Sitting of 24 November 1994

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

    Police
    Mr. McWilliam: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost of employing a police officer.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The present average cost of employing a police officer is £4,200 a year.
    Mr. McWilliam: Given the high level of crime and individual risk to which police officers are now subjected, does the Home Secretary agree that that is a small price to pay?
    Mr. Howard: I do indeed agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have always maintained that police officers deserve to be rewarded properly for the very considerable risks that they run on our behalf and for the difficult and dangerous job that they do.
    Sir Donald Thompson: What will police officers think about the boy in my constituency who committed 130 crimes, who was arrested 88 times, who was a burglar, a shoplifter and a vandal yet who finished up doing 24 hours' community service?
    Mr. Howard: I think that most police officers will react to those reports in much the same way as my hon. Friend and I react to them. The courts have powers to commit young offenders who are clearly out of control to the care of local authorities, which can ensure that they are detained in secure accommodation. The powers of the courts to deal with such young offenders will be much increased when the operative provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are in force.
    Mr. Bennett: Given the considerable cost of employing police officers, does the Home Secretary agree that it is very important to ensure that they are employed on police duties and not on minding remand or convicted prisoners in police cells? Given the many occasions on which his predecessors have condemned the practice of holding prisoners in police cells from that Dispatch Box, can the Home Secretary tell us when the practice will stop, at least in Greater Manchester?
    Mr. Howard: I very much hope that it will stop as soon as possible. We have provided a great deal of additional prison accommodation. I do not like the practice of detaining prisoners in police cells any more
    712
    than the hon. Gentleman and I hope that we will be able to stop it quite soon. It occurs much less now than in the past.

    Right to Silence
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what comparison he has made of the use of the right to silence by criminals tried in the Crown court and by criminals tried in the magistrates court.
    Mr. Howard: Research cited by the Royal Commission on criminal justice suggested that exercise of the right to silence may be higher in cases that go for trial in the Crown court.
    Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for that answer. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that research suggests that it is the more experienced and professional criminals who try to hide behind the right to silence, giving only their name, rank and serial number when questioned, which is one of the reasons why this change in the law is welcomed so widely not only by police men and women but by many law-abiding citizens throughout the country?
    Mr. Howard: I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend. Research carried out on behalf of Kent constabulary suggests that experienced offenders with five or more convictions are more than three times as likely as suspects without convictions to refuse to answer questions during interviews. That bears out the proposition that was put to me by my hon. Friend: that experienced and professional criminals have made use of this device to a much greater extent than other suspects.
    Mr. Mullin: In order to minimise hypocrisy, will the Home Secretary inform the House of any of his colleagues who have drawn an adverse inference from Lady Porter's decision to maintain her right to silence?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we are talking about the right to silence in criminal proceedings. I thought from his intervention in last week's debate that we would be able to welcome him as a late convert to the change in the law. I am sorry that his question shows that such hopes are doomed to disappointment.

    Knives
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to deal with the criminal use of knives.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The carrying of knives in public is severely restricted by the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Stronger police powers of stop and search in relation to offensive weapons have been introduced in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my hon. Friend on responding to deep public concern about the carrying of weapons, and particularly knives, in public places. Will he confirm that the police welcome this measure

    713
    and that it will help them in their task of protecting the public? Will he please keep the powers under review and extend them if necessary?
    Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. Of course the police are keen on the new stop and search power in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, but that is not the only power to deal with those who carry or use knives. Those who carry knives in public can be caught under two provisions—that covering the possession offence or the offensive weapons rules if they show an intent to use a weapon. That offence can carry a sentence of imprisonment.
    Mr. Cox: I welcome the Minister's reply. Is he aware that I recently tabled a question to his Department about banning the importation of a fountain pen that, within seconds, becomes a most deadly weapon with about a 4in blade? The Department replied that it did not regard the pen, which was found in a prison, as a lethal weapon, but the police, and especially the prison governor, regard it as such.
    Mr. Maclean: We have power to ban certain weapons and we have used it to ban 14 weapons that can be imported. They range from rare and exotic implements from the far east to flick knives and other weapons. We are perfectly prepared to use that power again to deal with any other knives or offensive weapons if it is possible to come up with a legal definition that is sensible and is restricted to the item in question. In many cases, our ability to ban a knife is irrelevant because we have powers to deal with those who carry and use knives. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is possible to devise a rule to ban a knife that will deal with the people who wish to carry all sorts of knives in society, I am afraid that he is very much mistaken.
    Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend find it rather strange that knives are freely available in high street shops behind clear glass for people of all ages to see, yet betting shops are shrouded in secrecy behind smoked glass? Would he kindly consider deregulating betting shops and imposing tighter regulations on shops that sell knives?
    Mr. Maclean: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that of course we wish to improve visibility into betting shops; we shall certainly do that. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) asked about the regulation and control of knives. There are hundreds of millions of legitimate knives in society that are used for perfectly legitimate purposes. I am perfectly happy to consider any individual case for banning an offensive weapon if that weapon can be clearly defined, but the most recent reports clearly show that the knives that have been involved in some attacks have been Stanley knives, kitchen knives and vegetable knives. It would not be sensible to draw up a law banning every Sabatier knife in the country.

    Criminal Injuries Compensation
    Ms Jowell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the tariff scheme for criminal injuries compensation following the appeal court's recent judgment.
    Mr. Howard: The divisional court found that the introduction of the tariff scheme was not unlawful. By a majority, the Court of Appeal took a contrary view. The court granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords, and I intend to appeal. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further while the matter is before the courts.
    Ms Jowell: May I press the Home Secretary on this matter? As the Court of Appeal has found the tariff scheme to be unlawful, will he listen to Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, who said in another place that the scheme would discriminate most unfairly against those with the worst injuries? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider the scheme and withdraw it immediately?
    Mr. Howard: No, though it always pains me to disagree with the noble Lord. Our scheme is by far the most generous in the world. More than 40 per cent. of compensation for criminal injures paid across the world is paid in Britain. We pay more than the rest of Europe put together, more than the United States and, after the changes, our scheme will continue to be the most generous in the world.
    Mr. Trimble: I appreciate the Home Secretary's reluctance to anticipate the House of Lords' decision. Will he, therefore, give an undertaking that, irrespective of that decision, he will introduce legislation to put the criminal injuries scheme on a statutory footing so that the House can scrutinise the details of the scheme and victims in England and Wales can have legal, enforceable rights?
    Mr. Howard: That is my ultimate aspiration, but it would be sensible to see how the tariff scheme works in practice before introducing legislation of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Straw: Will not the whole House applaud the unexpectedly perceptive insight of the Secretary of State when he said in September,
    "Victims have had a raw deal"?
    Is it not time for the Secretary of State to recognise that the victims of crime have had the rawest deal of all from the Government? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that he is now making victims pay the price of his own inability to control the relentless rise in violent crime, and that by these shabby , changes, for which he has had no mandate at all, he has betrayed both the voters and the victims of crime?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that everything he says on the subject is so much hot air. He resolutely refuses to say whether any future Labour Government—should there be one—would restore the criminal injuries compensation scheme. As to the relationship between the payment of compensation and violent crime, as I told the hon. Gentleman when we last discussed these matters, the facts are that since the introduction of the scheme in

    715
    1965 violent crime has increased by 500 per cent., the number of Criminal Injuries Compensation Board applications has increased by 3,000 per cent. and the average award has increased by 40,000 per cent., so there simply is not the correlation that lay behind the hon. Gentleman's question.

    Police
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the actual number of police officers employed in England and Wales in (a) April 1992, (b) April 1993 and (c) April 1994.
    Mr. Howard: There were 127,760 police officers in England and Wales in April 1992, 127,963 in April 1993 and 127,489 in April 1994.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Home Secretary confirm that there will be no further reductions in the number of police officers as a result of the implementation of the core function policy?
    Mr. Howard: As the hon. Gentleman may know, we have published the interim report of the core function review, on which we are working very closely with the police. The objective of the review is not to reduce the number of police officers but to enable the police to concentrate on the issues that matter most, and we are taking it forward with the police.
    Mr. David Martin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that a relevant consideration is how police time is used? Will he do all that he can to ensure that the police are not required to pursue to court spurious crimes of rape, such as the one involving a former university student in Portsmouth, especially as the Crown Prosecution Service often undermines police efforts by failing to press proper charges in real crimes of violence?
    Mr. Howard: The key to the concern behind my hon. Friend's question lies in the need for greater co-operation, communication and liaison between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The system works very well in some parts of the country and less well in others, but I am keen to encourage the whole country to emulate the standards of the best as soon as possible?
    Mr. Beith: Will the Home Secretary explain why this year he refused requests from almost every chief constable in the country to deploy additional police officers, and why he presented the new police authorities with draft proposals for the limits on their budgets which would have meant that some of them would have to reduce the number of police officers on the beat?
    Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in the first part of his question. The truth of the matter is that many chief constables have been able to employ more police constables by slimming the middle management ranks of their police forces in a way of which I hope the right hon. Gentleman would approve. As for the second part of his question, he will have to await my announcement next week of the detailed financing arrangements for police authorities.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the statistics that he gives are both accurate
    716
    and misleading in the sense that the true test is not the number of policemen employed but the number deployed? Has not the latter increased significantly and more than pro rata with population growth in most police areas as a result of civilianisation and a reduction in paperwork in the past several years?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the key test and it is the objective that we seek to achieve. It is shared by chief constables, who are concentrating more and more of their officers on the type of duties that we all want to see them perform.
    Mr. Michael: But does not the Home Secretary accept that the effect of the review of core functions will be a further serious cut in the number of police officers available on our streets? Does he accept that the Government reneged on a promise to increase the number of police officers by 1,000 at the last general election, because the actual number of police officers available for ordinary duty fell between April 1992 and April 1993 by 401?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must have prepared his question not only before he heard my answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) but as long ago as before the publication of the interim report from the core function review. Had he read that report, he would know that there was no substance whatever to his introductory comment. The figures all depend on precisely which month one takes. If one took the month of May instead of April, one would find a steady increase year on year for all three of the years mentioned.

    European Immigration
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will support making European immigration issues subject to qualified majority voting.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): No, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Jenkin: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the provisions for qualified majority voting in article K and, moreover, the cross-reference with article 100c in the main body of the Community treaty, which also provides for qualified majority voting? Can he give a categoric assurance that the Government will take all steps to prevent other member states or the Commission from trying to involve qualified majority voting in immigration and other issues covered by article K?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend will be familiar with K.9—I mean not the character from Dr. Who but article K.9 of the treaty on European Union—which provides for article 100c of the treaty to be extended. Article , K.9 makes it clear that that can be done only by unanimity and with the consent of the House. The Government would never bring such a proposal before the House.
    Dr. Howells: If the Minister is forced to take the advice of the Europhobes on his Back Benches, will he also put a little more pressure on the Government to start punching their weight to ensure that our invaluable links with the British Commonwealth are not weakened by draft legislation currently with the Commission in Brussels, which would ensure that Commonwealth

    717
    citizens who currently do not need a visa to enter the European Union, including this country, will need a visa in future?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman refers to the provisions of article 100c of the treaty on European Union on the common visa regime. That was part of the Maastricht treaty, which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends supported. It will still be for Britain to decide which countries are added to the common visa list. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know that. As for Europhobes on my Back Benches, as he put it, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) was making the point that we would never give up our right of veto, which Opposition Members would give away at the first opportunity.

    Police Bail
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest statistics on breach of police bail; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclean: In 1993, about 59,600 defendants bailed by the police failed to appear. That figure consists of those on police bail who failed to present themselves either at a police station or at a court when required to do so.
    Mr. Streeter: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread public support for the measures recently introduced by our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, which tighten procedures relating to bail? Will he assure me that anyone who offends while on bail will. be dealt with most severely and will certainly never be granted bail again?
    Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for warmly welcoming the proposals in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which tighten bail procedures such as the new police power of arrest for breach of police bail and the ability to attach conditions. It is a source of concern that many people who are charged with an offence and granted bail commit another offence. That leads to an unnecessary 50,000 crimes and an unnecessary 50,000 victims per annum. We have introduced a new power whereby in such circumstances magistrates need not grant bail. We have given them the power, which will be available for them to use. It is a pity that the Opposition could not wholeheartedly support those proposals when the legislation was going through the House.
    Mr. Tony Banks: But what about people on remand in prison who, if found guilty of the offences with which they are charged, serve more time on remand than they would if they had been convicted? In such circumstances, surely bail needs to be looked at objectively, because there are plenty of people inside who should be on bail now.
    Mr. Maclean: Of course, bail must be looked at objectively by the courts and magistrates, but many people who have been granted the important privilege of bail have breached that privilege. I do not accept that they have a God-given right to remain at large in the community committing offence after offence. The new power will help to reduce the 50,000 unnecessary victims each year.

    Residence Rights
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the current rules regarding residence rights for nationals of countries which are not members of the European economic area.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): Rights of residence under the EC treaty apply only to EEA nationals and their accompanying family members. Our policy is to restrict severely the number of third-country nationals coming to live permanently or to work in the United Kingdom. We keep the effectiveness of that policy under review.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend join me in applauding the United Kingdom immigration service for the work that it does? Does he agree that other EU countries may not be quite so stringent as us on immigration? Does he further agree that Churchill's reference to the "soft underbelly of Europe" possibly still applies? Will he ensure that the immigration service continues to maintain controls on people entering the United Kingdom from outside and within the EU?
    Mr. Baker: I echo my hon. Friend's praise for the immigration service. I assure him that the Government's position on immigration controls is clear. In line with our interpretation of article 7A of the EC treaty, we are determined to maintain full immigration controls at our ports and airports on third-country nationals arriving from other EU member states. Frontier-based immigration controls on third country nationals are supported by a light passport or identity card check on EEA nationals.

    Right to Silence
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what view he has formed of the right to silence; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 will enable inferences to be drawn by a court or jury if a suspect fails in the specified circumstances to answer questions put to him by the police or does not give evidence at his trial. These provisions, while not requiring anyone to forgo his right of silence, will ensure that silence will no longer be hidden from magistrates or the jury.
    Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but in some ways have we gone far enough? Are not there serious crimes, such as terrorism and drug dealing, where suspects should be required to make a statement about what they were doing at the time of the crime.
    Mr. Howard: The measures in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 represent a substantial step

    719
    forward. They are closely based on provisions which have worked effectively in practice in Northern Ireland for some time, and they represent about the right balance.
    Mr. Skinner: Are the Government not operating double standards in relation to the right to silence? Why do they not call on the last Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, to give evidence at the Pergau dam inquiry?
    Mr. Howard: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman as a late convert to our right-to-silence proposals. Will he now give them the support that seems to lie behind his question?
    Mr. Deva: What views has my right hon. and learned Friend formed about the effectiveness of current laws against racially motivated attacks?
    Mr. Howard: I refer my hon. Friend to the wise words of the Lord Chief Justice recently when giving judgment in a case in which it was made clear that the courts now have powers to pass appropriate sentences in cases of racially motivated crime without the need for a separate offence—which would be counter-productive, lead to unnecessarily prolonged trials and do little to deal with the mischief that many people, from the best of intentions, desire to remedy through the creation of a new offence.
    Madam Speaker: The Home Secretary might also have referred the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) to question No. 27 on the Order Paper, as the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was totally out of order.
    Mr. David Shaw: But it was clever.
    Madam Speaker: Order. It was not at all clever.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are in detention.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: On 18 November 1994, 654 people who had claimed asylum at some stage were detained under Immigration Acts powers.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that it is totally disgraceful that more than 600 people who have committed no crime nor been charged with one are in detention? They have no right of appeal to an independent appellate body or of access to the courts. Some have been detained a long time. Is the Minister not disturbed at the number of people in detention under asylum legislation powers who have undertaken hunger strikes to draw attention to their plight? Is it not time for an independent appeal body to which such cases can properly be put?
    Mr. Baker: Those detained represent well under 1.5 per cent. of asylum seekers, which is a small proportion. I assure the hon. Gentleman that detention is used only as a last resort. Most people in detention have rights to appeal and to apply for bail. They have that protection, and I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's other points.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that rather than talk about the interests of foreigners who are in most cases properly in detention, and if the Labour party is to be taken seriously in its protestations about being tough on crime, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr.
    720
    Corbyn) should stop using every opportunity to speak out against the police? Until he and other Labour Members stop attacking the police, the hon. Gentleman should not talk about people who seek asylum.
    Mr. Baker: Like my hon. Friend, I urge every Member of Parliament to give the police and other lawful authorities the support that they deserve.
    Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister confirm that it costs £800 per week to detain asylum seekers? Of the 600 current applicants, 230 are likely to be detained for between two and six months at a cost of £6,500 to £20,000. Is it not time that the Home Office took a long hard look at the procedures involved and speeded up the process, to save taxpayers money while at the same time providing some relief for detainees?
    Mr. Baker: The costs cited by the hon. Gentleman represent a considerable overestimate. On the other hand, a firm detention policy, which does have a cost, is an essential part of immigration control.

    Police
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers will be returned to operational duties by his plans to cut paperwork and to reduce the number of police middle-managers.
    Mr. Howard: This is a matter for individual chief constables to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of their own forces, but it should be possible over time for some 5,300 police officers to be redeployed to front-line operational police duties.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, according to the latest information from Kent, not much hope is held out for redeploying police officers as a result of computerising? However, will he commend the chief constable of Kent for redeploying up to 112 officers back to the beat as a result of his management review?
    Mr. Howard: I am always happy to commend the chief constable of Kent, particularly for the reason given by my hon. Friend. That is a welcome example of the kind of progress that can be made in increasing the number of police officers deployed on operational duties as a result of the kind of reorganisation which lies behind my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Does the Home Secretary not understand the great concern among police officers about the mountains of paperwork with which they have to deal, much of which has been generated by the 56 Bills, including the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, passed by the Conservative Government since they came into office? The paperwork needs to be reduced.
    Mr. Howard: Many of the provisions that have led to extra paperwork were inserted into those Bills at the Opposition's request. Whenever the Government wane to take tough action to deal with law and order, the Opposition always come along with proposals for more and more so-called safeguards, most of which add to the burden of paperwork.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, even before the implementation of those

    721
    proposals, the City of London police force has cut crime by half over the past three years? Will he congratulate it on that outstanding achievement?
    Mr. Howard: I do, indeed, congratulate the City on the success that it has achieved. Other forces throughout the country are also achieving success in the fight against crime and we should all congratulate the police on the progress that they are making.
    Mr. Alton: Recognising that the Merseyside police force has also made progress in the fight against crime and achieved a reduction in crime figures, does the Home Secretary agree that it is bound to lead to a loss of morale to publish proposals which the chief constable said could lead to cuts of 500 police officers and 100 civilians? Were that proceeded with, the only people who would benefit would be the criminals.
    Mr. Howard: When we publish our proposals next week, the hon. Gentleman will see that the figures that he cited are wide of the mark.

