasons, yet it is to be removed from the control of our local authorities. I fear that that removal will harm the success of the authorities concerned and that there will inevitably be a further reduction in local democracy.
Over the past five years or so, the waste regulators have had increasing success, helped by the new legislation. I am concerned that their work will be divorced from other work of the local authorities. We all know of the problems associated with waste sites, fly tipping and scrap metal dealers. Solutions to those problems can often be linked to other aspects of local government work such as planning, environmental health, recycling and traffic management. Removing waste regulation to a quango will not help us.
I join other noble Lords who have welcomed the announcement on legislation relating to the national parks. However, that announcement made me wonder about the purpose of the Queen's Speech. The Queen's Speech contained no references to the Bills that we wanted to see, but announcements of them appeared shortly afterwards. Perhaps, however, I am merely carping. I must say—this is not carping—that I welcome the fact that the Government are to alter their proposed legislation in response to public comment. I welcome the early publication of the Environment Agencies Bill. I hope that the changes will not be merely semantic, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, suggested. The fact that the Government are prepared to make such changes is a move forward.
One matter relating to the Queen's Speech which has not yet been mentioned but which falls within the subject of "the environment" is the Channel Tunnel rail link. There will no doubt be a huge amount of discussion about its environmental acceptability and environmental impact at local level. At national level, the question of stations will be very important. I use this opportunity to raise my concern that work on the development of a station at Stratford should go forward. I believe that the stations will have a huge impact on the success of the Channel Tunnel link.
Also on transport, I would have welcomed a mention in the Queen's Speech of the effect of transport on the environment. The speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, was particularly welcome. An announcement

339
of an integrated transport policy—perhaps a White Paper—would have been something that we should have been glad to hear. I accept that the Government show some signs of appreciating the effect of transport policies on the environment, but they are little more than hints and whispers. We need a loud declaration on the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred to the 1983 Conservative manifesto which said that air pollution problems had been resolved. That was about the time that the Clean Air Council was abolished. I wish that it was still in existence.
There was no mention either of housing, despite decent housing being as much a fundamental right as the right to free speech, although there might be some who would say that we do not have that either. The best reference I can make to housing would be to take some extracts from a recent open letter from the director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is in advance of next week's Budget, but, after all, in this House we have to take what opportunities we can to mention financial matters. He talked of the singling out of housing benefit as a target for spending cuts, and said:
"No doubt it has now been explained … that the increase in Housing Benefit (to the individual) is the intentional outcome of cutting 'bricks-and-mortar' subsidy (to housing providers) which causes rents to rise… Total housing support to council tenants …is costing you 18 per cent. less in real terms than in 1980/81".
Similar considerations apply to housing associations. The levels of grant have fallen from 75 per cent. to 58 per cent. over five years. Private borrowing has to make that up and that means substantially higher rents. Subsidy costs may be cut in the short term, but there are huge bureaucratic hassles and expense and greater costs in the long term. We now know that a low-grant, high-rent policy actually means increased inflation. That creates job losses, a higher retail prices index and higher public spending on index linked social security and pensions. When rent levels reach the point at which even those in full-time jobs have to become reliant on a means-tested benefit, work incentives are destroyed.
There needs to be a revival in the private rented sector. That requires something such as housing investment trusts with a tax-driven kick start—some support for real investment in that sector. With housing benefit, the Government should stop the trend towards more rent increases and swing back to bricks-and-mortar subsidies which provide better value for money. Best of all they should stabilise housing benefit costs by calling off council rent rises and cuts in housing association grant levels and forget any thoughts of boosting private market rentals for people on low incomes. The director says that those 1980s policies have run their course. It is now generally agreed that we need more than 100,000 affordable homes a year. A nod in that direction in the gracious Speech would have been welcome.
Finally, an omission to which I am bound to refer is that of local government. There is no mention of it, and yet this is the first Queen's Speech after the establishment of integrated regional offices—an apology for regional government. I cannot help but observe that if we had regional government there might have been a
340
little less aggravation in connection with the local government review as we should have had a proper context for it.
We are lucky in this House to have joining us, although neither has spoken in the debate, two members of the European Committee of the Regions—my noble friend Lord Tope and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton. I am sure that their experience will inform our debates as well as that of returning MEPs.
There are inevitably major financial matters upon which local government concentrates. The single regeneration budget administered by IROs clearly does not cover the areas that it has replaced. Capping and gearing have been referred to. I wonder whether we shall not soon be at the point when a determined effort should be made to review the workings of the council tax to amend anomalies and unfairnesses.
I shall end by saying two things. First, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel: the greatest crisis in local government is that it is becoming such an impossible job that good people cannot be attracted to it; and, secondly, I should like to have heard the words:
"My Government attach the highest importance to local government and local democracy".
On these Benches, we do.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate with many excellent speeches, but none more notable than the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Ellesmere, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. We all look forward greatly to hearing their further contributions to our debates when we shall all have the benefit of their considerable expertise.
My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel covered adequately the environmental aspects of today's debate, and I shall therefore concentrate upon agricultural topics. My noble friend commented upon the vital importance of integrating agricultural policy fully into environmental policy. I should like to expand on that point a little to link today's topics of the environment and agriculture.
The majority of land in the UK and throughout the European Union is used for agriculture. It is vital that that land continues to be readily available for food production of one form or another. However, since the future of our wildlife, traditional landscapes, and natural resources depend also to a great extent upon the management of that agricultural land, it is essential that all farming activities are undertaken in an as environmentally friendly manner as possible.
It is inevitable that farmers will be subject to increasing public scrutiny on that issue. If they are to retain their standing and respect within the wider community, they must be prepared to deliver those environmental goods to the highest possible standard. They involve not merely the creation of beautiful and

341
accessible countryside for society as a whole but they must also fulfil our national commitment to conserve and enhance the UK's biological diversity.
The full integration of agricultural and environmental policy offers a fundamentally new agenda for UK agriculture. It is an agenda that recognises that agriculture is central to a prosperous and environmentally sound rural economy; that largely involves the continuation of commercial farming activity in all areas, with some exceptions; and ensures that environmental criteria are pursued on an equal footing to production objectives.
The principle of integration is accepted increasingly; but practical implementation is yet to be achieved generally. That is despite numerous opportunities, the most significant of which, when the opportunity was largely missed, was the package of CAP reforms announced in 1992. Some proposals have been put forward. The Labour Party proposed green premia and grants for environmentally friendly farming. The CLA has produced its own scheme for environmental land management systems. There have also been proposals from the NFU and the CPRE. It will be interesting to know whether the Minister can give us any idea when the White Paper to be produced jointly by the DoE and MAFF is likely to be seen by us. I have seen some rumours in the press about September of next year. It would be useful if he could help us with that.
If the CAP is to become more environmentally driven, we must be sure that any measures taken in that respect do not add to the long list of existing possibilities for fraud. Much has been made of the recent report of the Court of Auditors which has been mentioned a number of times today. The figure of £6 billion for fraud on the Community budget, largely in agriculture, has been referred to. But that figure is not new. Your Lordships' European Communities Committee reported in the 1988–89 Session. I was a member of the committee which was ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington. In that report we stated:
"No authoritative assessment of the level of fraud in the Community has been made, and a firm estimate is difficult to achieve".
But the committee received evidence from witnesses who were prepared to estimate the scale of fraud. Those estimates indicate a loss of between £2 billion and £6 billion each year, which is the range of figures mentioned recently in the press.
As we know, some 80 per cent. of the expenditure of the EU budget is in the hands of the national treasuries. In an excellent publication entitled Farm Brief there is a quotation from an official of the Court of Auditors. He stated:
"Which country has the best control of agricultural spending? None, they're all equally bad. The UK government is just as guilty of sloppy management of inspection and controls… Sure there are big companies involved. Defrauding the Commission is not the same as doing it to the bank—it's more or less a sport".
In addition to fraud in the European Union there is malfeasance on a grand scale. That is the wilful misconduct of public affairs. We have the recent 342
example of certain member states which did not pay their fines for exceeding their milk quotas. The figure of £1 billion was mentioned, and I do not believe that it has been refuted. On the morning of the relevant meeting of European Union Finance Ministers, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Chancellor of the Exchequer, appeared on the "Today" programme. With that particular brand of ebullient machismo which he has made his own, he described the tough stand that he would take on the issue. Of course, by lunchtime he had rolled over and given in. The fines were halved and Italy was given an extra milk quota so that it would not feel too hardly done by.
That contrasts with the Prime Minister's attitude, which he expressed to his own Back-Benchers only last week, with regard to additional payments to the European Union budget. It appears that the Government's policy is a combination of supine hand-wringing in Brussels and faintly ridiculous muscle flexing at home. I suggest that that posture is neither dignified nor consistent.
That is all compounded by today's news that the Treasury forecast of our contributions to the EU budget this year was too low by £732 million. The forecast of £1.7 billion looks like an out-turn of £2.4 billion. The effect of the CAP is not just the result of the budgetary contributions; there is also the trade flow effect. A recent report from the Centre for Research in Economic Development and International Trade at the University of Nottingham was extremely enlightening in that respect. It states:
"One point emerging forcefully…is that there is no apparent correlation between a country's relative wealth and the distribution of transfers from the budget and trade effects. Although the highest per capita benefits accrued to Ireland, which in terms of GDP per capita is the third poorest country in the Union, this is followed by Denmark, which is the richest. Similarly, the Netherlands and France receive large per capita transfers from the CAP (the transfer to the former is larger for instance than that going to Greece), even if both countries have per capita incomes above the Union average. On the other hand, the UK, Portugal and Spain appear to be net contributors even though they are relatively poor countries within the Union. This supports the view… that the so-called 'UK problem' is more accurately described as a poor country, small agricultural sector, net importer problem".