    Jury Service
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he plans to make regarding jury service by people on bail.
    Mr. Maclean: Section 40 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 excludes people on bail from jury service. This provision will come into force early next year.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that that will be welcomed by many people because many crimes are committed by individuals on bail, which is far too easy to obtain?
    Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for his warm welcome for those sensible provisions in the Criminal Justice Act. People want us to strike a sensible balance between those who can serve on juries and those who, because of their criminal conduct and being charged with an offence, would be inappropriate to serve on a jury. That sensible measure, too, has been welcomed by the police service.

    Crime Statistics
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish each year the proportions of each age cohort convicted of serious criminal offences for males and females by the ages of 15, 21 and 30 years.
    Mr. Maclean: Yes. Future editions of the annual Command Paper "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales"—our well-known best seller—will include a table showing the results from five-yearly cohort studies giving the proportion convicted of a serious criminal offence by age and gender.
    Mr. Bottomley: That is the best answer that I have received to that kind of question in the past five years. Given that some 2,000 serious crimes are committed each week and that 34 per cent. of men aged 30 have already been convicted of a serious criminal offence, does not that
    722
    closer tracking and monitoring show what methods work? Does he agree that our society can gain by cutting the number of people who become criminals?
    Mr. Maclean: I welcome my hon. Friend's support for the answer that I gave. I hope that all my hon. Friends are happy with me, having heard the warm commendation from my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). We look forward to publishing those statistics every year and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pressing me on that point.

    Deaths in Custody
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to ensure that deaths in custody from unnatural causes are significantly reduced.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am concerned about the matter, and we recently issued revised guidance to governors.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: When will the prison service change its procedures to allow the full facts of internal inquiries to be made available to the families of people who have died in prison? Are there any moves to allow that under way?
    Mr. Forsyth: I think I know which case is concerning the hon. Gentleman. His distinguished predecessor, the late Bob Cryer, raised the matter with the Prison Service. Difficulties are involved in making internal inquiry reports publicly available because of security and other considerations. In view of the hon. Gentleman's further representations, however, I will discuss the matter with the Director General of the Prison Service. I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I have done so.
    Dame Jill Knight: Are not many people in custody drug addicts who have already, by their own actions, increased their risk of death or ill health?
    Mr. Forsyth: It is certainly true that a number of prisoners have a history of drug abuse; it is also true that some prison suicides have been involved in drug abuse. It is important that we identify those who may be at risk at an early stage, when they are admitted to prison, and ensure that proper procedures are in place to prevent the recurrence of recent tragedies.

    Closed Circuit Television
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he will use to decide on the funding for closed circuit television in urban areas.
    Mr. Howard: The criteria for bids under the CCTV challenge competition which I announced recently were set out in the bidding guidance issued to all local authorities and police forces on 9 November. Priority will be given to smaller centres of population but bids from large urban areas are not excluded.
    Ms Jackson: I thank the Home Secretary for his reply. I welcome his somewhat uncharacteristic change of mind in finding Home Office funding for such schemes, but why will they run for only a year—given that they are clearly effective—and why should the obtaining of such limited funds as are available be subject to the winning of a competition?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady must not make the mistake of supposing that such schemes can be introduced only as a

    723
    result of Government funding. They are being instituted all over the country as a result of partnership between the private sector, local authorities and, where appropriate, central Government. Whether or not the hon. Lady's constituency succeeds in the challenge competition, I hope that she will encourage those concerned to do what is necessary to install closed circuit television.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I welcome the advances that have been made in the provision of closed circuit television in urban areas. Will my right hon. and learned Friend also consider making such schemes available to rural towns, where police forces are not currently readily available for deployment? Closed circuit television could have a significant impact on the reduction of crime in such areas.
    Mr. Howard: The criteria make provision for bids from rural towns, and I look forward to receiving very good bids from west Derbyshire.

    Community Sentences
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the review of community sentences.
    Mr. Howard: I shall be publishing revised national standards for the supervision of offenders in the community early next year.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his response. Is he aware that many of my constituents fear that a number of convicted criminals who receive community sentences seem to be getting away with it? Will he give an assurance that, when the new guidelines are published, community sentences will become far stiffer? Currently, they may be seen as an affront to the police who have put so much time into the cases, and also to the victims of crime.
    Mr. Howard: I believe that my hon. Friend's views are widely shared. The revised national standards ban holidays abroad and require every probation service in the country to impose tough physical work. I think that that is exactly what my hon. Friend had in mind, and I share his views.

    Policing
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to estate-based policing in urban areas.
    Mr. Maclean: The Government encourage the police service to adopt community policing strategies which involve their local communities. The partnership initiative that we launched this year is aimed at developing projects in partnership between the police and the community to prevent and tackle crime locally.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept that one of the most successful ways of policing urban areas, particularly local authority housing estates, is just that partnership between the local police and the local people? When that is successful, private security firms are not needed and can be dispensed with on all council estates. Public policing is what people want, not privatised policing in public areas.
    Mr. Maclean: That is why we are delivering public policing through the partnership initiative. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage his constituents, through neighbourhood watch and street watch, and that he will
    724
    encourage his council to do what Wandsworth is doing in helping the police to recruit more special constables and more neighbourhood constables—people with the full powers and duties of a police officer. It is working, and the hon. Gentleman should support it.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. McKelvey: In the course of his very busy day, will the Prime Minister show some concern for the plight of the disabled, the elderly and the poor in our society who suffer disproportionately because they cannot pay their fuel bills? Will he chuck the intended VAT increase into the dustbin where it belongs and replace it with an adequate cold climate allowance?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman may know, my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will be making a statement on the disalied after Question Time. On fuel and power generally, the VAT compensation package compensates not only poorer pensioners but others for VAT on fuel. The measures are worth about £2.5 billion over three years. From 1996–97 onwards, spending on benefits and pensions will have been increased permanently by £1.25 billion a year. That is an indication of the extent to which we are prepared to make and have made provision to help people on low incomes.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend understand that I For one would rather resign the party Whip than vote for a Bill with which dozens of his right hon. and hon. Friends do not agree and for which there is no popular support? Will he recognise the absolute folly of imposing a highly unpopular tax for the purpose of paying the subscription to a highly unpopular and increasingly expensive club?
    The Prime Minister: Like me, my hon. Friend ha; a large rural constituency and I suspect that there are many net gainers in his constituency as a result of our membership of the European Union. On the European Communities (Finance) Bill, as my hon. Friend knows, there was very broad support in the governing party and in other parties for the deal that I reached at Edinburgh in 1992. It has a small additional cost for the United Kingdom—£75 million next year, rising to £250 million in 1999. It preserves the United Kingdom abatement, which is very important and which has saved us £16 billion since 1984. As a result of the agreement that I reached, the Uniited Kingdom's share of the cost falls proportionately by a substantial amount and becomes far less than that of many other member states. As a result of the agreement, we shall be below Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria,

    725
    Sweden and Norway in the league table of net contributors. It is an agreement that we can legitimately commend to the House and, on its merits, it merits support.
    Mr. Blair: Now that the Cabinet has confirmed that next Monday's vote is indeed a vote of confidence, may I take it that the Prime Minister will be leading for and speaking for the Government in that debate?
    The Prime Minister: The vote of confidence relates not just to the vote on Monday but, as I said to the House some time ago, to the passage of the Bill in all its essentials. In those circumstances, the Cabinet considers it right that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should open.
    Mr. Blair: I find that extraordinary. Can the Prime Minister understand why people do not feel confident in his Government? Would the following be a fair summary of where he stands this week? The deputy chairman of his party is found to have written a memorandum which admits the total contempt that the British public has for his party. The vice-chairman of his party is forced to resign after remarks about our European partners which beggar belief in an adult politician. The chairman of the Prime Minister's Back-Bench Committee is challenged because he is too loyal to the Prime Minister. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, meanwhile, talks of suicide pacts among Ministers while getting his sums wrong on the European budget. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister's Back-Bench Members roll around the television studios in a state of anarchy. After this week, would not any objective, reasonable observer conclude that his party has become an ill-disciplined rabble incapable of governing this country?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman managed to muddle most of his facts as between deputy chairman and vice-chairman, he is certainly wrong on almost every statement that he uttered. If he really wants to know about divisions and rabbles, he might well look at the divisions in his own party, not least below the Gangway. He might well look at divisions between himself and the deputy leader of the Labour party. He might well look at the divisions in his own position on Europe. It was the right hon. Gentleman who said some years ago—[Interruption.] I know that the Opposition do not like it, but perhaps they should hear it. It was the right hon. Gentleman who said:
    "We'll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC."
    It was the right hon. Gentleman who said more recently:
    "Well, I wasn't actually opposed to membership of the European Community."
    Just a few days ago, it was the right hon. Gentleman who said:
    "Under my leadership, I will never allow this country to be isolated and left behind in Europe."
    The only thing that moves that fast is a rabbit heading for its burrow.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also agree that, apart from the comprehensive answer that he gave previously, the essential reality for Monday is that the glib repudiation of a solemn treaty, an international agreement and a modest proposal for European Union financing increases would be almost as bad as a shameful attack on our closest foreign allies, which we have heard from other quarters in the past few days?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches on an important point that was missed by the Leader of the Opposition. The Government are standing by an agreement
    726
    that we reached in 1992 with strong support in the House at the time and that we reached with our European partners. The Bill before the House implements an international agreement that was negotiated with full Cabinet backing, accepted by the Cabinet and widely endorsed by the House. It is for that reason that it is inescapably a matter of confidence that the Government should secure the passage of that legislation.
    Mr. Ashdown: Whatever the Prime Minister's protestations, does he not realise that it is the view of most people in this country that his Government and their kamikaze Cabinet have now descended into farce and civil war? If, on Monday, they were forced to go, the whole country would cheer and a start could be made on putting our nation's problems right.
    The Prime Minister: I sometimes think that the right hon. Gentleman spends all the time between Tuesday and Thursday and between Thursday and Tuesday practising his next sound bite. He certainly gives that impression week after week. I remind him that it is he and his party who claim to be strong Europeans, he and his party who time and again joined in procedural votes to try to wreck the Maastricht treaty, and he and his party who will find an excuse next Monday to vote against the Government. Their commitment to Europe is skin deep when it comes to essentials.
    Mr. Ottaway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Cairo conference on population and development in September was a landmark in dealing with world population growth in that it produced a global action plan agreed by almost every country? Does he agree, in particular, that the best way to implement such a plan would be for other countries to follow the Government's example and announce a similar huge increase in funding of 60 per cent. such as he announced in July?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a very serious international problem and I think that the international conference which took place was an extremely useful and worthwhile event. As my hon. Friend indicated, we made a substantial contribution—I think, from memory, that the commitment was around £100 million over the next two or three years—and we played a very positive part in that conference. It is a matter of importance and one to which we shall give continuing interest in the future.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Following today's astonishing revelations of a massive security breach by an employee on a short-term contract at British Telecom, will the Prime Minister be ordering an inquiry? If so, will it cover the huge increase in agency and casual labour since privatisation?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen the report in The Independent this morning to which I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring. I understand from inquiries made this morning that BT has carried out an investigation and

    727
    tells us that it is satisfied that there has been no hacking of the system, nor any evidence that confidential information referred to in the article has ever been available on Internet.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my right hon. Friend heard of the presumptuous attempt by the town of Preston to usurp the place of the city of Lancaster as the county town of Lancashire? Will he put every possible obstacle in the way of that outrageous presumption?
    The Prime Minister: I see that my hon. Friend has the cross-party support of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). As a southerner unfamiliar with this particular matter, I think that it would be unwise for me to commit myself, but, naturally, as my hon. Friend raises the matter, I shall look at it very carefully.
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hall: Is the Prime Minister aware that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), yesterday told the House that he was disgusted with the Maples proposals for inter-party warfare, yobbos and trying to trick people into positions? He said that they were completely unjustifiable and called on the Prime Minister to repudiate them immediately. Will the Prime Minister do that this afternoon—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned that any of my hon. Friends would be nasty to the right hon. Gentleman, I give him my assurance that my hon. Friends will be very gentle with him.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country's international reputation for probity is built on the proposition that contracts are honoured and commitments kept?
    The Prime Minister: I agree precisely with that proposition. It is upon that proposition that the Cabinet is determined to honour the agreement that I reached on behalf of the British Government two years ago with our European partners in Edinburgh.
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gapes: Is the Prime Minister aware of the acute financial crisis facing Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority, which is asking Redbridge health care trust to do 10 per cent. more work for about £2.5 million less next year? Will he express his clear and unambiguous commitment to do everything possible to keep King George's hospital open and stop any closure of its accident and emergency department?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly study the position that exists within that health district and ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to examine it. I do not have the facts in front of me and I do not propose to commit myself until I have looked at them.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: As the Leader of the Opposition welcomed the recovery, growth and low inflation in the economy, is there any reason why we should pay any attention whatever to the shadow Chancellor, who is intent on sabotaging those achievements?
    The Prime Minister: I would think probably no reason at all. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman does not do so—and if he does not, I see no reason why we should.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Jones: Does the Prime Minister recall that, in an answer to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), he told the House
    "No Government have ever been more open than this one and there is no suspicion of sleaze."—[Official Report, 26 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 104.]
    Is that still his view, or does he at last realise that he set the standard at the last general election when he accepted money from foreign-based business men in return for continuing tax concessions?
    Hon. Members: What about Maxwell?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friends remind me of one person who formerly funded the Labour party. The hon. Lady ought to contemplate that. Perhaps the Labour party should return the money to the Maxwell pensioners which they donated to it some time ago.

Railtrack
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of Railtrack, which has been a Government-owned company responsible for rail infrastructure since April this year.
The Government intend to privatise Railtrack within the lifetime of this Parliament. We shall do that using the powers provided by the Railways Act 1993. Although the precise details and timing will be announced later in the light of market conditions, I can confirm that Railtrack will be floated on the stock market and that everyone will have the opportunity to buy shares.
The Government believe that privatisation offers the best future for Railtrack, for passengers and freight and for train operators. It will allow greater use of private sector skills in managing the network, improving Railtrack stations, delivering efficient track maintenance and encouraging investment in the upgrading of railway lines. It will provide even greater scope for private capital to be injected into better facilities. Railtrack will be better able to deliver improvements in the service that it provides to operators and, therefore, to passengers.
Privatisation has been one of the great achievements of this Government since 1979. It has transformed former state-owned industries and brought real improvements for customers and employees alike. It has brought new management techniques and new sources of investment. It has spread ownership throughout society. Indeed, Britain's example has been copied around the world.
The Department of Transport has been at the forefront of that programme. The National Freight Company Ltd., Sealink, National Express Ltd., Associated British Ports, the British Airports Authority and British Airways are all thriving in the private sector. This announcement paves the way for the creation of another important private company.
The privatisation of Railtrack will be the most significant single step in the process of transferring the ownership and operation of Britain's railways to the private sector. The Government have set the target of franchising a majority of train services by April 1996. That target remains. The Franchising Director will shortly start the pre-qualification process for the first franchises. The Government will be selling the rolling stock leasing companies next year. Privatisation of British Rail's infrastructure services units, British Rail Maintenance Ltd. and other businesses is already in progress and the transfer of British Rail's domestic freight services to the private sector should be completed by the end of 1995.
Privatisation will enable Railtrack to provide a better service, bringing substantial benefits to train operators, passengers and other rail users, and to investors. My announcement demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to privatisation. It demonstrates our continuing commitment to railway privatisation. It demonstrates our continuing commitment to improving rail services. Above all, it demonstrates our continuing commitment to passengers and to our national economy.
Mr. Michael Meacher: In answer to the statement, I make it clear, without equivocation, that Labour remains wholly committed to a publicly owned
730
rail system because that is what best serves the travelling public, industry and commerce, and the nation at large. This privatisation, if it were to go ahead—and that is a very big "if'—has nothing to do with the dictates of transport policy. It is driven entirely by the Government's desperate desire to make a quick financial killing to finance Tory tax cuts in time for the next election. This is a classic example of the Maples memorandum in action, giving priority to getting a Tory Government re-elected, however much it damages the interests of the nation at large.
Does the Secretary of State for Transport recall that the Minister for Public Transport told the Standing Committee in February last year:
"Railtrack, at least for the foreseeable future, will be in the public sector"?—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 25 February 1993; c. 445.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that until only a few months ago, Tory Ministers constantly repeated that Railtrack was to stay in the public sector while the passenger franchises and freight companies were sold off?
Is not it clear that this privatisation is now being hurriedly brought forward because there is little or no investor interest in the franchises, for the very good reasons that the train operators' profitability will always depend on political decisions about the level of subsidy and that their major fixed costs—rail access charges—will remain outside their control? As much the same objections apply to privatising Railtrack, 90 per cent. of whose income will come from train operators, is not it now also clear that the right hon. Gentleman will be obliged, if he proceeds, to sell it off at any price that removes the risk for investors while still leaving the taxpayer to pick up the bill for that risk?
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his leaked letter to the Prime Minister of 15 November that the privatisation of Railtrack was now
"integral to the Budget arithmetic."
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Railtrack assets had been valued at about £6.5 billion and that a sale at any lesser price would be ripping off a unique national asset simply because of the Government's manic desire to fund tax cuts at any cost before the next election?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that while the Tory party is looking to its interests in the matter, the country and the travelling public will pay in the future? Does he acknowledge that Railtrack's pushing up rail access charges is bound to be passed on in higher passenger fares? Does he recognise that there will be nothing to stop a privatised Railtrack engaging in an orgy of asset-stripping of real estate? Does he accept that a privatised Railtrack undermines the whole regulatory and safety framework of the railways? Does he admit that the mass of leases and contracts that will be required will generate a further mountain of bureaucracy?
This privatisation, if it were to happen, would be deeply damaging to the long-term interests of the nation and the travelling public. We shall fight tooth and nail to stop it happening.
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in just about everything that he says, but that does not come as a surprise to Conservative Members. To try to suggest that this privatisation has only just occurred to the Government is to ignore the hours and hours that right

731
hon. and hon. Members spent in the House on the Railways Bill, which culminated in the Railways Act 1993, during which it was made clear repeatedly that we would move British Rail into the private sector. That is what we shall do today.
The hon. Gentleman quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), the then Minister for Public Transport. Let me add two other quotations to those cited by the hon. Gentleman, which he—selectively—forgot to mention. The first is by my noble Friend Lord Caithness, the then Minister of State, who said on 15 July 1993:
"We have made it clear that Railtrack's existence as a Government-owned company will last only until it is feasible to transfer it to the private sector."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 1993; Vol. 548, c. 354.]
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering said in Committee on 16 March 1993:
"Railtrack will initially be in the public sector, supported by the Government … through revenue charges. We hope that ultimately the infrastructure itself can be transferred to the private sector, but I cannot forecast when that will be."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 March 1994; c. 783.]
I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that today I can forecast when that will be. It will be during the lifetime of this Parliament. I recognise from the hon. Gentleman's quotation in today's edition of The Times that he understands that this will be a popular move with the public. What he needs to understand is that the Government have a commitment to the taxpayer and to the investor and they will make judgments in terms of selling in the light of market conditions at the time. I shall not be drawn beyond that.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about access charges, he clearly does not understand the system. He needs to understand that access charges will be negotiated between Railtrack and those who are operating on the rails and that those charges must be covered by the regulator. He has forgotten to mention that point. As for safety, perhaps he will be encouraged to know that the Health and Safety Commission is fully satisfied with the proposals before the House.
Finally, I must say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that I hope that they will notice where the hon. Gentleman started. He started by saying that Labour Members were still in favour of the railways being in the public sector. He made no commitment to reverse the privatisation process and the country at large will have taken notice of that omission.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The statement is a welcome step, which follows yesterday's presentation of a Bill to secure one of the most widespread, expensive rail investments—the channel tunnel high-speed link, which will do a great deal to add to the prosperity of the railways, not only to London but up the east coast, where it will knock an hour off the journey. We are told that the assets are £6,000 million. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to achieve higher capital spending, more use of the railways, lower current subsidies and a more competitive option compared with the roads and that we do not need the Opposition's idea of quangos, which would have half of British industry under the appointments that they as politicians would wish to make?
Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is very knowledgeable about those matters, so it is
732
entirely understandable that he should be right. He draws attention to the importance of Railtrack being able to have access to greater and freer investment, and that is important. However, he also draws attention to the very important improvements in efficiency, which will come from the proposals and from Railtrack being in the private sector. That has been demonstrable in all the other privatisations and it has been to the benefit of the consumer.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Secretary of State be more forthcoming about the amount that the sale of Railtrack is expected to produce? Is not it true that a large number of book assets such as the Severn tunnel, the Forth bridge, the Tamar bridge and viaducts in more remote parts of the country are liabilities in the longer term, so the net proceeds of this exercise, after the costs of privatisation, could be as little as £1.5 billion, which is only a one penny yearly reduction in income tax? Is it worth going through this performance for that result?
Can the Secretary of State give us a cast-iron guarantee that this whole disruptive exercise will retain a national rail network to every part of the United Kingdom, however remote and peripheral?
Dr. Mawhinney: We are seeking to move the railway industry to the private sector for the benefit of the consumer. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that. He and his hon. Friends took exactly the same line on every single privatisation brought before the House in the past 15 years. They tried exactly the same arguments, scare stories and smears, aided and abetted by the Labour party. They were proved wrong in every single case, and they will be wrong in this one as well.
As for the assets and their value, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I will not answer that question, and he knows why I am not in a position to answer it. This is a commercial transaction that will be undertaken in the light of market conditions when the time is right, for the benefit of taxpayers and investors.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. After those original exchanges, I want brisk questions and brisk answers. There are two more statements today and there is a good deal of business to go through. I am asking for short questions and quick responses.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I urge my right hon. Friend to take with a very large pinch of salt the semi-pledge of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to renationalise British Rail, because we have seen that sort of pledge time and again. When Railtrack is privatised, we shall see what vigorous management and private capital can do to an industry, as has happened with British Airways, British Telecom and a string of other utilities and companies.
Madam Speaker: That was not a question. I have just reminded the House that I want to hear questions. That was a statement and I do not want statements from Back Benchers. I want questions. Very quickly, please, Minister.
Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we both read Hansard tomorrow, I think that he

733
will find that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made absolutely no pledge to renationalise British Rail.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: I speak for consumers when I ask the Minister to cast his mind back to the beginning of the year when Railtrack announced its track access charges. The train operators were astonished that the charges were twice as high as they were under British Rail. Will the Minister tell the House how a private monopoly will provide a better deal for the travelling public than a public service railway?
Dr. Mawhinney: As has happened in every single privatisation, which the hon. Gentleman refused to support and now recognises has been a success, the private sector will bring efficiency gains and market and management skills to the negotiations on access charges, which, as I have already reminded the House, will be subject to approval by the regulator.
Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, historically, most companies that have been privatised have invested considerably more in infrastructure and in their industries post-privatisation, and that that should lead to an expansion of the railway system? In the meantime, can he assure the House that Railtrack will not be denied much-needed investment while it is in the public sector?
Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the investment record of companies that have moved from the public sector to the private sector. That is partly the reason why the level, quality and sensitivity of services to consumers have improved in those businesses, and will improve in this industry as well.
Dr. John Marek: Is not it true that, if the Railtrack privatisation goes ahead, charges for passengers will go through the roof, and that the Minister is seeking privatisation because he wants to gratify some of his sleazy friends in the City by allowing them to develop more much-needed car parks and city centre projects? I agree with the Minister: our Front Bench has not said that the railways should be renationalised. But when the truth comes out, does the Minister accept that our Front Bench will then say that we have to bring Railtrack back into the public sector?
Dr. Mawhinney: We shall see. I do not intend to become involved in the private grief of the Labour party, nor will I get into the gutter of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He asked about fares. The Railways Act 1993 gives the Franchising Director the specific duty of ensuring that fares charged by franchisees are reasonable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be encouraged by that.
Mr. David Atkinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. In the light of it, what are the prospects for stations such as Bournemouth Central in my constituency, which has long been covered in scaffolding and needs multi-million pound restoration
734
work that has not been forthcoming under British Rail? Can my constituents look forward to an early restoration of that station as a result of the statement?
Dr. Mawhinney: Clearly, I am not in a position to anticipate Railtrack's decisions. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of Railtrack, but I know that he will agree that prospects are improved by my statement.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Given that Railtrack currently operates on an 8 per cent. return on investment, will the Minister assure the House that, post-privatisation, that will prevail as access charges will still need taxpayers' subsidy? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said, any such profit should be ploughed back into the rail industry and not into the pockets of the Government's friends in the City.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am announcing the start of a process that will culminate in a prospectus followed by flotation on the stock market. The hon. Lady will have to wait for the prospectus.
Mr. Richard Alexander: As, predictably, the Opposition are making heavy weather of what is basically an attempt to improve efficiency and the delivery of service in the railway system, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that what he has announced has nothing to do with possible future tax cuts?
Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is on a good point. We are today carrying forward the consequences of the legislation passed by the House, which made it clear that the Government's view was that British Rail in all its aspects would offer a better service to customers if it was in the private sector than it has offered over the past 40 to 50 years. I pay tribute to the staff and management of British Rail, who over recent years and within the constraints of the system have sought to provide a better service.
My hon. Friend will have noticed that Labour Members are huffing and puffing, but that they have no policy. They will not commit themselves to the maintenance of the nationalised industry, to putting more money into the system or to a privatised industry. They will not commit themselves to anything, and the country will notice that.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Who will have control of the British Transport police following privatisation?
Dr. Mawhinney: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that there will be no change as a result of my statement.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that stations will be cleaner, that public address systems will be used more to inform passengers of difficulties, and that in every way passengers will have a better service? Does he see the inconsistency of at least some people in the Labour party, who are against clause 4 but who want to keep Railtrack in public ownership?
Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is on a good point and has given some illustrations of the benefits that are likely to accrue to customers and passengers as a

735
consequence of the freedom, the extra management skills and the extra investment that are likely to flow from the movement of Railtrack into the private sector.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Now that the Secretary of State has taken this mammoth decision to proceed, can he give me and my constituents in west Cumberland an absolute assurance that the line from Carlisle through west Cumbria to Barrow-in-Furness will survive under privatisation? May we have that assurance because my constituents will be watching us on television this evening?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are so interested in our proceedings. I have made it clear to the Franchising Director that I expect him to present minimum service specifications on broadly the present timetable.
Mr. Stephen Day: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance about the scheme that is currently being brought together on the west coast main line for important works south of Crewe? Is he sure that that line, which is important to my constituents and to the whole of the north-west, will not in any way be hindered by the legislation, but that its chances of getting finance from the private sector may be improved?
Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right to point to the important part that the west coast main line plays within the Railtrack infrastructure. He will know that Railtrack is in the process of reviewing the steps that need to be taken to upgrade the line, and we are looking for private sector partners to be involved in that. None of the process will be damaged; it may be enhanced, but it certainly will not be damaged by what I have said today.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Secretary of State assure us that Railtrack will be sold off as a single unit, and if not, on what criteria will he supervise its disintegration, particularly in respect of signalling, the cost of expensive bridges and tunnels and their replacement and maintenance, and the prevention of small parcels of land in cities for terminal stations and other yards being sold off to speculators? What criteria will he have in all those matters?
Dr. Mawhinney: For the purpose of brevity, let me remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said in my statement. I said:
"I can confirm that Railtrack will be floated on the stock market and everyone will have the opportunity to buy shares."
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I warmly welcome the legislation. Will my right hon. Friend say, so that I can confirm it to my constituents in Kidderminster—particularly those who use the Kidderminster to Birmingham line—that, as a result of the legislation, as was the case with the privatisation of
736
telecommunications, there will be more investment in their rail lines, more choice and better pricing and that they will get a far better service overall?
Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend has explained precisely and accurately the benefits that we expect to flow from the announcement that I have just made.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister guarantee that, unlike other privatisations, no Tory Minister on leaving the Government will be allowed to serve on the privatised board?
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman knows better than most the guidance that covers the behaviour of Ministers and ex-Ministers.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that many people in British manufacturing industry believe that the only process that his Department has been in the forefront of is the destruction of our engineering base? Is he further aware that if there are no orders for rolling stock, within months Britain will have no rolling stock manufacturing capacity, in just the same way as his Department destroyed the bus and coach industry in Britain?
Dr. Mawhinney: What nonsense. It is true, however, that British Rail is conducting a review of rolling stock. I understand the pressures to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. I know that there is a degree of urgency surrounding the issues and I do not dismiss them lightly, but he knows as well as I do that it is not for me to make those judgments, although I note with care the concern that he expressed.
Mr. Thomas Graham: After the deregulation of the buses, many parts of Britain were completely isolated and no longer had a bus service. A number of communities rely totally on Railtrack services. Will the Minister give us an assurance that those who have been isolated because of Government deregulation of the buses will have a lifeline to the main centres of their communities?
Dr. Mawhinney: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that those communities have not been isolated because of Government policy, but as a consequence of a number of decisions taken in each locality. I repeat the comment that I made earlier to the House, that the Franchising Director knows that I expect him to bring forward minimum service specifications for the franchises broadly in line with the present timetable.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Given the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for a proper public transport system and his enthusiasm for this measure, can he tell me how it will improve public transport in Greater Manchester before the next general election?
Dr. Mawhinney: The public transport infrastructure in Greater Manchester has already been improved in the past few years, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. I shall not anticipate any statements that may be made from the Dispatch Box over the next two years, but I am quite clear that the people of Manchester will benefit, as will the rest of the country, from increased investment, increased

737
management skills and increased sensitivity to what the customer wants, which are represented by today's statement.
Mr. Tony Banks: Can the Secretary of State explain how more consumer choice will result from converting a public monopoly into a private monopoly? As he is so proud of the number of privatisations that have been carried out by his Department, when does it intend to reduce the number of Ministers in the Department, given that they have fewer responsibilities?
Dr. Mawhinney: If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention on 20 July, he would have noticed that the number of Ministers in the Department fell from five to four. I take that as a compliment and, with my colleagues, I shall seek to live up to the work rate that the five previously did.
As for the broader point that the hon. Gentleman makes, he needs to understand that the movement of Railtrack is but one part, although a significant part, of the movement of British Rail into the private sector. I am absolutely clear in my mind that when the railways are subject to the market, to competition and to the efficiency gains that will flow from the management and the investment that will be brought to bear in the private sector, the same result will accrue as has previously accrued with other transport industries. The result will be that passengers, those who wish to move freight and other train operators will see benefit for their customers.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I point out to the Minister that rail safety looms large in the minds of my constituents following the tragic deaths of two young men in a rail accident caused by a mindless act of vandalism? Will he retract what he said about the Health and Safety Executive giving the privatisation a clean bill of health? Did not the HSE point to 28 areas of public and safety concern, which may well be exacerbated by this appalling decision?
Dr. Mawhinney: I understand the particular concern that the hon. Gentleman has for safety in the light of the experience to which he has just referred. I assure him, as I have done on other transport matters in the four months during which I have had this responsibility, that I yield to no one in my commitment to ensure that every aspect of transport in Britain is as safe as possible. The Health and Safety Commission has examined in detail every aspect of safety in relation to the new railway and is fully satisfied with the arrangements.
Mr. John Gunnell: The Minister is aware of the difficulties that many of the privatised companies that were formerly British Rail Engineering Ltd. are in as a result of the shortfall in rolling stock orders due directly to privatisation. Is not it necessary for him to give some idea in the prospectus of the Government's plans for rail in the next 10 years? Surely the likely profits for investors will depend directly on Government policy.
Dr. Mawhinney: The decisions about investment in rolling stock are for those who have the responsibility of managing the system. As for giving an idea of the prospects for the railway industry in the next 10 years, I
738
should have thought that that was precisely what I was doing today. I have done it precisely because I have confidence that the decisions that we have just announced are likely to lead to an improvement in the service; in the quality of the service and—it is my personal belief—also in the extent of the service.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is it logical to privatise Railtrack because it is impossible for the Government to privatise the Post Office?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about Railtrack today and that it is perfectly possible to do that, having announced that we intended to do it. The actions that will ensue will be the best possible answer to his question.
Mr. Peter Hain: Has not the Secretary of State in his statement today turned the whole of the Government's privatisation case on its head by putting the sale of Railtrack before the franchising of rolling stock? Does not that confirm that this is a panic statement, created by the gap in the Government's finances following their humiliating backdown over Post Office privatisation?
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I said that Railtrack would be moving into the private sector by way of a stock market flotation during the lifetime of this Parliament. I also said:
"The Government have set the target of franchising a majority of train services by April 1996.… The Government will be selling the rolling stock leasing companies next year. Privatisation of British Rail's infrastructure services units"—
Mr. Hain: We know all that.
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman does not know it. He clearly was not listening because he asked the question that he did. We shall see. The hon. Gentleman and I will judge the actions, not his rhetoric. But let me finish. Privatisation of British Rail Maintenance Ltd. and other businesses is already in progress and the transfer of British Rail's domestic freight services should be completed by the end of 1995. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that that is part of a package approach, and all of it stems from the legislation to which, no doubt, he objected, although he has nothing to put in its place.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State has just said that after privatisation the ownership of the British Transport police would remain unchanged. As the ownership of the police is currently vested in Railtrack, does that mean that the BTP will be privatised? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any particular contributor to Tory party funds in mind?
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman knows the status of the independent transport police, answerable to Her Majesty's inspector, and I have no change to announce.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State now give a straight answer to the question that he has been dodging with some pre-arranged gobbledegook? If the privatisation goes ahead, precisely how will he guarantee the continuation of the whole rail network, including lines that are important to Scottish tourism, such as the highland line, and vital links to Northern Ireland, such

739
as the Stranraer line? How can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that such lines will continue if his privatisation goes ahead?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to say yet again that the Franchising Director has responsibility to produce minimum service specifications. He is instructed by me to do so broadly on the present timetable, and that is the sort of assurance that any honourable and reasonable Member of the House would be happy to accept.