That is some kind of comment on the past 15 years of the Government's control of our agricultural policy.
There are other aspects of the CAP and the European directives. Slaughterhouses will be prohibited from enjoying the traditional meat inspection service provided by local authorities since 1992 and must pay for the ruinously expensive veterinary inspections that are required by the EU. More than 200 small slaughterhouses have gone out of business since provisions came into force and they have put hundreds of people out of work.
Under EC hygiene rules, small cheesemakers are prohibited from collecting milk from neighbouring farms. A refrigerator tanker is required, irrespective of the distance and quantity. There are times when we enter the realms of high farce. Are your Lordships aware that there is an EU ban on the sending of live worms by post unless they are accompanied by a journey plan, provided with food and water and rested after 24 hours? The same provision, which causes only irritation and amusement

343
to the worm trade, is, more importantly, stopping the small poultry breeders from distributing their stock, thus threatening dozens of small firms with bankruptcy and the loss of more jobs.
Turning to matters of more immediate parliamentary interest, next week we shall begin consideration of the Agricultural Tenancies Bill. I do not wish to foreshadow our Second Reading debate. However, I must tell the House that, if the Bill is not substantially amended, there is genuine anxiety on these Benches about the effect on the future security of tenure for farm tenants under the new farm business tenancies and the provision of openings for new entrants into farming. I also understand that the Bill as drafted does not give to existing tenants the security of tenure that we all thought the Government intended to ensure. We shall certainly be seeking to improve the Bill, and I respectfully suggest that this House is well equipped to do so.
The debates on the gracious Speech provide an opportunity to raise a number of matters which are of concern to the agricultural industry. The Government's proposals for the future of the State Veterinary Service are causing considerable alarm. Perhaps when the Minister responds he will comment on the views of the British Veterinary Association which has described the slimming down and quasi-privatisation of the SVS as at best a bureaucratic bungle and at worst an act of criminal folly. The association calls it a recipe for disaster and a purely bureaucratic response which will,
"castrate if not crucify the SVS at this critical time".
It also claims—and correctly—that our SVS is the envy of Europe. Yet, as with so many areas, dogma appears poised to risk all the investment made in the UK since the war as regards the protection of animal health, public health and animal welfare. Those are strong words from a well-respected profession and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. I must repeat that many farmers are convinced that it is only a matter of time before we have a major outbreak of animal disease resulting from importation.
This week the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture reported on health controls and the importation of live animals. The report is valuable and makes a number of important recommendations affecting farm livestock and horses, and there is the headline matter of the ending of the quarantine for cats and dogs. It would be helpful if the Minister could give the Government's initial reaction to the report, in particular on those matters affecting farm livestock. It would be nice to think that the report covered the historic dinosaur mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. I was a little confused; I was not entirely sure whether when she referred to the historic dinosaur she was referring to government policy or to her castle in Scotland. I know which interpretation I prefer.
The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, my noble friend Lady Nicol and other speakers, dealt adequately with organic farming. Perhaps I may ask the Minister—and not for the first time —why our support for organic farming is at rates that are so much lower than in other member states of the EU. Is it a typically perverse Treasury policy? This policy, if it were adopted, could reduce surpluses, add to environmental protection and
344
reduce the import bill. It is an example that we always seem to get in Government, irrespective of party, of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
The whole concept of the organic management agreement is similar to the ESA approach; it is an adaptation of the environmentally friendly farming approach. Obviously, it can be seen as a part of a matrix of conservation grade farming, environmentally friendly farming and, for those who want it, organic farming. It is a logical extension which increases the reduction of surpluses and environmental protection.
There are many other matters that I should like to cover, but time does not allow me to do so. There are two topics in particular upon which I should like to spend a little more time—one is the transport of live animals, and the other is the debacle in the milk market caused by the winding-up of the Milk Marketing Board which produced results that were exactly as we forecast when debating the agriculture legislation in the last Session. Does the Minister support the proposal from my honourable friend Mr. Gavin Strang (who is our spokesman on agriculture) that the Meat and Livestock Commission should undertake an urgent study to see whether we can replace the live exports of sheep with exports of sheepmeat?
When I recently asked the Minister during Question Time when the consumer would see the benefits of the deregulation of the milk market, he said that that would he in the long term. I have to say that the consumer of milk is beginning to feel that the Government's view of the long term has not only discounted the future but also the hereafter.
In conclusion, I believe that we need a coherent statement on the objectives of agricultural policy. As a suggestion, I should like to offer the Labour Party's objectives for such a policy: to provide food of a high quality to consumers and to provide it at reasonable prices; to support incomes and employment in rural areas; to protect and enhance the rural environment; the biodiversity and public access provisions and to ensure the highest possible standards of animal welfare; to ensure that support arrangements give the taxpayers and consumers value for money; and to reinforce our overseas development policies. It would be nice to think that the Government's proposals on agricultural policy in the coming Session will fulfil those objectives, but I fear that their record to date does not give us much hope.
7.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, as ever, when rural and environmental issues are discussed in your Lordships' House this has been an informed and worthwhile debate. As is customary after the gracious Speech, it has been a debate which has ranged over varied and sometimes disparate topics. We have heard two splendid maiden speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I join with other noble Lords in expressing the hope that we shall hear them both often. It is not fortuitous, however, that the subjects of agriculture and the environment have been combined on the Order Paper. Agriculture lies at the hub of what, to most

345
people, the term "environment" signifies. It is an industry whose primary role is to produce food. But it is also the industry which, more than any other, shapes the rural landscape and influences its ecology.
That link is one which will be central to the Government's rural White Paper to which my noble friend Lord Ullswater and the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, referred. But it is also a link which has been increasingly recognised in agricultural policy. Largely at our instigation, the European Union has now adopted environmental measures as a compulsory and integral part of the common agricultural policy. Lest that statement seems like a commonplace, we would do well to remember how impossible a dream it would have sounded 10 or even fewer years ago. The example of environmentally sensitive areas, and similar imaginative schemes pioneered in the United Kingdom, demonstrated what could, and what should, be done across Europe.
However, the rural character of this country, where nearly 80 per cent. of the land is devoted to agriculture, should not lull us into overlooking the pressures upon it. Competing demands from housing, industrial and retail development and roads, as well as from agriculture itself, have to be recognised and managed; and farming can itself create environmental pressures through, for example, overgrazing, nitrate leaching, or the loss of biodiversity. Those agricultural pressures can be eased in a variety of ways: by advice from government agencies such as ADAS and English Nature or from the many active voluntary bodies such as FWAG; by regulation, such as, in the sphere of pollution; by administrative penalty—for example in the withholding of payment of CAP subsidies where farmers permit serious environmental damage (the so-called cross-compliance principle); by encouraging farmers themselves to put environmental awareness into practice through initiatives such as the LEAF movement, or through organic systems; or, lastly, by financial incentives to reward environmentally positive management going beyond good agricultural practice.
It is in the area of incentives where we can be particularly proud. This year saw the launch of the Habitat Scheme, the Organic Aid Scheme, the Countryside Access Scheme and new nitrate sensitive areas. It also saw a major expansion of the ESA Scheme with eight new ESAs being designated in England and Wales. That brings the total to 43 ESAs—15 per cent. of all agricultural land. Once those and the new schemes are fully operational, we shall be spending over £110 million a year in the UK on promoting environmentally sensitive farming. At a time of serious constraints on public expenditure, that is a significant commitment by government in addressing the main environmental needs and opportunities associated with UK agriculture. I see that my noble friend wishes to intervene. I give way.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. He
346
mentioned £110 million for environmentally sensitive programmes. Will that mean an increase of £1 million in respect of organic farming?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall be turning to the subject of organic farming in just a moment. Perhaps my noble friend will be content to wait until that time.
Agricultural policy has a major part to play in pursuing the Government's aim of conserving and, where practical, enhancing biodiversity. Since the Maastricht Treaty amended the Treaty of Rome, it has been an obligation on the Community to integrate environmental protection requirements into the definition and implementation of all Community policies. In agriculture, the Government have taken a lead: we have a strong commitment to promoting further "greening" of the CAP, and continue to press for a closer linkage between agricultural and environmental policies and objectives.
We have also taken the lead in the Community in seeking to achieve rules for set-aside which maximise its potential for the environment. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was quite wrong in his analysis of the effects of supply control measures on the environment. The Government successfully argued for environmental management conditions to be applied to set-aside land and we also secured the non-rotational set-aside option which allows for longer term environmental benefits. However, the Government are seeking to go further in deriving long-term benefits from set-aside by allowing arable land taken out of production under the various environmental schemes to count against a farmer's set-aside requirement—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the Minister suggesting that the existence of set-aside does not mean that farmers have a great deal more intensive agriculture on the rest of their land? If he is making that suggestion, it goes against the evidence. However, if he is not, he is not addressing himself to anything that I actually said.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord overlooks the whole tenor of CAP reform which was to reduce the incentive to farm intensively on land that is cropped with arable produce—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: But, my Lords—
Earl Howe: My Lords, there is evidence to show that that is what is happening. If the noble Lord cares to talk to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, I believe he would find that the society has most interesting things to say about the beneficial effects of set-aside on bird populations.
As I was saying, the European Commission has undertaken a study into the question to which I referred and a report is expected very soon. When that report is placed before the Council, my right honourable friend the Minister will be pressing very hard for positive action.
It might, perhaps, be useful at this stage to take stock of our experience with the CAP over the past 20 years. The CAP was one of the first common policies to be established by the EC. Despite long-standing criticisms

347
from the UK and elsewhere on the grounds of its cost to taxpayers and consumers, its economic distortions and its adverse impact on trade, the coverage of the CAP has tended to expand and its cost to rise. Through the 1970s and into the early 1980s support prices were regularly increased as a result of a perceived need to maintain farmers' incomes. But insufficient allowance was made for the benefits of technological advances and structural change and, combined with that, there was excessive optimism about the growth of world markets.