Disabled People (Discrimination)
4.6 pm
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people.
Earlier this year, the Government published a wide range of proposals in a consultation document. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), not only for his work on the proposals, but for his tireless efforts over seven years as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. We have received a large number of responses to the consultation document and I am grateful to all those who have commented.
As promised, we considered the responses carefully. The result is a package that goes substantially wider and deeper than the proposals that we put forward in the summer. As we develop the detail of our proposals in the coming months, I want to continue to work closely with disabled people and others so that the result is a package that meets the wishes of disabled people, and the legitimate interests of businesses.
Over the past 15 years, the Government have taken a series of measures to help disabled people live with dignity and independence. We have trebled the amount spent on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and introduced new benefits, such as the disability working allowance; the recent reform of community care has given local authorities additional resources of £1.25 billion in 1994–95; the new access to work programme enables more disabled people to take up employment; the introduction of part M of the building regulations will ensure access for disabled people to public buildings; the new Education Act 1993 improves schools' provision in meeting special educational needs; and there has been action to build on widespread achievements in the field of transport.
Those initiatives, combined with the efforts of local government, the voluntary sector, the private sector and disabled people themselves, have led to major advances in the opportunities open to disabled people and the attitude towards them of the rest of the community.
A process of change has been taking place. It must continue. An aging population will bring an increasing number of people with some form of disability. It is wrong and it is wasteful for many of them to be restricted or excluded from many aspects of life. One way or another, our society must meet the aspirations of disabled people by ensuring that they are included on an equal basis in our work, travel, study and leisure.
Our objective is clear: to eliminate discrimination against disabled people so that they can take a full part in society. But changes cannot happen overnight, as disabled people themselves recognise. It is vital that the action that we take has a realistic timetable, is practical and takes account of the impact on service providers.
I am therefore announcing today a series of measures and legislative proposals that have been conceived in conjunction with my colleagues in the Departments of Health, Transport, Education and Employment, and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, and my right hon. and learned Friend the

741
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Taken together, they will represent the greatest advance for disabled people in the history of this country.
We shall shortly publish a Bill that will deal with employment, rights of access and the establishment of a national disability council. Similar legislation is proposed for Northern Ireland. We shall also take new action on education and transport.
Greater employment opportunities are at the heart of enabling disabled people to be fully active and independent members of society. Some employers have done much in recent years to improve matters, but there is evidence that discrimination persists. It is clear that the current quota system is unworkable and fails to meet the needs of disabled people. We therefore propose to repeal it.
We propose to introduce a statutory right of non-discrimination against disabled people. It will be unlawful for an employer to treat a disabled person less favourably than he would treat others, unless there are justifiable reasons. In combination with that, employers will be required to make a reasonable adjustment where that would help overcome the practical effects of disability.
The new access to work scheme can provide a wide range of practical help to disabled people and to their employers of up to £21,000 over five years. The new employment right will be a major step forward in improving the employment prospects of disabled people. Disabled people who suffer discrimination will be able to complain to industrial tribunals, where the remedies available will be the same as those under other discrimination legislation.
There will be a power to make regulations to ensure that adjustments do not involve excessive costs. The duties will apply to employers with 20 or more employees. Employers will continue to be able to recruit the best person for the job.
A code of practice and guidance will be produced to promote clear understanding and reduce the likelihood of disputes arising. Should recourse to an industrial tribunal be necessary, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service would be able to offer the services of its conciliation officers.
The Government's consultation document was aimed at ensuring that service providers did not deny access to disabled people because of prejudice or ignorance. In the light of responses to the consultation document, the Government believe that that proposal does not go far enough. Where practical, we also need to remove physical and communication barriers that prevent the access to goods and services that most of us are lucky enough to take for granted.
The new right of access will require service providers to make their premises and services accessible to disabled people as long as that is "readily achievable". It is vital that the new right is framed in such a way as to lead to genuine and lasting progress. We shall therefore give businesses the option of providing their services by alternative means, and will require modifications only to the extent that they are readily achievable and subject to a financial limit. We shall also ensure that there is a proper phasing-in period.
742
We shall consult on the length of the phasing-in period, the financial limit and the possibility of other exemptions from the right—for example, older or listed buildings. We shall arrange to provide advice and conciliation with respect to the new right, and we are considering measures to ensure that where legal action does take place, redress can be obtained without undue difficulty or expense.
Those provisions will ensure that every business and service provider takes action to meet the needs of disabled people. They will leave no one in any doubt that the fair treatment of disabled people is a responsibility placed on us all.
In addition, within the next few weeks my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be issuing his own consultation document on making new domestic properties more accessible. The consultation document made clear the Government's intention to exclude financial services from any right of equal access, but as a result of responses received, I propose to include financial services in the new statutory right. We shall look closely, in consultation with the insurance industry, at how legislation could be best framed to prevent discrimination while recognising the legitimate need for insurance companies to distinguish between any customers on the basis of likely costs entailed in meeting their insurance claims.
All those new rights will apply to all persons with a physical or mental impairment that is long term or recurring. The impairment would have to have a substantial effect on the person's ability to carry out normal activities.
The Bill will also establish a national disability council—an independent body to advise the Government on how existing and new measures to help disabled people are working, and to recommend further measures where necessary. It will be a powerful new voice for disabled people in the decision-making process. It will present an annual report on its activities and findings, so that we can continue to make progress, and that report will be laid before Parliament.
The consultation document was limited to the employment right, the right of access and the establishment of the national disability council. But we now propose to go further—by bringing forward proposals on education and transport.
The more that disabled children can be educated with their able-bodied peers, the less we shall see adults avoiding, ignoring or feeling embarrassed by disabled people. We must ensure that that new approach is not frustrated by the physical inaccessibility of mainstream schools.
The Education Act 1993 was a major advance in meeting special educational needs. It re-enacts the requirement for local education authorities to find a suitable place for every child with a disability and enhances parents' rights of school preference and appeals against decisions. Next year, the Department for Education will conduct an audit of accessibility of all schools. Once its results are available, local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools will have an up-to-date picture of facilities, helping to inform their work on the supply of suitable places.
Linking with that programme of improvement, we want to take new steps to encourage schools to make themselves more accessible to pupils with disabilities. We

743
shall bring forward proposals under which funds will be made available to providers of education to carry out imaginative and cost-effective projects aimed at improving accessibility. We envisage that the new scheme will encourage voluntary involvement by the local community. We shall consult on the details of the scheme.
In addition, the Department for Education will shortly consult on the revision of its constructional standards to bring them into line with those set out in the current building regulations. That means that all new schools and extensions would be fully accessible to disabled people.
Scotland has its own extensive provisions in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 for pupils with special educational needs. The Scottish Office will consider further ways of encouraging authorities and schools to improve access for pupils with disabilities through the normal capital allocation arrangements. In Scotland, schools are already subject to the relevant requirements of the building regulations.
All those measures will consolidate the improvements for children with special educational needs set out in the 1993 Act. They represent the Government's firm commitment to ensuring that every child with a disability gets full education opportunities and to steadily improving access in schools.
Transport is another crucial area for disabled people. The new right of access will cover transport infrastructure, for example, railway stations and bus terminals, but will not apply to transport vehicles. The sensible way to improve accessibility must be to do it when new vehicles are purchased. Huge progress has already been made in that way, for example, by improving the accessibility of inter-city services, airports and London taxis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is anxious to ensure that progress continues. In addition, he will strengthen the guidance issued to local authorities in preparing their annual transport policies and programmes to give greater weight to the needs of people with disabilities.
It is vital that we take further steps towards making fully accessible the most commonly used form of public transport—the bus. The Government intend to ensure that all new buses will be of low-floor construction, as far as technically feasible. The effect will be that, over an agreed time frame, an increasing proportion of buses will be fully accessible to wheelchair users as well as more readily accessible to all other passengers with mobility problems. We shall, of course, need to take full account of European legislation. A draft directive on bus construction is already under discussion and we shall make our case vigorously.
The objective of our package is to give disabled people more power over their own lives. So I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will announce today that we intend to take a new power for social services authorities and, in Scotland, social work departments, to make cash payments to disabled people who request them in lieu of community care services. I believe that that new departure will be widely welcomed. It will enable disabled people to control far more actively how and by whom the care that they need is delivered.
Further details of all our proposals will be included in a detailed policy statement to be published, in addition to a Bill, in the near future.
744
In presenting this package, the Government are building on an already impressive record of helping disabled people. The steps that I have announced today will involve millions of people in taking positive action to tackle the frustration that disabled people encounter in attempting to do the things that many of us take for granted.
We are guided by one overriding belief: that it is the duty of society as a whole to enable disabled people to play a full part in national life, and to help them and us to make the best use of their talents. Recognition of that makes good sense for disabled people, good sense for our economy and good sense for the nation.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank the Minister for his statement, long awaited as it was. After such a road-to-Damascus conversion, was not it ungenerous of the Prime Minister on Wednesday last week, and the Secretary of State for Social Security on Tuesday, to say not a word about the hugely important role played first by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and most recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry)?
Will the Minister take this opportunity to thank the many individuals, groups and organisations that took part in the consultation? Given the distance moved by the Government since the shameful episode during the previous Session, which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) will no doubt recall, does the Minister agree that those who took part in the public campaign can rightly be proud of all their achievements?
So, where is the Bill and what does it contain? The Minister has just confirmed that it will be published in the not too distant future, and that it will tackle the gross unfairness of the discrimination endured by disabled people in Britain today; indeed, he keeps reminding us that it will be the greatest-ever piece of legislation of its kind. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) views the Minister's position with some envy: his own private views were probably much more progressive than any that we shall hear from the Government today or later.
I do not know about the Minister, but I have seen the sort of Bill that I believe the House and the country want; indeed, I have it in my hand. It is entitled the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Hon. Members may remember it. I am willing to hand it over: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe would not mind. I hope that the Minister intends something along those lines. Every clause of that Bill was supported by a majority of right hon. and hon. Members; it had wide cross-party support. Comprehensive civil rights for all members of society represent the only solution. That is the only legislation that disabled people will want.
Does the Minister appreciate that the House is entitled to be cynical, given that the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986—with which I had something to do—has not yet been fully implemented? At least Lady Thatcher went some way towards that by implementing half the Bill. The present Prime Minister, himself a former Minister for the disabled, has not so much as lifted a finger to introduce one line of that 1986 Act.

745
Can we trust the Government to deliver now, regardless of the fine words that we have just heard? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I think that the nation will require something much more credible than the response that I have just received. They may wonder whether the Government will even be in office after Monday, let alone give positive replies today.
What is not good enough, and is not wanted, is a half-hearted approach—recognising the problems, sympathising with those who are discriminated against, but lacking the vision to do anything about it. What we are asking for—and we know that we have the support of organisations of and for disabled people—is a comprehensive civil rights Bill, enforceable with legal remedies. Will the Minister tell us today whether he agrees with that objective?
The Minister mentioned employment. Does he agree that disabled people need the full protection that can be provided only by a commission with enforceable legal powers to investigate cases of discrimination? Does the Minister appreciate that we will not support the scrapping of the quota system against the wishes of disabled people unless there are adequate safeguards in place such as legal aid on this and other matters, so that disabled people can pursue their rights through the courts? Can the Minister give us the Government's view on access to the courts? Can he expand on what he said about education, transport and health? Those are vital issues to people with disabilities and their carers.
Since the Government are now, belatedly, addressing themselves to community care, does the Minister accept that the chaos that Sir Roy Griffiths identified is now all the greater? Can he tell us how the Government are planning to respond to that growing problem, which is rooted in poverty and in the absence of resources?
Does the Minister accept that there must be a commission—not a well-intentioned talking shop with no legal powers of enforcement—to endorse the rights of people with disabilities? Disabled people deserve nothing less than a full disabled rights commission with the same powers as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. Anything less would merely sustain the present second-class treatment. Does he agree that such a commission is crucial if legislation is not to be ignored in the same way as the 1986 Act was ignored, although it was so crucial to advocacy, representation and consultation? Does he further agree that that is necessary in any reasonable approach to community care?
A climbdown on this and a U-turn on that is no way to forge progressive and substantive policy in this area. Surely the Minister appreciates that, above all, disabled people can desire only to have the statutory right to be treated as full members of the community and to be given the opportunity to participate in and, most importantly, to contribute to national life. Therefore, does he agree that only comprehensive civil rights legislation can achieve that aim? Is he encouraged by the simple fact, which was shown in Scope's excellent report—the Minister was at its presentation the other day—that the objectives are shared fully by an overwhelming majority in the House?
Mr. Hague: I accept the hon. Gentleman's words of welcome, where there were words of welcome, for what
746
we have done. When the Opposition begin by trying to share out the credit and talk about the distance that the Government have moved, we know that there is not a lot to criticise in what the Government have announced. The hon. Gentleman then went on as if the statement had not been delivered. He called for anti-discrimination legislation on a wide scale. This is anti-discrimination legislation. What I have announced is the Government's intention to produce anti-discrimination legislation, which will range across employment in all sectors of our economy and which will bring rights of access to goods and services in most areas of our national life, with the one or two exceptions that I have outlined.
This is comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, because in the areas that are missed out we are taking alternative action, often through legislation or other regulations as in education and transport. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would deliver. Yes, we certainly shall. There will be a Bill within the next few weeks, as well as a further detailed, written policy statement that will clarify any remaining issues.
I was concerned about the one point in our proposals that the hon. Gentleman found to criticise; it arose when he called for the establishment of a commission. Of course, the Government want legislation to be observed and redress to be easily available. We intend to achieve that without creating an expensive bureaucracy. That is why we intend to have conciliation services and readily available means of redress without setting up another bureaucracy to preside over the whole operation.
The hon. Gentleman talked about community care and the resources that are devoted to it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has presided over a vast increase in resources devoted to community care, which puts local authorities in a good position to introduce the provisions on direct payment that I outlined. He ended his remarks by quoting the Scope report, in which, I must remind him, 75 per cent. of Members of Parliament said that they backed an approach that combined education, persuasion and legislation. That is the Government's approach.
Sir John Hannam: Does my hon. Friend accept our ungrudging congratulations on introducing a set of measures that are far wider than the original proposals published earlier this year in the consultation document? Will he reassure disabled people that the Government will ensure that the legislation will reach the statute book and become law during this parliamentary Session?
Mr. Hague: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's words of welcome. I assure him and disabled people throughout the country that the Government intend to produce a Bill shortly and to take it through to the statute book.
Ms Liz Lynne: I welcome a number of points in the statement, particularly the assurance that the Secretary of State for Health will bring in direct payments for disabled people so that they can purchase their own care. Is the Minister seriously suggesting, however, that he will receive wholehearted support from disabled people across the country, because the Bill does not outlaw discrimination in all its aspects? In particular, the body that will be set up to monitor the new legislation will be toothless. It will not have the same teeth as the

747
Commission for Racial Equality. Will the Minister guarantee that the transport and education Bills that will be introduced will contain guaranteed rights of access? Will he give an assurance that the statement is not a cynical attempt to prevent true legislation on civil rights for disabled persons being introduced in a private Member's Bill?
Mr. Hague: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her words of welcome. The package of measures deserves the wholehearted support of disabled people throughout the country as well as of the House, because it tackles discrimination problems across the board with a mixture of legislation and other measures. I believe that those measures should have an extremely wide welcome.
Again, on the point about a commission, the Government believe that it should be possible to enforce legislation without setting up an expensive bureaucracy to police it. In the coming years, however, we shall want to ensure that that legislation is properly enforced and that people have an adequate means of redress. I take the hon. Lady's words of welcome. More specific details about right of access will be available in our detailed policy document. As I explained in my statement, the right of access that we propose will be just that, provided the physical alterations required are readily achievable and do not create undue hardship to bring them about.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. As with the earlier statement, I make a plea for hon. Members to ask one brisk question and for answers to be equally brisk.
Mrs. Marion Roe: May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his statement? Will he confirm that the proposals that he has announced go considerably further than those contained in the Government's consultation document, especially those on transport and education and the statutory right against discrimination in the workplace?
Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These proposals go significantly further than anything that we have had before. In putting together the proposals, we responded to many of the responses to our consultation document. We listened carefully to everyone with an interest in the needs of disabled people and that led us to announce this package today.
Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for recalling the origins of this change of Government policy in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill that I drafted three years ago. Is the Minister aware that if he is right in claiming that this is the biggest ever advance for disabled people, it could have been made in 1991 when I first promoted that Bill? Is he further aware that disabled people and their organisations have today already condemned the scrapping of the employment 3 per cent. quota and that they will resist any proposals that offer them less than the provisions of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? He must have made an estimate of the cost of his proposals—what is it?
Mr. Hague: When the Bill is published, we shall of course publish with it a compliance cost assessment setting out the estimated costs of the provisions. However, many matters that will affect the cost are open to further
748
consultation, especially things to which I have already referred such as the financial limit on the cost of physical alterations to premises and the length of time over which the proposals will be phased in. There will, therefore, be quite a range of possible costings and they will be published with the Bill as soon as it is available.
Mr. Nicholas Scott: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on this package of measures, especially those involving education and employment, which will ensure a much greater part in our national life for disabled people. Will he ensure that when he comes to set up the disability council and to decide the pattern of cash payments, which is an immensely important step in the right direction, he will involve the organisations of and for disabled people, because even those who may have been critical of the Government in recent years have a great deal to contribute to his plans in the future?
Mr. Hague: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. I certainly propose to involve organisations of and for disabled people in consultation on every aspect of the proposals that I have listed where further consultation is necessary. Those organisations have played an important part in shaping the Government's thinking and I hope that they will continue to do so.
Mr. Roger Berry: I note the significant change in the Government's position since they blocked the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and I cannot wait to read the compliance cost assessment. Does the Minister recognise that his proposals are still significantly different from those made by disabled people themselves? Why is it that we have an Equal Opportunities Commission and a Commission for Racial Equality to deal with discrimination on grounds of gender and race and that those organisations have investigative and enforcement powers that the Government are not prepared to provide for disabled people? Why should not disabled people receive the same treatment as women and black people in respect of discrimination?
Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman could have managed a bit more of a welcome for many of the things for which he has campaigned for a long time. On his specific question, I have already said that we want legislation to be observed and redress to be easily available, and we believe that that can be achieved without an expensive bureaucracy. Legislation in this sphere is far more complex than it was in matters of sex and race. Many people and businesses will be involved in positive action and expenditure in a way that they are not when dealing with discrimination on the grounds of sex and race. It is a complex comparison; we cannot simply draw an analogy between those issues. We believe that we can make the proposals work as I have outlined, and we are determined that they shall work.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend most warmly on producing a real landmark, which goes much further than many people thought possible in providing real opportunities for the disabled. Does he agree that, by scrapping the old quota system, he will encourage much more enlightened

749
employment practices and more job opportunities? Will he do all in his power to ensure that the public sector plays its full part?
Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. The public sector already has a better record of employing disabled people than the private sector, and the civil service is adopting a programme of action to bolster that record further. He is right about the quota—it is unworkable. It has not worked at all well. History shows that attempts to enforce it have tended to lead to more disabled people in work registering, so that employers can get nearer to meeting the quota, rather than to more disabled people being brought into work. This will be a new approach, which will be much more effective in securing employment for disabled people.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: It would be churlish not to welcome the proposed legislation as a significant step forward. The fact that the Government have changed their policy is a tribute to all those, on both sides of the House, who campaigned. We shall doubtless have to campaign a lot more to finish the job.
The Minister stated that a
"statutory right to non-discrimination will be applied in the context of employment."
The phrase was used only in that context. Does that imply that there is no statutory right to non-discrimination anywhere outside employment? What would be the position in a place of leisure, such as a cinema, where access was possible but there was discrimination against the disabled on the pretext of, for example, fire controls? Will that be covered in the legislation?
Mr. Hague: I think that I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. I did not use the phrase about rights of access, but we intend to make it unlawful to discriminate against disabled people when providing goods and services. That would be subject to the various provisions that I outlined, such as the changes being readily achievable, not causing undue hardship and being subject to a financial limit and a phasing-in period. The legislation is certainly anti-discriminatory in the way that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Mr. Alan Howarth: I thank the Minister for his personal determination to end the injustice, indignity and waste that discrimination causes and congratulate him on the important progress that he has announced, which builds on the work of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott). Will he confirm that it is the Government's policy to ensure that disabled people do not experience unjustified discrimination in any sector?
Does he accept that disabled people—even more than other people—may find it difficult to sustain their legal rights without a powerful organisation to champion them? May I add my request for him to consider further the case for a disability rights commission, with powers not only to advise, but to investigate, conciliate and, from time to time where necessary, to enforce?
Mr. Hague: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's words of welcome. I can confirm that it is our objective to eliminate discrimination across the board and to do so sensibly and practically. I ask him not to underrate the
750
role that we envisage for the national disability council, which ought to be a powerful voice on such issues and will be able to report to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People about discrimination and to recommend further courses of action. It will be the powerful voice that he is seeking.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: Following the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), will he clarify exactly whether the Government have really had a change of heart? Do the Government now believe that disabled people have a basic and fundamental right to be full and equal citizens? If so, why was his statement peppered with so many conditions and qualifications?
Mr. Hague: It is extremely clear from my statement that the Government want to eliminate discrimination against disabled people and want disabled people to be able to play a full part in every aspect of our national life—whether in work, study, travel or leisure. We have to secure that objective in a practical and sensible way—a way that takes other people along with it rather than causing a backlash and a way that is affordable for everyone else in our national economy. That is why I stipulated some of the provisions that I outlined.
The Americans with Disabilities Act 1990, which is often held up as an example of successful legislation on these matters, also uses the terms "readily achievable", "reasonable accommodation" and "undue hardship". Those terms are no strangers to anti-discrimination legislation throughout the world.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While the Bill has yet to be published, it certainly appears that my hon. Friend has made a detailed and comprehensive statement on Government policy for the disabled and on disabled person's rights. I congratulate the Government on that. The lifts at Macclesfield station have broken down and been out of order for more than two years. Will the legislation set out in his statement enable me to approach Railtrack and demand that it repair or replace those lifts without delay?
Mr. Hague: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome. I would be surprised if the legislation did not assist him in that regard, although he might want to sort out the problem before the it reaches the statute book. I am sure that he will be extremely effective in doing so.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the decided improvement in the Government's position, but as the legislation deals with discrimination and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was consulted, why is a Bill being introduced for the rest of the nation, but legislation is only being proposed for Northern Ireland? Time and again, such legislation has come to Northern Ireland years afterwards. Is it the luddite minority in the Northern Ireland civil service, or the Maryfield mafia, which is preventing the House from granting full rights to the people of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Hague: Again, I readily accept the hon. Gentleman's welcome. He may be reading more into the distinction that I made about Northern Ireland than he should. There is no wish to delay similar legislation for Northern Ireland. The Bill will include a clause to provide for such legislation there and I will communicate to my

751
right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the hon. Gentleman said about urgency.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: On behalf of disabled people in Norwich, and all those organisations in Norwich and the surrounding area that help and support them, may I join the general welcome for the announcement? May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Remploy factories and their successes? I hope that, after conversations with his colleagues at the Department of Employment, he will soon be able to explain the implications of his new policies, set out in the announcement, for those factories and the excellent support that they give disabled people in Norwich and elsewhere.
Mr. Hague: My package does not specifically affect Remploy factories, where excellent work is done, as my hon. Friend said. The Government hope that that excellent work will continue. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Employment have worked hard in recent months to ensure that opportunities are available to Remploy. In the near future, they will produce proposals for a replacement for the priority suppliers scheme as well.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the progress that the proposed legislation represents, but the campaign will continue until we are all satisfied that no disabled person is discriminated against in any way. Does the Minister envisage a phasing-in period that will cover all aspects of the legislation, or will it vary according to the aspects that he delineated?
Mr. Hague: I agree with the hon. Lady that we must all work hard until discrimination against disabled people is completely eliminated. That is the intention of the Government as well as the intention of the Opposition.
The phasing-in periods will be set out as a range of options for consultation when we produce our more detailed written policy statement. That will refer especially to the rights of access to goods and services. Some of the other things that I have mentioned may have a different phasing-in period—for example, we envisage the introduction of low-floor buses which will be accessible to wheelchair users being done on a replacement basis. When a new bus is purchased, it will meet the new specifications. That phasing-in period may be determined by the purchasing patterns of bus service providers rather than by any legislative cut-off.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I welcome what the Minister has said today. Let me take him back to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). Will this legislation proceed in Northern Ireland by means of a Bill or will there simply be an Order in Council? If the latter is the way in which legislation on such an important subject will be treated in Northern Ireland, I trust that the Minister and the Government will have second thoughts.
Mr. Hague: I take full note of the hon. Gentleman's comments. I will, of course, discuss the position with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: I welcome the right of redress in employment cases, but does the
752
Minister accept that the best way to combat discrimination in employment is by the development of equal opportunity practices and procedures? Is he aware that, under the privatisation process, it would be unlawful for central Government and local government, under the Local Government Act 1988 and European directives, to place those requirements in the contracting procedures? Will the Minister now consider a clause, similar to that in section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which would place on central Government and local government a statutory duty in carrying out those procedures?
Mr. Hague: It is intended that the employment rights will extend across the economy to everyone except employers with fewer than 20 employees. I am not sure that the difficulty the hon. Gentleman mentions will arise. I shall look at the matter further as we produce our detailed policy statement.
Mr. David Congdon: I welcome my hon. Friend's determination—indeed, enthusiasm—to tackle the difficult issue of discrimination against disabled people and I especially welcome the fact that we are to have a Government Bill rather than a private Member's Bill in this Session. Can my hon. Friend assure me that, if there is a conflict with other laws passed in this House, the rights of disabled people will be paramount? In terms of access to cinemas, for example, disabled people are often turned away simply because there are already two other people in wheelchairs present. Such a situation is particularly offensive. Does my hon. Friend believe that the proposed legislation will deal with that situation effectively?
Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the proposals. It certainly is not the Government's intention that the proposals I have set out today should be frustrated by other provisions. When we come to the Bill, we shall obviously have to resolve what happens when there is a conflict between the need to comply with it and the need to comply with existing statutory provisions. We shall certainly seek to ensure that the provisions that I have set out today come into effect and are effective across the board.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that it has not gone unnoticed by disabled people and others that in his statement today, he said that the legislation would include phraseology such as "readily achievable" and "technically feasible"—God knows how many "ifs" and "buts"—which well-paid lawyers representing big business will use to drive a coach and horses through the legislation? Why does not the Minister do the decent thing? If he wants to do an about-face, he should pick up the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and carry that into law.
Mr. Hague: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that phrases such as "readily achievable" and "undue hardship" have been included in legislation in the United States. I utter phrases such as "where it is technically feasible" because one of the disturbing aspects of the legislation in the United States was that, where it had been imposed as blanket legislation on bus transport, without regard to it being technically feasible, it had resulted in the loss of services altogether in rural areas. That was of no use to anyone. It is obvious that, in sectors such as public transport, one has to do things as they are

753
technically feasible otherwise one gets into a terrible mess. That is the position in which the hon. Gentleman would normally leave us.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillian: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on this detailed and complex proposed legislation. On the education front, I welcome the proposal to give education providers an incentive to improve accessibility. Can my hon. Friend help the House by confirming that the proposed accessibility audit for schools will start shortly?
Mr. Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Department for Education will start the audit of accessibility of schools within the next few months. It aims to complete it during next year and we shall then be in a much better position to judge how much further action is needed.
Mr. Alan Simpson: The Minister set out his plans to introduce what he described as comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation under which disabled people who face discrimination would have the same remedies that other groups have under existing legislation. Does he accept that the bulk of the criticism that has come from those who have tried to work the existing anti-discrimination legislation has been about the derisory level of legal redress and compensation and of the punitive penalties—the things that are supposed to deter those who conduct acts of wilful discrimination? Will he go back and look at those three issues to ensure that disabled people can expect something that breaks free from the derisory and in many ways still discriminatory elements built into the present legislation?
Mr. Hague: My intention is to frame the legislation and its accompanying arrangements in such a way that litigation will not become necessary, in so far as that is possible. We shall create conciliation services, which will avoid litigation in the majority of disputes, and we shall ensure that the means of redress, when it comes to litigation, are available without recourse, in the majority of cases, to expensive litigation or to the use of legal advice. That will be our objective. We are determined to ensure that the legislation works in practice.
Mr. Gary Waller: Does my hon. Friend agree that not the least important part of the proposed legislation, which I also warmly welcome, is that it can help to change public attitudes towards disabled people so that they can play their full part in society and make a contribution to the community? I and many others believe that, in due course, that will outweigh the costs entailed by the legislation.
Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact that all service providers will have to think about disabled people and will have to address the question of a right of access to goods and services will, in itself, do a great deal to change attitudes towards disabled people. We must remember that legislation is not the whole answer to the question. We must change attitudes quite apart from legislation. Therefore, in the coming weeks, the
754
Government will launch a national awareness campaign on the particular problems and needs of disabled people, and on the obstacles that they can face in their daily lives.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I have been lucky enough to finish fifth in the private Members' ballot. I am minded to introduce the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill back into the House. One thing that would prevent that would be someone who came before me in the ballot choosing that Bill. Otherwise, it is really up to the Minister to tell me now why the legislation that he is propounding is adequate to meet the proposals in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Are not his proposals limited and qualified, welcome though they are? Does not the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill go far beyond them? That Bill should be introduced again, not least to continue to push the Government a bit further along the track they have entered.
Mr. Hague: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his good fortune. The objective of the proposals that I have outlined today is exactly the same as the objective of those who have campaigned for legislation on the matter in the past. That objective is to eliminate discrimination against disabled people throughout our society. The legislation that I have proposed is broad. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will look carefully at the legislation when it is produced, because it will assure them—
Mrs. Ann Taylor: And hon. Ladies.
Mr. Hague: And hon. Ladies. It will assure them of the breadth of what is intended. The Government believe that, in some sectors, it is more sensible and practical to proceed in a different way, but those sectors are quite limited in scope. The measures in this package, taken together, will bring an end to discrimination against disabled people. The House should make no mistake about the purpose of this package.
Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my hon. Friend on a truly comprehensive package. I know that it will be very much appreciated—certainly by the Sutton Alliance of Disabled People, and indeed, by the vast majority of those who supported the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. In particular, they will appreciate his proposals to bring in the low-level platforms on buses. However, does he agree that some issues can be tackled by using plain common sense rather than blanket legislation?
Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. Plain common sense is exactly what is called for in this case and plain common sense characterises the proposals that I have put before the House today. We need legislation to tackle discrimination against disabled people, but we need to bring it into force in a sensible and practical way. In other sectors, such as public transport, which I have already mentioned, it is plain common sense that the best way in which to tackle the problems is on a replacement basis as new rolling stock or new vehicles are purchased. Common sense is exactly what is called for, and it runs throughout these proposals.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the Minister join me in congratulating disabled people and their organisations on the political pressure that they have exerted since I introduced the first comprehensive anti-discrimination Bill in this House

755
exactly 11 years ago this month? The Leader of the House—who is present—told us while in a previous post that education and persuasion were all that was required.I am pleased to see at least a partial result of the campaign by those disabled people, which shows that political pressure sometimes works, even with a very slow-moving Government. Will the Minister confirm that the Bill will cover places of entertainment and public resort and that it will give a service to blind people with guide dogs?
Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman asked about the role of education and persuasion. A mixture of education, persuasion and legislation has always been, and remains, the Government's approach. We are, of course, proposing more legislation today than we have proposed in the past. I have no wish to hog the credit for that. Conservative Members would be happy to share it with Opposition Members and with many people outside the House who have raised the issue of disabled people. I can confirm that the right of access for goods and services will be intended to apply to places of public entertainment and the other places that he mentioned. Of course, within the definition of disabled people, the Bill will also apply to people with guide dogs.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the Minister explain why he has chosen to exclude firms which employ fewer than 20 people, given that they account for 96 out of every 100 firms in the country and that they employee 37 in every 100 people? As for the enforcement of anti-discrimination rights, will he extend legal aid to disabled people on low incomes? Otherwise, those rights will remain illusory. Will he ensure that, in the proposed Bill, the onus of industrial tribunals will be on an employer or service provider showing that discrimination did not take place, rather than on the disabled applicant showing that it did? Will he ensure that the Bill also tackles indirect discrimination, such as employers asking job applicants for driving licences when no such skill is needed in the job for which they are applying?
Mr. Hague: I can confirm that it is our intention to tackle instances of indirect discrimination, although we may need to structure the Bill in such a way as to include a power to regulate for specific instances of indirect discrimination so that there is no doubt what we are talking about. The hon. Gentleman asked about the provision for fewer than 20 employees. More than 80 per cent. of the employees in the country work for firms with more than 20 employees. Other legislation in the rest of the world includes provisions for minimum numbers of people. Employment provisions in the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 do not apply to firms with fewer than 15 employees. The reason is that many small firms do not have the personnel functions or specialist advice to enable them to cope easily with such provisions. We do not wish to add to the burdens on small businesses, while still providing for the vast majority in employment.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about means of redress. We have no plans to change the general rules on provision of legal aid, but I reiterate that we intend to provide conciliation services and effective means of redress for all the rights that I have outlined today. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not have given a better welcome to the proposals. I know that he is enthusiastic for
756
anti-discrimination lesislation. That is what the Government are now bringing forward and it deserves the whole-hearted support of the House.

Business of the House
5.7 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Madam Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a statement about the business for next week. The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 28 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
Motion to take note of documents relating to the 1995 budget of the European communities. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 29 NOVEMBER—My right hon. and learned.Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
WEDNESDAY 30 NOVEMBER—Continuation of the Budget debate.
THURSDAY 1 DECEMBER—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 2 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on policing of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 5 DECEMBER—Continuation of the Budget debate which will be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 6 December.
[Monday 28 November:
European Communities (Finance) Bill—Relevant European Community documents: 1. European Communities Act 1972 (as amended) 2. 1994 Own Resources Decision 3. 1988 Own Resources Decision 4. 1985 Own Resources Decision 5. 1992 Edinburgh European Council Conclusions 6. 1993 Inter-Institutional Agreement 7. 1994 Budget Discipline Decision 8. 1994 Council Regulation No 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions 9. 1994 Council Regulation No 2729/94 amending Regulation No 1552/89 10. 1994 Council Regulation No 2730/94 amending the Financial Regulation 11. 1993 Structural Fund Regulation 12. 1993 Cohesion Fund Regulation 13. 1994 Working Methods Paper on the UK Abatement 14. Executive Summary of the European Court of Auditors report on implementation of the 1993 EC Budget.
Floor of the House—Relevant European Community documents: a) COM(94)400 1995 Budget, b) 8782/94 1995 Budget, c) 9943/94 Adjustment of the financial perspective with a view to enlargement of the European Union, d) Unnumbered Document-European Parliament Minutes for the Sitting of the 27 October 1994 relating to the Draft General Budget for the European Union for the financial year 1995, e) Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum-Council Decisions on the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft General Budget of the European Community for the financial year 1995; relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: a) HC 48-xxiii (1993–94), b) HC 48-xxvi (1993–94), c) No report, d) No report, e) No report.
Tuesday 29 November:
Chancellor of the Exchequer—Budget statement: The following documents are relevant to the Budget debate: Unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 22 September 1994 relating to the
758
Commission opinion on the existence of an excessive deficit in the United Kingdom and recommendation for a Council decision, drawn up in accordance with Article 104c.5 and Article 104c.6 of the Treaty establishing the European Community; Unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 14 October 1994 relating to the Council recommendations to the United Kingdom with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive Government deficit, prepared by the Commission in acceptance with Article 104c.7 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. On Monday, in the event of the Leader of the House being successful in brow-beating Conservative Members into the Lobby and, as usual, a rebellion petering out, and the European Communities (Finance) Bill receiving a Second Reading, will it be committed to a Committee of the whole House as befits a measure of such importance as—I think—the House would wish?
If the Leader of the House remains in office after Monday's vote, will he find time, as a matter of urgency, to debate the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report and its recommendation of a code of conduct, which would be very useful as a buffer against ministerial party political excesses? It would be of great advantage to everyone to have an early debate on that issue.
Will the Leader of the House also tell us when he expects to find time to debate the Jopling report and the proposals to which he referred in his speech last night?
Mr. Newton: Let me take the latter two questions first. The hon. Lady well knows my desire to find time to debate the proposals that she and I have been able to agree—I think that is now the right word—for the Jopling report. However, she will equally understand that, with the business immediately facing the House and with five days—which, I may say, responds to the wishes of the Opposition—being allocated to debate the Budget, it would be difficult for me to make a promise of a debate before the week after next—at the earliest—on either of the matters that she has raised. I cannot give a commitment even on that at this stage.
The hon. Lady's first question is, of course, a matter for the House, but it is a matter of record that, normally, the practice for such Bills has been to discuss them in a Committee of the whole House.
Sir Norman Fowler: One of the most important measures announced in the Queen's Speech was the Pensions Bill to protect the interests of occupational pensioners. When will that be introduced? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will start its progress in this House?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend, above all, knows that the Bill will be long and complex. Its preparation is not yet completed and, at this stage, I cannot give a definite date for its expected introduction. We are still considering, in various parts of the legislative programme, precisely how the balance as to where Bills should originate will fall between the two Houses.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that it has been a long time since the House debated agriculture in Government time? Is he aware that hon. Members on both