Only in the mid-1980s did the direction of policies begin to shift, but the comparatively limited extent of those changes reflected the concern of most member states to preserve the essential characteristics of the CAP. There was a general desire to avoid radical change, even where significant budgetary expenditure was at stake. The 1992 reforms were more significant; but a strong influence on both the timing and content of these reforms was the GATT Uruguay Round negotiations on agriculture. It became increasingly clear as these negotiations progressed that the more trade distorting features of the CAP—excessive import protection and uncontrolled use of export subsidies—would have to be subject to limitations under any GATT agreement capable of achieving wide acceptance. The 1992 reforms were thus aimed at delivering the obligations which the Commission judged it could secure in the remainder of negotiations. In addition, some member states were concerned that the CAP was no longer capable of ensuring an acceptable income to their farmers.
The Government's principal long-term objective for the CAP is to reduce its cost both to taxpayer and consumer by reducing support levels and phasing out direct compensatory payments. However, in tune with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Carter, we also seek to get the CAP operating with much more regard to environmental considerations, with a higher proportion of EC expenditure to farmers being applied to encourage more environmentally sensitive farming and with the application wherever appropriate of environmental conditions to support payments. These objectives spell out the direction in which the Government wish to see the CAP develop but within those broad objectives the first priority for the UK must be to bring down end price support. This will bring both economic and environmental benefits where current support levels are encouraging over-intensive farming systems. In doing so we should improve the balance of supply and demand, thus making redundant the raft of supply controls which, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith rightly said, act as a barrier to new entrants. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, pointed out, it is not only the Government but the NFU and others who have been considering how change to the CAP could be brought about.
But there is one central point to remember regardless of any such changes. If our countryside is to be maintained and the land is to be kept in good heart, agriculture must continue to prosper; and for the agricultural industry to play its full part in a thriving rural economy we need to encourage landowners to offer more land for rent. There has been a long-term
348
decline in the amount of rented land—now down to just one-third of the total agricultural land in England and Wales. The shortage of tenancies hinders the industry's ability to respond to market and policy changes and makes it very difficult for new blood to enter the industry.
As my noble friend Lord Ullswater has pointed out, the existing agricultural holdings legislation discourages the letting of land because of the degree of security that it confers on tenants and because of its sheer complexity. My noble friend referred to the Government's Agricultural Tenancies Bill which was introduced into your Lordships' House last week. I am glad that so many noble Lords have welcomed it, although I look forward to some interesting debates with the Benches opposite. I do not propose to devote time to this subject now as we shall have the opportunity to debate the Bill in more detail on Second Reading on Monday of next week. The main point I wish to make today is that we want to simplify the legislation for future tenancies and give parties much greater freedom to negotiate tenancy agreements which suit their own needs and circumstances. We believe that the reforms which we have proposed strike the right balance for landlords and tenants, will lead to more land being made available to rent and will benefit the future well-being of the rural economy as a whole. I am sure that the points made this afternoon, which I shall consider carefully, will feature in our debates as the Bill proceeds on its passage through the House.
Many questions arose during the course of the debate which I should now like to deal with. If I do not succeed, because of pressure of time, in covering all the questions posed by noble Lords I apologise to them in advance and either I or my noble friend will follow up such omissions by letter where appropriate. I welcomed the remarks of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell in favour of the new environment agency and in support of the appointment of my noble friend Lord De Ramsey as its chairman designate.
My noble friend has served with distinction as chairman of the NRA since its inception. It is thanks to him and his board and to all the dedicated staff under him that the standing and success of the NRA are now what they are. My noble friend has achieved the enormous task of bringing together people from the different water organisations and welding them into a cohesive, effective body to protect the water environment. We aim for the new agency to be a centre of excellence, combining in one organisation the experience and expertise which the existing bodies have built up over the years. I welcome the contribution of the NRA and its chairman and that of the other bodies, HMIP and the waste regulators, to that process.