759
sides of the House have hill livestock farmers in their constituencies who are under some pressure? The new budgetary format means that hill livestock compensatory allowance payments will be made in the aftermath of the Budget statement. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House could give us some idea of when an agriculture debate will take place and when the announcements about HLCA payments will be made.
Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot be as specific as the hon. Gentleman would evidently like me to be. However, I do not think that his questions will go unanswered for very long.
Mr. Rupert Allason rose—
Mr. Harold Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about unregulated DSS hostels and houses in multiple occupation, which continue to have a thoroughly damaging effect on the quality of life and the economy of many seaside resorts throughout the country? Is he aware that this week the Government issued a consultation paper about a potential licensing system for houses in multiple occupation? Does he understand that many of my constituents want to see a self-financing licensing system for all existing hostels introduced as soon as possible?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that I am aware of the consultation paper. For reasons that I have already touched on, I cannot promise an early debate. However, I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be in the House to answer questions next Wednesday, which may give my hon. Friend an opportunity to underline his concern.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland next week about his outrageous proposal to publish death rate league tables for Scottish hospitals? Bearing in mind that a spokesperson for the Secretary of State for Health is quoted as saying that she has no intention of following the Scottish example because she has no enthusiasm for "counting dead bodies", why on earth is the Secretary of.State for Scotland pursuing such a ghoulish policy?
Mr. Newton: I understand that the clinical outcome indicators report, which I think underlines what the hon. Gentleman referred to, has been prepared by a working group of health professionals, public health doctors and NHS managers. While I understand why the hon. Gentleman used his phrase, the proper way to describe the process is "clinical outcomes", and of course a large number of outcomes are highly successful.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Could we have an early debate on the subject of social services, bearing in mind that certain shire counties, including Gloucestershire, have been badly served by a change in the funding formula? It is rather difficult to explain to our constituents why help is being withdrawn at a time when we are about to devote billions, seemingly uncounted, to extend Italian motorway systems.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has commented about social services in recent times— most recently in the debate on the Queen's Speech, which we concluded yesterday. The hon.
760
Gentleman will know that substantial additional sums of money have been allocated in connection with the development of community care policy.
Rev. Marlin Smyth: The Minister will remember that I asked last week for a statement about sudden infant deaths. The Minister had an opportunity to make some reference to the subject this week, but did not do so. I press the Minister to give the House an opportunity to explore the matter.
Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman, rather uncharacteristically, is being a little unfair. That is clearly a matter which requires careful professional advice. He will know that last Friday the chief medical officer convened an expert working group to consider what had been said on the "The Cook Report". It has advised that the programme provided nothing to invalidate earlier reports, but raised questions which need proper investigation, and further work is progressing urgently. I think that that is probably the right way to approach this difficult matter.
Mr. Bill Walker: Given that we are debating European Community finances on Monday, can the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues give serious consideration to how the House, the Parliament, and indeed the United Kingdom, can contribute to monitoring and examining the colossal fraud that is perpetrated throughout the European Community? Would not Monday's debate provide an opportunity to suggest some positive ways to deal with the problem?
Mr. Newton: From the way in which my hon. Friend has phrased his question, I know that he needs no reminder from me that the background of the Court of Auditors report deals in part with the efforts that the Government have made to ensure that the Community tries harder to combat fraud. The British Government need no urging in their attempts to ensure that the Community's efforts are reinforced and supported in every possible way. I have no doubt that it is a matter to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will advert in the debate on Monday.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: Taking on board the fact that the House will have the opportunity later tonight to vote on ministerial and other salaries, will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate the level of remuneration for elected local councillors from all political parties who often work long and hard for very little reward?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise to find time for a debate, but I will bring the concern that the hon. Gentleman has raised to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who I think is the appropriate Minister to refer it to, as well as to the attention of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Are not there two main subjects of discussion in connection with the European finance Bill debate on Monday: first, the question of whether it is a matter of confidence, and all that flows from that; and, secondly, the financial arguments, which could properly be dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

761
Is not it the case that the subject should be dealt with in a two-day debate, and that the first day should begin with the Prime Minister explaining how he regards it as a matter of confidence? Is not it unsatisfactory for this debate to be truncated into one day, which is overshadowed by the Budget, so as to ensure that the constitutional impropriety of the Government is given as little attention as possible?
Mr. Newton: I must make one point to my hon. Friend, in view of the phrasing of his question. The question about whether this is a matter of confidence is not open for discussion: it is, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, a matter of confidence.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister both explained and made clear the position on who should participate in the debate in his Question Time only a couple of hours ago. Thirdly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred repeatedly to the Bill's financial details in recent days. He has made it quite clear— as no doubt he will on Monday— that the effects of the Bill in implementing the Edinburgh agreement will amount to £75 million next year, rising to £250 million by the end of the century.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Leader of the House aware that the compensation recovery unit of the DSS is clawing back vast amounts of compensation awarded for ill health and injury? For example, a Glasgow man who was awarded £30,000 ended up with £2,000 at a time when he was at his very lowest ebb in financial and health terms. In the interests of justice, will the Minister institute an early debate on a subject which affects a large number of innocent individuals and groups throughout the country?
Mr. Newton: As a former DSS Minister, I know that the principle of compensation recovery is a long-established one. I do not think that anyone looking at it would argue seriously that state benefits should replace permanently compensation due from a party found guilty of negligence. The current scheme ensures that the cost of compensation falls where it should: on the person who has been negligent.
Sir Irvine Patrick: May we have an early debate on the free accommodation provided for Sheffield Labour Members of Parliament and the Sheffield Member of the European Parliament so that we may ascertain whether that practice is widespread or just a local difficulty? The matter was highlighted in yesterday's issue of The Star in Sheffield.
Mr. Newton: I shall obviously consider my hon. Friend's point. However, he will have some opportunity to raise the matter next week because, as I have already said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be here to answer questions on Wednesday. I think that we can also anticipate in the latter part of next week the annual revenue support grant statement.
Mr. Rupert Allason: I apologise for trying to butt in at the start of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson). My right hon Friend will be aware that, this afternoon, the Prime
762
Minister said that the leakage of classified information that was reported today in The Independent had not originated from British Telecom. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a serious leakage of highly classified information and that if British Telecom denies that it was responsible for that leak, it must be a matter for a statement by the Home Secretary?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will probably understand that I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon, which was clearly based on urgent but careful inquiry. However, I shall bring my hon. Friend's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will there be a debate at any time next week on "The Health of the Nation" statement, which was made by the Secretary of State for Health? A debate is especially important in view of the dangerous development of suicide squads—these religious cults—which seems to have spread to six Cabinet members. Is the Leader of the House one of the six? I can tell him that if they intend to start blowing people up, we are not going with them.
Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman were going with us, it might tempt some of us. Beyond that, I cannot add to what has been said.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Given that, after the debate on Monday, the Whip may well be withdrawn from a score or so of my right hon. Friend's hon. Friends, would that score or so constitute a political party and would it be entitled to facilities in the House and to public money?
Madam Speaker: Order. Those are internal matters.
Mr. Marlow: If, at a later stage, the Government were to table an amendment and the new, improved Conservative party opposed it, would the doctrine of collegiate, corporate Cabinet Gotterdammerung still apply?
Mr. Newton: I shall probably be pulled up for saying that I did not hear a request for a debate, Madam Speaker. If there had been such a request, I would have said that I could not find time for it.
Mr. William McKelvey: During this spell of mild weather, the Leader of the House might be forgiven for forgetting about the poor, the disabled and the elderly who will suffer during the winter. Is not it time that we had a debate on that matter so that we can discuss legislation to put in place a properly constituted and adequate cold climate payment?
Mr. Newton: I have been familiar with those matters for many years because of my time as a social security Minister. In a brief answer, I shall not attempt to rehearse all the difficulties. However, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to what has been said.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Given what the Lord President said yesterday evening about the Jopling report and the progress that he hopes to make on it, and bearing in mind that yesterday evening he told us

763
when he expected the Easter recess to start, is he aware that Christmas comes before Easter? Can he give us any information about when that recess will start?
Mr. Newton: I am aware that Christmas comes before Easter and I wondered last night whether I might do a little better on that front. The best that I can do at the moment is to say that I expect the Christmas recess to start in the week before Christmas and to include Christmas day. I shall give further and better particulars when the scene becomes clearer. As I said last night, many hon. Members have spotted that Easter is about as late as it can get and thought that the recess would probably come before Easter. That was why I sought to make the matter clear but I am bound to say that my phrasing allowed for not having an Faster recess at all.
Lady Olga Maitland: Would my right hon. Friend consider a debate to mark next week's visit to this country by the Speaker of the Kuwaiti Parliament and seven of its Members? It would be an opportunity for the House to share its concern with them over the plight of 625 missing prisoners of war and detainees held in Iraq. These are crucial days and we hope that talks between Kuwait and Iraq are about to begin. It is important for the Iraqis to see that this country supports the allies in making sure that the Iraqis comply with UN resolutions and to realise that sanctions will not be lifted until all those issues are resolved.
Mr. Newton: Even without a debate—we recently had a full day on foreign affairs during the debate on the Address—I assure my hon. Friend that, on the matters that she mentions, as on others, the Government remain concerned to ensure compliance with all United Nations resolutions.
Mr. David Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on NHS hospital trusts, thus giving the Labour party an opportunity to comment on an outburst by a leading light in my local Labour party who appeared to be claiming that his application to join a local NHS trust board was rejected because of his party's hostility to sensible Government reforms of the NHS?
Mr. Newton: If I were to provide time for debate on every unreasonable outburst by local Labour supporters, we should be debating nothing else.

BILL PRESENTED
  CHILDREN (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Secretary Lang, supported by Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, Sir George Young and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, presented a Bill to reform the law of Scotland relating to children, to the adoption of children, and to young persons who as children have been looked after by local authorities; to make new provision as respects the relationship between parent and child and guardian and child in the law of Scotland; to make provision as respects residential establishments for children and as respects certain other residential establishments; 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 4].

Deregulation (Procedure)
Madam Speaker: All the matters that are covered in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will of course be in order during the debate on the Government motion so that we may debate them. If the House wishes to allow Divisions at the conclusion of proceedings, I propose to allow them on amendments (a) and (b).
5.26 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That Standing Orders A and B below shall have effect and Standing Orders No. 14 (Exempted business), No. 124 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) and No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) shall be amended as set out below.
A. Deregulation Committee

(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Deregulation Committee, to examine every document containing proposals laid before the House under section 3, and every draft order proposed to be made under section 1, of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

(2) The committee shall report to the House, in relation to every document containing proposals laid before the House under the said section 3, either—

(a) that a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

(b) that the proposals should be amended before a draft order is laid before the House; or

(c) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of the proposals.

(3) The committee shall report to the House, in relation to every draft order laid before the House under the said section 1, its recommendation whether the draft order should be approved.

(4) The committee may report to the House on any matter arising from consideration of the said proposals or draft orders. (5)(A) In its consideration of proposals the committee shall consider in each case whether the proposals—

(a) appear to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation;

(b) remove or reduce a burden or the authorisation or requirement of a burden;

(c) continue any necessary protection;

(d) have been the subject of, and take appropriate account of, adequate consultation;

(e) impose a charge on the public revenues or contain provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribe the amount of any such charge or payment;

(f) purport to have retrospective effect;

(g) give rise to doubts whether they are infra vires;

(h) require elucidation or appear to be defectively drafted;

(i) appear to be incompatible with any obligation resulting from membership of the European Union. (B) In its consideration of draft orders, the committee shall consider in each case all the matters set out in sub-paragraph (A) above and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard to any resolution or report of the Committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration. (6) The committee shall consist of sixteen members. (7) The quorum of the committee shall be five. (8) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament. (9) The committee shall have power—

765

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, and to report from time to time;

(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;

(c) to appoint a sub-committee, of which the quorum shall be two, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;

(d) to communicate its evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest to any committee appointed by this House and to any committee appointed by the Lords to examine deregulation proposals and draft orders. (10) The committee and the sub-committee shall have leave to meet concurrently with any select committee appointed by the Lords to examine deregulation proposals and draft orders and any sub-committee thereof. (11) The committee and the sub-committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker and, if their Lordships think fit, the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees. (12) The committee and the sub-committee shall have power to invite Members of the House who are not members of the committee to attend meetings at which witnesses are being examined and such Members may, at the discretion of the chairman, ask questions of those witnesses; but no Member not being of the committee shall otherwise take part in the proceedings of the committee or sub-committee, or be counted in the quorum. (13) It shall be an instruction to the committee that before reporting either—

(i) that any proposal should be amended before a draft order is laid before the House, or

(ii) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of any proposal, or

(iii) that any draft order should not be approved, it shall afford to any government department concerned an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to it or to the sub-committee appointed by it such explanations as the department think fit. (14) It shall be an instruction to the committee that it report on every draft order not more than fifteen sitting days after the draft order was laid before the House, indicating in the case of draft orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division. B. Consideration of draft deregulation orders (1) If the Deregulation Committee has reported under paragraph (3) of Standing Order A (Deregulation Committee) that a draft order laid before the House under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 should be approved and a motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to that effect, the question thereon shall—

(a) if the committee's recommendation was agreed without a division, be put forthwith;

(b) if the committee's recommendation was agreed after a division, be put not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion. (2) If the committee has reported that a draft order should not be approved, no motion to approve the draft order shall be made unless the House has previously resolved to disagree with the committee's report; the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion for such a resolution to disagree shall be put not later than three hours after their commencement; and the question shall be put forthwith on any motion thereafter made by a Minster of the Crown that such a draft order be approved.(3) Motions to which this order applies may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.

Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business)
Line 14, after `procedure))', insert `or Standing Order B (Consideration of draft deregulation orders)'.
766
Standing Order No. 124 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee))
Line 22, at end insert 'and any draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994'.
Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments)
Line 101, after 'Accounts', insert `and to the Deregulation Committee'.
The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which received Royal Assent on 3 November, contains a new power enabling Ministers to make orders to amend or repeal primary legislation that imposes a burden, provided that necessary protection is not removed. The Act provides that each deregulation proposal should be open to parliamentary scrutiny for a period of 60 days, and that subsequent draft deregulation orders require the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee in his place, because he and his Committee carried out much diligent work on this matter. The Procedure Committee has already conducted an inquiry into the parliamentary procedure that should apply to deregulation orders and has made recommendations on how the House should make use of the opportunity for scrutiny that the Act provides. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and to his colleagues for the speed and thoroughness of their inquiry and for the recommendations that they made. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that the Government have accepted the great majority of those recommendations.The Committee's report and the Government's response were debated in the House on 11 May.
The purpose of the motion is to give effect to the undertakings that the Government have given and to incorporate the new scrutiny procedure in Standing Orders. The new Standing Order A establishes the new scrutiny committee, the Deregulation Committee, with power to report to the House both on the initial deregulation proposals laid before Parliament and on the draft orders introduced for affirmative resolution after the initial scrutiny process. The Committee will also have power to report on any matter arising from its consideration of deregulation proposals or orders.
When considering deregulation proposals, the Committee will be asked to consider, under paragraph (5) of the draft Standing Order, whether the use of delegated rather than primary legislation is appropriate in the circumstances; whether the proposal actually removes or reduces a burden; whether necessary protection is continued; whether adequate consultation has taken place; and whether the proposal takes appropriate account of that consultation. The Committee will also apply the criteria used by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and ask, for example, whether the proposal is ultra vires or defectively drafted. In addition, it will consider whether it infringes any EC obligations.
Under the terms of the Act, about which, hon. Members will remember, there was a good deal of discussion, the Committee will have 60 days, excluding recesses, in which to carry out whatever inquiries it considers necessary and to report to the House whether the proposals should be proceeded with in the same terms, in an amended form or not at all. If the Deregulation Committee were to report that a proposal should not be proceeded with, in normal circumstances, as the

767
Government have made clear on a number of occasions, we would expect to submit a revised proposal or to withdraw the proposal altogether.
When the proposal is brought back in its final form as a draft order subject to affirmative resolution, the Deregulation Committee will reconsider it, employing the same criteria as before, and consider the extent to which the Minister has taken account of the Committee's report on the first version of the proposal and of any other representations that may have been made. The Committee will then report within 15 sitting days on whether the House should approve the draft order.
The remaining provisions of the draft Standing Order deal with the Committee's powers. The Committee will have 16 members nominated for the duration of a Parliament and a quorum of five. It will have the usual powers of a Select Committee, including the powers to take evidence, to travel within the United Kingdom and to appoint specialist advisers.
In common with other Select Committees, it will not have the power to summon Ministers before it, but I am happy to repeat the assurance that the Government have already given the Procedure Committee: that Ministers with responsibility for a deregulation proposal will be anxious to assist the Deregulation Committee with its work. Frankly, I cannot envisage a time when a Minister would refuse to attend as a witness if his or her attendance were requested.
In addition to the usual powers, the Committee will have powers to appoint a sub-committee to communicate evidence to other Select Committees and to the equivalent Committee in another place and—something to which both Houses attach importance—to hold concurrent meetings with the Lords Committee. That seems a sensible way of avoiding two Committees covering the same ground with the same witnesses. It will also have the benefit of expert legal advice.
Following the Procedure Committee's recommendations, the draft Standing Order makes provision for hon. Members who are not members of the Deregulation Committee to take part in its questioning of witnesses. The Committee and its sub-Committee will have power to invite other hon. Members to attend evidence sessions, and those invited hon. Members will.be able to put questions to witnesses if they succeed in catching the Chairman's eye.
I am sure that the Committee will be able to devise appropriate ways of ensuring that hon. Members who express an interest in a particular deregulation proposal receive a invitation to attend relevant evidence sessions so that they can take advantage of the opportunities that the new procedure affords. Hon. Members will, of course, be able to give written evidence to the Committee and oral evidence if the Committee invites them to appear before it.
The final paragraphs of Standing Order A require the Deregulation Committee to take evidence from the Department concerned before making an adverse report and to report on each draft order not more than 15 sitting days after it was laid before the House.
The new Standing Order B governs proceedings in the House on draft deregulation orders after the Committee's consideration has finished. The procedure to be followed in relation to particular orders will depend on the nature of the Deregulation Committee's report. If the Committee
768
has approved a draft order unanimously, the motion to approve it will be decided forthwith in line with the recommendations of the Procedure Committee. Hon. Members will already have had a chance to express their views at an earlier stage, not least through the procedures that I have just outlined, which allow them a role in the Deregulation Committee's evidence-taking. A measure that has received the unanimous approval of a relatiively large all-party committee after a thorough process of scrutiny is surely one that need not detain the House.
If the Committee approves a draft order, but its decision was not unanimous, there will be a debate of one and a half hours, which is, of course, what the Standing Orders provide for affirmative instruments generally.
If the Committee has recommended that a draft order should not be approved, the motion to approve it will not be able to be moved unless the House has resolved to disagree with the Committee's report. That would require a three-hour debate on an amendable motion—a significantly new feature of these arrangements.
Only in the most exceptional circumstances would the Government contemplate asking the House to set aside the Committee's recommendations in that way and it would certainly be appropriate to have a rather longer than usual debate under those circumstances, as was suggested by the Procedure Committee and as we readily accepted.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has tabled five amendments, to which he will no doubt speak. I would not seek to prevent him from doing so even if I could. His proposed amendments to Standing Order A would fix the size of the Deregulation Committee at 15 rather than 16, as the Procedure Committee proposed.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: It was amendment (aa).
Mr. Newton: I was referring to the amendment to Standing Order A that would fix the size of the Deregulation Committee at 15 and give it an extra week—20 days instead of 15—in which to report to the House on the final version of the draft order. The hon. Gentleman's proposed amendments to Standing Order B would provide for longer debates in the House on draft deregulation.orders.
I believe that the Government's proposals on these points are entirely reasonable. Moreover, as I have now said several times, they precisely follow the recommendations of the Procedure Committee. The motion also makes minor or consequential amendments to three existing Standing Orders.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way and I apologise if I may have missed some reference to this point in his original remarks. I ran as fast as I could to come and hear him, but he was on his feet quicker than I had expected.
I am concerned about the credibility and reputation of the Committee, which, to a large extent, will depend on its chairmanship. The Leader of the House will be aware that in many submissions to the Procedure Committee—and among its membership—a strong view was expressed that the precedent established in other Committees of having an Opposition Member as Chairman of the Committee could well be followed in this case. I appreciate that it is not appropriate for the order, but I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give a