My noble friend and my noble friend Lord Mills referred to the agency's duty to take costs and benefits into account and hoped that that would not restrict its day-to-day operation or subject it to challenge. As both my noble friends will recognise, sustainable development involves reconciling the needs of achieving both economic development and effective environmental protection. Regulators should not be able to impose costs which are not justified by the

349
environmental benefits which they will bring. The provisions as drafted require the agency to consider costs and benefits in the round, including environmental costs and benefits. The provisions do not override the agency's other duties and obligations.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell asked whether the Bill would require the agency to prepare a state of the environment report. Under the agency's pollution control duties—Clause 5 of the published draft—it states that the agency shall compile information relating to such pollution and report back to Ministers. If required by Ministers to do so, the agency will carry out assessments and prepare and send reports on those assessments. Clause 31 of the published draft also requires the agency to prepare each year a report on its activities during that year. Copies are to be sent to Ministers and must also be laid before both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, expressed his worry that the NRA's environmental duties might be taken away from it when its functions are transferred to the agency. We have listened to concerns expressed that the agency is to be given a less effective duty to protect and conserve the environment than the NRA has now. We have amended the wording to make it clear that the agency is to have a strong and effective role for protecting the environment and that that is what its core functions are all about.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, questioned the wisdom of the local management of waste functions being transferred from local government to the agency. It is essential that the local waste regulation function is transferred to the environment agency. It would be impossible to provide an integrated approach to the control of pollution and waste if more than 80 authorities in England and Wales continue to operate separately. This proposal was announced following the Government's consultation exercise in 1991 on the agency's core functions. But this is not to denigrate the achievements of local waste regulation authorities or any of the bodies which will be incorporated into the agency. I would expect the agency to consult and to co-operate with local authorities where this is necessary and appropriate in the context of its effective operations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, expressed criticism of the fact that there is no scientist on the advisory committee. We have appointed an advisory committee which contains a range of expertise relevant to the agency's functions, including environmental protection, business and local government. Many members of the agency's staff will of course have a scientific background and I feel sure that there will be no lack of expertise in that direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised a questionmark over the fact that amendments to the Bill have been announced already. The provisions published by my right honourable friend on 13th October were draft provisions; clauses and schedules to set up the two new agencies reflecting the stage we had reached over a month ago. This early publication, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell was kind enough to point out, was a new and virtually unprecedented initiative. It was intended to give interested parties a chance to inform
350
themselves of the details of the proposed legislation before it is introduced into Parliament. My right honourable friend stated that the provisions would continue to be refined in the period prior to presentation to Parliament, and that is what is being done. I was grateful for the welcome which many noble Lords have given to the new wording of the clause on the agency's conservation duty.
My noble friends Lord Selborne and Lord Crickhowell referred to the polarisation of debate on the agency and other environmental measures on the question of regulation versus incentives. The Government aim to shift the emphasis away from regulation as the only means of achieving environmental objectives and targets, and to use incentives of economic instruments and voluntary environmental action to complement legislation and avoid the need for excessive and over-detailed regulation, but regulation will continue to play a vital role in protecting the environment.
Such regulations should be clear, fair and as proportionate as possible and should be implemented in a professional and consistent manner. Creating a body which will do that has been one of the Government's key aims in establishing the agency. The environment agency will be good for the environment and good for industry. It will benefit business by bringing together the different regulatory regimes in a single body, but certainly not at the expense of environmental protection.
My noble friend Lord Mills spoke about the concept of sustainable development. As my noble friend said, the agency will make an important contribution towards promoting sustainable development through the way in which it carries out its functions. It can be difficult to define in practical terms what sustainable development might mean in specific cases, although we have the guiding principle of the Brundtland definition which my noble friend quoted in his opening speech.
It is particularly difficult to define in precise legislative terms what sustainable development might mean for the agency in future years. However, it is not appropriate for the agency to have to decide what sustainable development means, nor to make policy decisions about what the overall balance of industrial development and environmental protection should be. That is a role for government. It is, however, right that the agency's aims and objectives should reflect the contribution it can make in the light of guidance from Ministers. That is what the provision in the Bill seeks to secure.
My noble friend Lord Mills also asked about resources for the agency. Transitional costs will be dependent on decisions yet to be taken on the new body's management and geographical structure, the location of offices and other management strategies. Offsetting savings will arise from efficiency gains through rationalisation. The net effect is likely to be small relative to the agency's overall budget.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke about local democracy and quangos. Accountability and responsiveness to individuals' concerns do not necessarily require control through local authorities. Building on the success of the NRA, the agency will be

351
a non-departmental public body accountable to Parliament through Ministers and subject to clear financial controls. We look to the new body to ensure transparency in the way it conducts its affairs and adherence to Citizen's Charter principles.
The agency will have three sets of regional and local committees concerned with environmental protection, fisheries and flood defence. We would expect a wide range of local interests to be represented.
I was sorry to hear the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the relatively infrequent attenders of your Lordships' House should spare themselves the trouble of coming. Besides being somewhat ungracious to noble Lords on all sides of the House, his sentiments run directly counter to those expressed by the noble Lord the Leader of the Labour Benches when he responded to the gracious Speech last week. It is one of the strengths of this House that its expertise lies not only in those who attend every day but also in those who give us the benefit of their wisdom when time permits and when the right opportunity arises.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Mills, made detailed points about the Government's proposals for the agency. My noble friend Lord Ullswater looks forward to dealing with those points when he speaks to the Bill at Second Reading and later stages.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, spoke of her experience in local government and of her particular interest in transport policy. The Government are concerned that smoky emissions from badly maintained vehicles do considerable damage to the appearance of buildings, and vehicle fumes can lessen the quality of life for all who live and work within the urban environment. The claim sometimes made that 10 to 12 per cent. of motor vehicles are responsible for 50 per cent. of vehicle produced air pollution is not borne out by government research. It is likely that the contribution of the worst 10 per cent. of vehicles is somewhat closer to 25 per cent. of pollution.