769
assurance that he and his colleagues believe that, in normal circumstances, it would be appropriate for an Opposition Member to chair the Committee, if for no other reason than that the size of the Government these days might give him a larger pool of talent to call upon.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that the chairmanship is not appropriate for the order before the House. I have to say—disappointingly for him—that his question is not really one for me; it is, as with the chairmanship of other Committees, normally a matter for discussion through the usual channels and it is appropriate in respect of this Committee.
A motion to nominate the new Deregulation Committee will be introduced as soon as possible following the customary consultations through the self-same usual channels. The Government have undertaken that no deregulation proposal will be laid before Parliament under the new procedure until four sitting weeks after the Committee has been nominated, which should give the Committee adequate time to sort out how it wants to work before it is asked to undertake any inquiries.
The proposals, which are based on the substantial work of the Procedure Committee and a good deal of early debate in the House and the other place, will provide a sensible and flexible way of ensuring that deregulation proposals are subjected—as they quite properly should be—to full and effective parliamentary scrutiny and I commend them to the House.
5.38 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am grateful for the way in which the Leader of the House explained the motion. I should like to make a couple of preliminary points before coming to the main issues.
It is remarkable that we are entering an innovative parliamentary procedure with this Committee which is quite different from the history of how the House has operated. It is based on a Standing Order published less than a week ago. We are debating it today, yet we have not had the opportunity to debate the really effective changes that could occur in the Jopling report, which was published two years ago.
I make the contrast between the two if only to say to the Leader of the House that there is a case for that procedure simply on the grounds that, if the Government follow their programme on deregulation, there will be a considerable amount of work for the Select Committee, which may lead to many more orders reaching the Floor of the House.
Under the Jopling proposals, most of those orders could be considered in Committee rather than on the Floor of the House. The idea is to stop clogging up the Floor of the House with matters of substantial detail. The two sets of proposals go hand in hand. It would be more effective to operate the new Select Committee, with its unique powers of scrutiny, once the Jopling proposals were implemented, even on an experimental basis.
Although there is some implied criticism in what I have said, it is no criticism of the discussions that the Leader of the House has had with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). The sooner that we get on
770
with implementing Jopling the better. It will make the Deregulation Select Committee operate much more efficiently.
I have read a little of the background to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and to the proposals that we are discussing. It appears from my reading of the position that membership of the Deregulation Committee will be almost tantamount to membership of the Public Accounts Committee. I was a member of the PAC for two years. It is a full-time job to fulfil the functions and duties in the required detail.
There are some unwritten conventions in the House about who can and who cannot be a member of a Select Committee. There is a strong case for not following those conventions rigidly when the membership of the Deregulation Committee is considered. That is obviously a matter for discussion between the Government, the Opposition and the minor parties. Many hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, are precluded from serving on any Select Committee because they hold other positions. There is a strong case for changing that convention for the new Committee.
Mr. Spearing: I hope to catch your eye in a few moments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend accept that the distinction that he makes is even greater than he perhaps realises? While the Public Accounts Committee has many similarities with the Deregulation Committee, its powers are entirely retrospective in matters of finance. The role of the Deregulation Committee will be prospective in terms of legislation that will be equally, if not more, important than financial legislation.
Mr. Rooker: I agree with that. I do not want to get into a debate on the distinction between the two Committees. The PAC does not deal with policy. It never has Ministers before it in any event. It calls only the accounting officers of the Department or agency. Having said that, serving on the Public Accounts Committee, which has two separate sittings and reports each week on different subjects, is a full-time job for its members. There is no room for lots of outside interests. So the Deregulation Committee, which will run along similar lines as the PAC, will be extremely important. The membership and the care with which the Committee exercises its duties will have to be watched carefully by the House.
Another point about the process of the Committee is that the Government will decide to make a deregulation order—in the machinery of Government; we will never know about it. They will then consult outside interests before laying a proposal before the House. Again, under the normal process, we will not know about it. "Interests" is a strange word to use. When the Government have decided to make an order, they should tell the world. It should be a matter of public knowledge.
The House has an interest in knowing who the Government consulted as outside interests before they laid the draft order. We should like to see a list of the outside interests that the Government consulted. The work of the Committee will be absolutely crucial in the sense that it will take evidence from people who may have been deprived of the opportunity to be consulted as an outside interest before the order was laid before the House. So we should know whom the Government consulted.

771
There is no doubt that in the past 15 years power has shifted from Westminster to Whitehall on a grand scale. The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act and the operation of the Committee will transfers powers to Whitehall even further. There will be a free vote on the motion tonight. Indeed, I suspect that there will not be any votes. We want to make the system work, regardless of whether we disagree or agree with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act. However, it has to be said that England is the last one-party state in western Europe. The Conservatives have ruled Britain more this century than the Communist party ruled the Soviet Union. The changes brought about in the past 15 years sometimes appeared to be made on the basis that the Conservative party thought that it would continue to rule for ever.
The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act transfers another tranche of powers from the House to the Executive. Sometimes other parties will have use of the powers that the Government have left in Whitehall. We must make sure that those parties operate them democratically, openly and in the interests of our fellow citizens. I remind the Leader of the House and his colleagues that that will come as a shock to Conservative Members who have never been in opposition. Of course, that applies to most of the Cabinet. I exclude the present Leader of the House, who was so helpful as a member of the Opposition in enabling me to carry through certain changes in the Finance Act 1977.
There are many other Acts that other parties in government might wish to change. They may not wish to go through the laborious processes of scrutiny and primary legislation to which we are accustomed in the House. The powers in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act and the changes to the Standing Orders do not require much modification to be used for other purposes.
I am not interested in cutting corners. I hope that the Leader of the House is not interested in cutting corners. I do not wish to debate the effects of the deregulation legislation. One of the matters that the Deregulation Committee will scrutinise in deciding whether to take evidence and how to judge a deregulation order will be, as paragraph A(5)(A)(c) says:
"whether the proposals…continue any necessary protection."
Such protection could be on matters of health and safety,
protection at work, and employment protection. Those matters go to the bare bones of the rights of our fellow citizens. So we are not interested in any corners being cut by either this or any future Government.
The Government have played with fire on the issue of procedure. I set that as a warning for the future. It is a warning as much to the Leader of the House as to anyone who occupies his position in the future. Nothing illustrates how the Government have played with fire with our procedure more than the Tory domination of the Deregulation Committee. The Conservatives will insist on the usual procedure. They will want an overall Conservative majority on the Committee, as there is on every Select Committee, whoever the Chair may be. I shall come to that in a moment.
As I understand the order, even if, by chance, the governing majority in the Deregulation Committee did not get their way, the Government could bring the order back to the Floor of the House so that their majority could push it through. That shows a supreme lack of confidence. We know what other Select Committees and Standing Committees are like. There are 651 very busy people in
772
the House. We may criticise each other on a party, performance or competence basis, but we are all busy people. Occasionally, hon. Members come through the doors to vote at 10 o'clock knowing nothing of the detail of what they will vote on.
We are setting up a high-powered Committee, membership of which will be virtually a full-time occupation. Like other Select Committees, but unlike Standing Committees, it will take evidence. It will use advisers and it will have the assistance of legal counsel. I hope that legal counsel will be fully independent and will have as much to do with the Government as I have. It must be as independent as possible.
The Committee will take considerable time to scrutinise the proposed changes. It will deliberate. If it comes to a considered view after mature inquiry and consideration that it does not agree with the deregulation order in question, the matter will come to the Floor of the House, the Government will put on a three-line Whip, 651 people will troop through the doors and bingo.
If the Government were confident of their proposal to short-cut our usual scrutiny procedures by avoiding primary legislation, they would not seek to dominate the Committee as I suspect they will. The Government should not seek the chairmanship. I have not read all the details, but I understand that the decision on that required the casting vote of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, from whom I hope that we will hear an abject apology shortly.
I hope that the Leader of the House will say that this is not an example of the Government seeking to dominate. I accept that, unlike the Public Accounts Committee, this Committee will deal with an element of legislation. It is a different legislative, procedural and scrutinising animal, unlike anything previously known in the House. 'That being so, I ask the Government to have confidence in their own legislation and procedures. They should be confident that this is a matter that they can get right.
Where the Government have a majority, they are entitled to get their legislation. Nevertheless, I hope that they will say that they do not want to take short cuts or be seen to cheat on the Opposition and that Labour can have the Chair of the Committee. If they did that, they would engender confidence in the House in the functions of the Committee.
If the Government seek to overturn a decision of the Deregulation Committee, if, in their wisdom, they decide not to approve deregulation, the interested and informed parts of the public who were concerned with that element of deregulation will hold the House further in conteimpt. That is crucial.
The Labour party will co-operate with the Committee. It is in everyone's interests that it should do so and it would be irresponsible not to do so. But we will not co-operate quietly. The Opposition will scrutinise the operation of the Deregulation Committee from day one. We will watch and monitor its procedure. We will watch and monitor the interests involved, both those of the Members and those who appear before it. We will ruthlessly expose any corruption of our democratic procedures. The Government are taking a short cut 'with our procedures and, if we feel that it has the potential to cause problems for our constituents and fellow citizens, we need to expose that.

773
I have made it clear that the Labour party will not disrupt the Committee in any way. We shall operate it responsibly, but we do not agree with it. We say in a spirit of good will to the Leader of the House, who has introduced the proposal so speedily—less than a week after publication—that we hope that there will be no dragooning of the membership. That must be a matter for mature discussion between the parties and possibly, as I have already said, a breaching of one of the conventions of the House.
That said, the Committee has a serious job to do. It is the long-stop against the deregulation measures that we think the Government will introduce, which will be so damaging to life in Britain.
5.52 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who has obviously given considerable consideration to this measure. He emphasised, as I wish to do, the great importance of the Committee. Later in my speech I intend to say that this will become one of the most important Committees in the House. Therefore, I reinforce what the hon. Gentleman said on that.
First, I thank the Government for carrying forward the recommendations of the Procedure Committee nearly to the letter. That is a fairly unusual experience for the Procedure Committee. The Government have been willing to accept the Committee's recommendations almost in their entirety. This Committee, when in action, will, I believe, come to be perhaps the most important and significant modernisation of House of Commons procedure since the introduction of the departmental Select Committees 14 years ago.
The Committee is significant because the Standing Order, once approved, will provide a unique means of amending primary legislation, and it is the amending of primary legislation which is important. That is why the Procedure Committee spent much time and gave considerable thought and care to framing its regulations and recommendations. Once we were charged by the House to consider the best way for the House to discuss deregulation orders, the principle behind our recommendations was the realisation that the deregulation order was, or was at least the alternative of, primary legislation. This is the first time that it will be possible to alter primary legislation without a Bill being brought before the House.
In an Adjournment debate on the subject, I said that we believed that a deregulation order should not—I repeat not—be considered to be just another statutory instrument. That follows very much what the hon. Gentleman was saying. After all, a statutory instrument is secondary legislation. It is part of a Bill that we have already passed and those powers are allowed.
A deregulation order is an entirely different instrument and must be considered as such by the House, by the Clerks and by lawyers outside. It is, in effect, primary legislation inasmuch as it alters an Act of Parliament. It is therefore a substitute for another part of primary legislation. That is its unique nature, which the hon. Gentleman outlined.
774
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the use of the legislation for purposes other than deregulation. I would ask him to look carefully at the Standing Order, which makes it clear that the basic consideration of the Committee must be that its proposals should
"remove or reduce a burden or the authorisation or requirement of a burden".
That refers to a reduction in the burden of legislation, not an alteration for the sake of it; an alteration that is necessary because there is a burden on our constituents, on industry, trade unions or whatever. I shall return to that in a moment.
It is worth underlining, because it complies with something that the hon. Gentleman said, that paragraph 16 of the fourth report of the Select Committee, 1993–94, says:
"In our recommendations we have sought to ensure that no Act of Parliament is repealed or amended under this new power without examination at least as thorough as if the change had been made by a Bill passing through the House."
We want to ensure a full examination by the House.
The new Deregulation Committee will become, as I have already said, one of the most senior Committees of the House. I am particularly concerned that the Government have been willing, in paragraph A(2) of the motion, to set out the three approaches that the Committee must make. It says:

"(a) that a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

(b) that the proposals should be amended before a draft order is laid before the House;"—

if that had been a recommendation of the Committee—

"(c) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of the proposals"—

other than those that have been laid by the House.
Paragraph (5) makes it clear that the Committee must consider whether the draft deregulation order appears to make any inappropriate use of delegated legislation. If it does, that is the first thing that the Committee should consider and reject. I hope that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Perry Barr about powers being extended.
The Committee will consider also the continuation of any necessary protection that the legislation may have given. The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that it is essential to ensure that protection is reviewed. That is stated in the Committee's recommendation and endorsed by the Government.
The measure introduces two provisions that were not part of the Procedure Committee's recommendations, but I am sure that it would have been happy to consider them. One is that the Deregulation Committee must consider whether the deregulation order has any retrospective effect. The Government were right to make that addition. The other is that the Committee should consider whether an order appears to be incompatible with any obligation resulting from membership of the European Union. Again, that addition is to be applauded rather than rejected.
I will be interested to hear the arguments of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for reducing the membership of the Deregulation Committee from 16 to 15. We felt that it needs to be that size to ensure that different parties and parts of the country could be represented on the Committee. We went to a lot of trouble before arriving at 16, which emphasises the importance that should be attached to the Deregulation Committee.

775
I am glad that the Government have, almost without exception, accepted our recommendations concerning the Committee's powers—that it can adjourn from place to place, report from time to time, have specialist advisers, appoint a sub-committee, sit during recesses, sit in other places in the United Kingdom, and communicate with other Committees and the House of Lords.
If the same deregulation order were being considered by both Houses, it would be nonsense to ask a Minister or other witnesses to appear twice. We should be able to arrange for evidence to be taken together, so that witnesses would have to appear only once.
The sub-committee's powers have also been defined and seem appropriate. There is, of course, the power to send for persons and papers. The Government have not accepted the recommendation that the Deregulation Committee should be able to summon Ministers. The Government argue, with considerable persuasiveness, that a Minister who wants to see his deregulation order approved would be unlikely to refuse the Committee's request to appear before it. Any Minister who rejected such an invitation would be likely to find that the Committee looked carefully and with a critical eye at the order. It would want to know why the devil the Minister would not attend to answer questions.
Mr. Spearing: Paragraph (9) states that the Committee shall have the power
"to send for persons, papers and records".
I may not have compared that properly with other Select Committee terms of reference, but I assume that it includes the power to send for Ministers. Do other Select Committees have different terms of reference?
Sir Peter Emery: Those powers are the same as for other departmental Select Committees, which do not have the power to summon Ministers. That can be done only by a request from the House, passed by the House. Similarly, a Select Committee cannot enforce the attendance of a Member of Parliament.
The Government could also argue, although they have not done so, that if they gave the Deregulation Committee—even though it may be one of the most important Committees—the power to call Ministers, that could be the thin end of the wedge and other Committees might demand a similar power. I am willing to accept the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council that a Minister would want to attend if requested.
The Deregulation Committee will adopt a new and unique procedure that I term the fast track. Where a provision is obviously a burden on business or the public, and is unanimously viewed by everyone on the Committee as something that should be done away with, deregulation can—after consideration by the Government—come before the House immediately and be put forthwith.
If only one member of the Committee objected, that would halt the fast track procedure. The proposal would be considered by the whole Committee, calling witnesses if necessary. If the Committee wanted to recommend approval of the deregulation order, it would come before the House—which would make sure that it was the same as the draft order and that the Government had not, by sleight of hand, altered it. The House could then debate it for one and a half hours.
776
If the Deregulation Committee believed that the draft order should not go forward, it could not be put to the House without a three-hour debate. Also unique is that instead of the order coming before the House because it is unamendable, the Procedure Committee has devised a device whereby an amendment to the draft order could be publicised and voted on by the House, because the House must approve or disapprove the Deregulation Committee's recommendation.
Therefore, for the Government to overcome the recommendation for an order not to be proceeded with, the matter must come to the House and the House must vote to disagree with one of its own Committees, which has recommended that the order should not be proceeded with. If the Committee contains a majority of members from the Government's party, it will be difficult for the Government to take that step. But if they do, they must first table an amendable motion whereby the Committee can make it clear why it is not willing to accept the deregulation order. The Procedure Committee thought that that new procedure would safeguard the rights of Members of the House to ensure that their views were properly expressed and not overridden or simply stamped on by a Government.
The Committee's recommendations are fairly definite: fast track; to the Floor of the House; and put forthwith. After debate and agreement by the Committee, the matter will be put to the House with the possibility of an hour and a half s debate. If matters are not agreed by the Committee, they will come to the Floor of the House for a three-hour debate—again, that is new—on an adjournable motion.
The amendments would alter that procedure so that there would be no fast track. But if members of the Committee are unanimous, a matter can still have an hour and a half s debate. The overall effect of the three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South would be that the hour and a half s debate for the second stage would be shunted to two and a half hours, and the three-hour debate would be shunted to four hours.
Mr. Spearing: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that removing the fast track gives greater protection to the House, Back-Bench Members and the public? Is not the fast track that he commends advantageous to Her Majesty's Government, whichever party is in power?
Sir Peter Emery: It is advantageous to the removal of a burden as quickly as possible. If 16 members from both sides of a Committee are unanimous in the view that it would remove a burden, that should be proceeded with as quickly as possible.
Mr. Spearing: So does it stay an hour and a half?
Sir Peter Emery: Well, it saves it having to be debated on the Floor of the House. But yes, it stays an hour and a half. Those differences do not amount to much. Without wishing to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman, the amendments involve a shunting from nothing, an hour and a half and three hours to an hour and a half, two and a half hours and four hours. The amendments are unnecessary and the Committee, which has considered the matter fully, supports the Government's recommendations.
I have been speaking for too long and should come to a conclusion. Basically, I repeat what I said before: this is a unique and new procedure which I hope will be