However, the Government are committed to tackling the problem of gross polluters, although that alone will not solve the whole problem of traffic pollution. In October my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport launched a concentrated series of roadside spot checks aimed at catching gross polluters. I am sure that the noble Baroness will welcome that.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, showed us how valuable a Member of the House he is likely to prove. His balanced analysis of the opportunities and problems associated with animal and plant biotechnology was one to which I am sure we will return whenever that important subject is debated over the years ahead.
We were delighted and grateful when my noble friend Lord Norrie introduced his National Parks Bill in the last Session. I became aware of the almost universal support for the Bill and the amount of good will which my noble friend generated by its introduction. He asked in particular about the revision of national park purposes in line with the recommendations of the Edwards Report. We have considered very carefully the recommendations of the Edwards Report and those put
352
to us by the countryside agencies in respect of revisions to national park purposes. The national parks, as the jewels in the countryside crown, require particular care and attention. I am confident that our proposals for revised purposes reflect the special needs and qualities of those most precious areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, expressed his concern about development in national parks. Our policy on development in the parks is set out in the planning policy guidance note on the countryside and the rural economy. That is that major development should not take place in the parks save in exceptional circumstances. Any proposals for such development should be subject to the most rigorous examination.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell asked whether the national park clauses in the environment Bill replicate those of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Norrie last Session. I can confirm that the environment Bill replicates the provisions in my noble friend's National Parks Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked about the extent of the proposed legislation for new national parks authorities. All of our commitments to legislate will be reflected in the Bill. The Bill's provisions will set out a comprehensive framework within which the new authorities will conduct their business. We also intend to issue a circular which will fill out and expand upon that framework.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Geraint, referred to the importance of hill farming. The Government remain firmly committed to the continuation of extensive livestock farming in the hills and uplands and to the HLCA scheme itself. That is demonstrated by the total estimated expenditure of around £546 million this year in subsidies to some 67,000 sheep and cattle farmers in the less favoured areas. We expect that the total subsidies on cattle and sheep in the LFAs in 1995 will amount to more than £600 million. Those are substantial sums. They demonstrate the importance that the Government attach to that sector of the farming industry and the contribution which it makes in environmental, social and economic terms to the well-being of upland areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, also spoke about the importance of alternative and industrial crops. We are keen to encourage the development of viable alternative crops. Crops for industry and energy are an exciting and positive use of set-aside land as well as a sustainable and renewable source of raw materials for industry and an opportunity for new rural enterprises. When she was Minister for Agriculture, my right honourable friend Mrs. Shephard launched a consultation document called Alternative Crops: New Markets at the Royal Show to stimulate debate on that subject. We are now looking at responses to that consultation paper. A new Alternative Crops Unit has been formed within MAFF to act as a catalyst and help bring together people with an interest in the subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about local government reorganisation. He suggested that it was a shambles. Far from it, my Lords. The Local Government Commission has published 19 final reports and my right

353
honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has announced decisions on 10 of those. We are getting on with the job of implementing the recommendations for those areas for which we have announced reorganisation in 1996. The Local Government Commission is drafting the remaining reports which are due by the end of December.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly. Do the Government regard the chaos into which local government has been thrown—with the amount of money and man hours spent—as a considerable problem?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not. However, with the leave of the House, I shall not expand in detail on that because we are running short of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, spoke about Westminster City Council. That is a matter for the council, its auditors and its electors, not for the Government. It would be wrong to comment on any specific case until the legal processes are completed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one question on that. At a suitable time will the Government consider having a judicial review of the matter? It is one of great importance and deserves treatment at that level. Of necessity the Government are involved. I suggest to the noble Earl that it is possible for the Government to consider the matter as suitable for judicial review.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we must wait for the judicial process now in train to be completed before any such decision is taken.
I should like to say how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Selborne in what he said on sustainable agriculture. The agricultural chapter of the Government's sustainable development strategy—it was launched by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in January—sets out the aims of sustainable agriculture as follows: to provide an adequate supply of good quality food and other products in an efficient manner; to minimise consumption of non-renewable and other resources including by recycling; to safeguard the quality of soil, water and air; to preserve and, where feasible, enhance biodiversity and the appearance of the landscape. The chapter recognises that prior to reform, the CAP often ran counter to some of those aims. It also recognises that a continuing process of reform will be needed in order to meet the aims more fully.
My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam bemoaned what he regards as inadequate support for organic farming. We agree that there is a need to increase organic production. That is why we are encouraging the sector with support for organic standards, research and development and direct aid for conversion. Let us not forget that that is on top of the general assistance which is available to all farmers. The recent CAP reforms have also improved the relative position of organic farmers by switching resources from output to area support. It is true that there has been a modest response with regard to the uptake of the organic aid scheme. However, it is too
354
early to draw any firm conclusions on how things may progress. There is no closing date as there is with other schemes. We shall keep the matter under review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, joined my noble friend in criticising the rates of aid in the organic aid scheme. The key requirement at present is to encourage more farmers to convert to organic systems so that production is expanded. Those already farming organically can receive aid for converting new land. However, resources are not unlimited and therefore aid has to be targeted to where it will achieve most benefit. The targeted threefold increase in the organic area as well as the rates of aid will be kept under review.
The noble Lords, Lord Geraint and Lord Carter, expressed their concerns about the welfare of animals in transit. As both noble Lords will be aware, we are currently pressing for strict and enforceable EC measures to help restore public confidence. In particular we are pressing in negotiations for the concept of journey limits to be recognised at Community level. We are also introducing tighter national laws to make it easier to prosecute the UK traders who break the welfare rules during journeys abroad. The consultation period for our proposals has now ended and we are working to finalise the new legislation. Meanwhile we realise that UK traders are suffering hardship because of the ferry company ban. That is why we are checking all proposals for new routes as fast as humanly possible so that those which are satisfactory can proceed. A number have already opened.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, spoke about the effects of the GATT on animal welfare. It is an important subject. The Government believe that the Uruguay round agreement will, over time, result in more countries adopting animal welfare measures which reach the higher standards prevailing in the European Union. Moreover, the technical barriers to trade agreement establish the right of each signatory country to implement domestic legislation to protect animal life and health in a non-discriminatory manner.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the milk quota disallowance suffered by Italy and Spain. He has misread the situation. It was a good agreement for the United Kingdom. We have secured substantially increased fines on Italy and Spain for not implementing milk quotas. The increase of 1.1 billion ecus was entirely due to action taken by the Government in bringing ECJ cases against the Commission. Italy and Spain will be paying 1.5 billion ecu more than they received from the CAP milk budget. We have served a clear warning to others of the consequences of a failure to implement CAP rules, and justice, I feel, has been done.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, drew attention to forestry consultation procedures. The Forestry Commission has written to interested organisations with proposals to review consultation procedures with the aim of streamlining them. That follows a recommendation by the Select Committee on environment in another place. I hope that it may lead to making consultation procedures less burdensome for the noble Earl and others.

355
The noble Lords, Lord Geraint and Lord Carter, referred to CAP fraud. The Government have been at the forefront in getting the Community to tackle fraud. Specific areas of action are through reform of the CAP itself, direct payments being subject to tight control, administrative penalties and strict levels of controls specified in EC schemes. Member states must also improve their reporting procedures. All those improvements are fully supported by the Government. However, we are not complacent and we continue to press both for further reforms of the CAP and for adequate controls in all member states.
I shall conclude and apologise to the House for having overrun my time. We all wish to see a healthy rural economy. Agriculture and its associated industries play a key role in rural communities. They are fundamental to the maintenance of a beautiful and thriving countryside. The Government are determined to ensure that our rural areas continue to thrive. That is one reason why my right honourable friends the Minister
356
and the Secretary of State for the Environment announced last month that they will be producing a White Paper on rural affairs. We expect that to be issued in the middle of next year. There is a need to have a coherent overall strategy for the future of the countryside in all its aspects—economic, social and environmental. The part to be played by farming will be central to our approach. Ensuring that the interests of farmers, the rural economy and the rural environment are given the recognition and support that they deserve will be one of the Government's guiding themes.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.

  HIGHER EDUCATION COSTS
  HIGHER EDUCATION COSTS
  STUDENT LOANS
  STUDENT LOANS
  HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY COUNCIL
  HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY COUNCIL
  UNIVERSITY RESEARCH ASSESSMENT
  UNIVERSITY RESEARCH ASSESSMENT
  PARISH CHURCHES LISTED GRADE 1
  PARISH CHURCHES LISTED GRADE 1
  PARISH CHURCHES: ENGLISH HERITAGE GRANTS
  PARISH CHURCHES: ENGLISH HERITAGE GRANTS
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS: ENGLISH HERITAGE GRANTS
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS: ENGLISH HERITAGE GRANTS
  PHARMACISTS: ADVICE TO FHSAs
  PHARMACISTS: ADVICE TO FHSAs
  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CIRCULAR HM(71)90
  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CIRCULAR HM(71)90
  MAMMOGRAPHY FACILITIES
  MAMMOGRAPHY FACILITIES
  STUDENTS: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
  STUDENTS: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
  JUBILEE LINE: DEVELOPERS' CONTRIBUTION
  JUBILEE LINE: DEVELOPERS' CONTRIBUTION
  JUBILEE LINE: SAFETY
  JUBILEE LINE: SAFETY
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS: OFFERS TO PURCHASE
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS: OFFERS TO PURCHASE
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994: INCREASED PENALTIES AND NEW OFFENCES
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994: INCREASED PENALTIES AND NEW OFFENCES