777
established. It may act as an illustration later when we consider how we may streamline procedures in the House generally. It is unique because of the variations, but I have made it crystal clear that, as the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, the Committee will have a great deal of work and will take up a great deal of Members' time, as it rightly should, because it deals with primary legislation.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Lord President for his kind words about me and the Committee. We are delighted that we can respond by approving the Government's recommendations, which will probably portend this evening.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to speak, I remind the House of Madam Speaker's ruling that it will be in order for the hon. Member to deal with any matter covered by his amendments. If he wishes to press either amendment (a) or (b) to a vote, he should move them formally at the conclusion of the whole debate.
6.15 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful for your reminder, Madam Deputy Speaker, of that ruling. I tabled the amendments to enable them to be discussed. I may decide to move amendments (a) and (b), but I understand that they could be negatived on the voice even if they are moved. In that event, we shall see what happens.
I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), for his clear exposition of why the Committee produced the basis for the new standing orders. As the House will have gathered from our exchanges, I take an opposite view about both the desirability of the Act and the effectiveness of the procedures. As we all know, standing orders are the ball bearings of democracy. They are the inner hub of the democratic wheel. Unfortunately, these standing orders break new constitutional ground—we agree on that. I also agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made clear, they will entail a lot of work by Committee members, comparable with the work done by the Public Accounts Committee.
Sir Peter Emery indicated assent.
Mr. Spearing: I see the Committee Chairman nodding.
The standing orders add another architectural wing to the procedural building of this House. I know that that is a mixed metaphor, but everyone understands what I mean. They will entail more effort and work by more hon. Members. But it will not be the normal work of most Select Committees, since Select Committees are generally considered to be good for democracy because they penetrate, expose—at least, they have the potential to do so—require evidence, test arguments, enlighten, produce reports and recommend. By making the Executive accountable, they add to the sum total of democracy. That is a fair assumption about Select Committees, but only if their functions match other functions of the House, and are in a particular context.
778
We can judge the proposed Committee's work, and the quality of its proposed standing orders, only by looking at their function. It is not to penetrate, expose and do all sorts of things to the Executive; rather, it is a reaction to a vast new power which legislation has already given the Executive. The right hon. Member for Honiton freely admits that. There is a fast track not just in terms of the Select Committee's work coming back to the Floor of the House—the subject of our earlier exchange—but in terms of new legislation itself.
The proposals in the Act are for legislation allowing statutory instruments to amend pretty well any Act at all. Indeed, although there is no limit on the Act, other than the Government's wish, the proposals would allow a single statutory instrument to amend an unknown number of Acts in an unknown number of ways.
If I am wrong about that, I am sure that the Leader of the House will tell me so—as will the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. But the document that the Government must present to the House under, I believe, section 3 of the Act, need not be one document per proposed amendment; it can be one document per statutory instrument. Presumably, given a schedule, there can be any number of amendments to any number of Acts: no limit is imposed by either the Act or the Standing Orders.
Let us imagine, to use a crude analogy, that a huge new powerful motor car driving from Whitehall to Westminster is to be equipped with brakes. What we are discussing tonight, as we have in previous debates, is the nature of those brakes. I contend that whatever we manage to cobble together tonight in regard to Standing Orders will not be appropriate, because many of us do not think that the motor car should exist in the first place.
It is not just a question of party politics; it is a question of whether any Government should have this power. The ability to amend any number of Acts of Parliament by means of a single statutory instrument, whatever the scrutiny procedure, is a considerable power for any Executive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr pointed out, section 3 enables the Minister to construct his motor car—or bulldozer: many metaphors could be used—by consulting such organisations
"as appear to him to be representative",
and such persons
"as he considers appropriate"
and to
"undertake such further consultation with respect to the variations as appears to him to be appropriate."
Only at the conclusion of that will the Minister lay the document, if that is considered appropriate.
As we know from current proceedings in the House—from what will happen on Monday, for instance, and from the discussions that took place over the weekend—if a Minister has already said that he will do this and lays the appropriate paper before the House, he and his supporters are to an extent committed. He and the Government will decide what is to be done, not in the Queen's Speech but in secret consultation, according to statute. Even before we start, we are faced with a pretty formidable machine. My amendments suggest, in a modest way, how the brakes can be made a little more efficient—although I do not think they would be very efficient even if the amendments were accepted.

779
Before I discuss the amendments, however, let me say something about the associated topic of related committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr suggested that this new Committee might, in a way, be analogous to the Public Accounts Committee, and I agree that in some administrative senses that will be true. The Committee will be given a good deal of evidence by a number of people. It will, however, be prospective in legislative terms, rather than retrospective in terms of policing and money. A big difference is involved in that.
One similarity will lie in the fact that many people will be involved, absorbing the Committee's time and effort. It may also generate considerable controversy. As has been suggested, there are also similarities with the Select Committee on European Legislation. As the right hon. Member for Honiton knows, I was able to give his Committee some evidence when I chaired the European Committee, as I did for nine years.
In my view, however, while there are several similarities, in regard to administration and in regard to at least some of the clerking skills. This Committee, however, will not fulfil the same constitutional role. While the European Committee suggests that debates should take place and presents an objective report on what is at issue, it does not deal with merit. The purpose of this Committee, however, is almost wholly related to merit. It must judge—first on the evidence that the Minister provides and then on evidence that may come from elsewhere, within tight time limits—the balance between protection and burden.
The right hon. Gentleman has constantly said that the Act is there to reduce burdens, and I do not blame him; that, after all, is the purpose of the Act. But—to misquote Harold Wilson—one person's burden is another's protection. In the history of the House of Commons, most Members of Parliament have a duty here to achieve a balance between the two. We are dealing not just with any old amendments to Acts, but with what I would describe as the heart of one of the functions of the House of Commons and Acts of Parliament: balancing burdens and benefits. The biggest balance of the lot is that between taxation and how the money is spent. The Committee is important, in that it lies at the heart of a great deal of what the House is elected to do in any event.
The right hon. Member for Honiton said a good deal about fast tracks, and his Committee has provided a diagram illustrating what will happen. I do not think that its proposals will all be adopted, but a diagram is certainly needed to explain the position properly. The right hon. Gentleman did explain, as did the Leader of the House, in terms of the different procedures. No fewer than 110 lines explain how the Committee should be established and how it should work. Much of the content replicates what other Select Committee have produced, but much does not. I refer to the double blocking procedure.
My amendment (b) deals with the limit of one and a half hours debate on the Floor of the House. At present the House devotes that time to dealing with a single statutory instrument; until just after the war, the debate was open ended. If only five people are present in the relevant quorum when the proposal reaches its final stages in the Committee—perhaps only two Opposition Members—it is possible that, if three or five of them agree we shall end up with a large number of amendments to Acts, which will then come to the House and be taken forthwith. In fact, I believe that there must be a minimum of five
780
people, and in some cases they may all be non-Opposition Members. Can any hon. Member deny that that is a possible scenario? The right hon. Member for Honiton nods.
Sir Peter Emery: It is a possibility.
Mr. Spearing: I thank the hon. Member for confirming my suggestion. Why are we passing Standing Orders that will allow an unknown number of Acts to be amended in an unknown number of ways, forthwith, on the Floor of the House?
Sir Peter Emery: Let me try to clear up a point that the hon. Gentleman raised, which created a doubt in my mind. He suggested that a single order might involve a host of matters affecting different pieces of legislation. Section 1 of the Act refers consistently to a single order concerned with a certain burden. It is possible that that burden would be covered by more than one Act, but it is a single burden and not a series of burdens concerning a series of different Acts. Certainly, the Government never suggested, and the Select Committee never considered—on the evidence that it received—that serialisation under a single Act could be implemented under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act in its ultimate form.
I thought it important to straighten that out; it should relieve the hon. Gentleman's worries.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for that intervention because it shows that sometimes useful exchanges occur when there are only a few hon. Members in the House. Less light is often shed on matters when there is a maximum number of hon. Members present. This is a classic example of the former situation.
The comments of the right hon. Member for Honiton may be correct by the implicit wording of the Act, but until now that has not been made clear. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making the point clear. He is saying that a single statutory instrument deals with a particular burden which may involve the amendment of part of an Act or a number of Acts, which may relieve or change the balance of the burden. It means also that we will not have a series of decisions made forthwith or any debates on anything other than a single burden to be removed. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Honiton for proving that because it removes at least some of my objection to the procedure. Nevertheless, the essentials remain.
I am thinking aloud now, but that is what we do here sometimes. The question is what we mean by "burden". It could be a collective burden on a number of matters relating to machinery, safety at work or anything. We have to define what "the burden" is. I can see that a single statutory instrument might encompass a wide range of burdens.
The right hon. Member for Honiton referred to the possibility of a division. If there is a division within the Committee, there has to be a debate of an hour and a half. I hope that that is so, because the statutory instruments are important enough to deserve at least that. My amendment (c), which is not being called, asks for a debate of two hours. After the Minister has opened the debate and the Opposition Front Bench Member has spoken, if we are to leave time for winding up, we

781
discover that one and a half hours is not very long. Although my amendment is not being called, it is something that we may wish to consider.
My amendment (aa) has not been called, but it has been referred to by the right hon. Member for Honiton in relation to the chairmanship of the Committee. I recognise that it might be inadvisable to put, in broad terms in standing orders, whether the chairmanship of particular Committees should be held by Opposition or Government Members. I do not think that that occurs in Standing Orders now. However, there is a convention on these matters, and one which reflects the quality of the House. There is nothing to prevent a Select Committee from underlining that convention with a recommendation. That would be acceptable.
I have many connections with colleagues from other European Parliaments. When I told them that I was the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation not because of my views but simply because I was a member of the Opposition, they said, "Quel magnifique—does that mean that the Chairman is always appointed from the Opposition?" When I said that that was so, they said, "That is marvellous. Your House of Commons is so marvellous. I wish we did that." The Public Accounts Committee, the Statutory Instruments Committee and the Select Committee on European Legislation follow that convention and it is agreed. I am not saying that it should be in Standing Orders.
The singular voting event referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr was unfortunate. On reflection, the Chairman of the Committee, despite his hard work on this, might have done something different. The Select Committee report—HC238 from the parliamentary Session 1993–94—says in paragraph 96:
"We recommend that the Deregulation Committee should be chaired by a member from an Opposition party."
There is nothing wrong with that recommendation as such. That was in the Chairman's draft report and I thought that the hon. Member for Honiton was following the convention. When they voted on that recommendation, there were six ayes and six noes. The Chairman then declared himself with the noes. That was against convention because the status quo was the Chairman's report under discussion.
That is unfortunate and I hope that the hon. Member for Honiton will reconsider and recommend to the Leader of the House that, by convention, if not by recommendation, the new Select Committee should be added to the list of Committees following the convention. Chairmen have responsibilities and, if the Committee is not added to that list, the enormous powers will be allied with the interests of Her Majesty's Government and not with the interests of the House and proper scrutiny. It would not be in the interests of the Government of the day, whoever that may be, or in the interests of those concerned or the public if that convention were not continued. My amendment asks that the membership of the Committee be changed from 16 to 15. That alters the mathematics. With 15 and a Government Chairman, the
782
Government majority would be marginally reduced. It was tabled in order to bring the matter into the ambit of debate and for no other reason.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman raised my name as Chairman of the Committee and spoke about the way I cast my vote. It is only fair that I should explain, as I explained to the Committee, that the chairmanship of any new Committee established by the House has always been negotiated through the usual channels. There has never been a recommendation from a Select Committee about the chairmanship. There is no doubt that the usual channels will have seen what was in the draft report. When the Committee is established, the usual channels will decide. I believe that that was the right way to behave and that is why I voted as I did.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for that explanation and I am glad to have been able to give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of making it. We all understand that negotiations between the usual channels have to take place, although we accept that it is a bit of a compromise. However, the convention of the House that certain sorts of Committee always have an Opposition Chairman is a slightly different matter. I do not think that we have had a new Select Committee of this sort since the formation of the Select Committee on European Legislation in 1974 when the late John Davies,. whom many of us recall, went straight from the Cabinet to be Chairman of that Committee in Opposition. I understand the explanation of the right hon. Member for Honiton, but I suggest that the precedent for new Committees is on my side of the argument rather than his.
I shall conclude with a quotation from those days. It is from the Select Committee on Procedure appointed in 1976 which reported in the Session 1977–78. Paragraph 1.5 of that report—HC588—said:
"We agree that the relationship between the executive and the legislature is the crucial feature of the functioning of our institutions of government, and we are conscious of the widespread concern in the country about the present nature of that relationship …The essence of the problem…is that the balance of advantage between Parliament and Government in the day to day working of the Constitution is now weighted in favour of the Government to a degree which arouses widespread anxiety and is inimical to the proper working of our parliamentary democracy."
That was the view of the Select Committee which made recommendations for the setting up of the departmental Select Committees. It was followed up by Lord Pym and Lord St John of Fawsley respectively, as shadow Leader and Leader of the House. That view was expressed unanimously by the members of that Committee who were elected on 15 June 1976. The record states that the Committee consisted of:
"Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Michael English, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Richard Luce, Mr. David Marquand, Mr. John Peyton, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. Giles Radice, Sir David Renton, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Nigel Spearing and Sir Thomas Williams."
I believe that the Act on the basis of which the Standing Orders will come into being will do what was then feared. It will give greater power to the Executive and less power to the House. Whatever the degree of the changes that we may make and whatever the complications involving the Standing Orders, they will go in the opposite direction to that epoch-making Select Committee report nearly 20 years ago.
6.39 pm
Mr. James Hill: I understand that we have only a few minutes left in the debate. I rise to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, who steered the ship through some troubled waters, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House,who, when giving evidence, made so many matters clear.
I suppose that all hon. Members are sorry that Ministers will not he able to come to the new Select Committee but, after a while, there may be a change of heart because, obviously, Ministers will know most about any deregulation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that many of the deregulations would be "tiddlers". He said that 55 possible deregulations were waiting in the corridor. I am sure that they will be phased through. Some regulations will be so ancient that we shall be able to dismiss them in a few minutes.
I have looked at our list of recommendations. Apart from the recommendation on a Minister of the Crown, I think that the Leader of the House has given way on practically everything else. Perhaps the only possible vacuum involves the fact that we wanted to exchange evidence with other House of Commons Committees. That may be a bit laborious.
We have heard a great deal from the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation. There is no doubt that the Joint Committee containing hon. Members from this place and the other place will provide great expertise. I was pleased that I was assured when hearing evidence that hon. Members with specialist knowledge would be able to attend and speak in the Committee. It is a good idea to allow everyone who has expertise on a Bill to give their view.
I hear much twittering of papers, so I had better not delay the House any longer. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker for calling me, and I fully support the new Committee.
6.42 pm
Mr. Newton: In recent moments, there appears to have been a slight shift in the atmosphere in the House, which may have affected hon. Members' views on how much time I should take for my speech, but it would be appropriate to comment on a number of points that have been raised.
Among the pleasures of the debate, which, I must admit, have so far been few, is the fact that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is performing for the first time in his new role. This is the first time that he and I have faced each other across the Dispatch Box, as distinct from facing each other in other ways.
In my early period as Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, a position that I filled from about 1982 to 1984, the hon. Member for Perry Barr was my Opposition opposite number, so to speak. I remember some entertaining exchanges at DHSS Questions, as they were then known, between Conservative Members and Opposition Members. He sat on the Government Benches in 1974 to 1979, when I sat on the Opposition Benches.
784
During that time, I served on every one of the innumerable Committees that considered the Finance Bill and I think that he sat on many of them. too.
Mr. Rooker: I sat on only one.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman certainly made his mark on that one. I served on every one of the two-yearly Committees considering the Finance Bill from 1974 to 1979. One Committee sticks in the mind. Perhaps it was not widely noticed by people outside. As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendments that were tabled in that Committee became known as the Rooker-Wise amendments, but they should have been called either the Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendments or the Rooker-Wise-Newton-Lawson amendments. At that stage, however, I was not prepared to own up. They were entertaining and interesting times, even if much of our business was done at unusual times of the night.
The people whose business it is to ensure that the House's affairs run smoothly have improved their performance in recent moments. That may ease the pressure on me as I rapidly start to comment on the points that have been raised.
I must enter some reservation about the criticism, as I suppose one must call it, from Front-Bench and Back-Bench Opposition Members over the speed with which the Orders have allegedly been introduced. I accept that the detail of the fairly complex changes to the Standing Orders—such things nearly always end up being fairly complex—has been around for only a week or so. However, the shape and nature of the proposals, including those to which the hon. Member for Perry Barr objects, were made clear in a full Government statement months ago, before the House even completed its consideration of the proposals.
The notion, therefore, that the hon. Members for Perry Barr and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have had only one week to find out what all this is about is far fetched. I see from the expression of the face of hon. Member for Perry Barr that he thinks that I have a point.
One of the things about the hon. Member for Perry Barr is that he sometimes manages to end a speech at the Dispatch Box in the manner of a militant, but I have always known that under it lie the mind and heart of a moderate.
Sir Peter Emery: And an honest man.
Mr. Newton: I take that for granted, as I do for all our colleagues in the House, not least the hon. Member for Newham, South, who I suspect may be seeking to stop this badinage and to get me to say something about the Standing Orders.
Mr. Spearing: Of course, I accept that the proposal's general outline has been known for a long time. The limitation of time, however, involves formal exposure of the proposals to hon. Members. Effectively, the proposals have been on the Order Paper for three days. I think that that is accurate. That is the issue.
Mr. Newton: I do not want to make a meal of this, but I resist that conclusion. This happened months ago, so I may have the sequence slightly out of order, but, either before Report or certainly before Third Reading, I made sure that a full paper setting out the Government's

785
proposals was exposed to anyone who cared to look at it. The proposed arrangements were fully explained in the House. This, therefore, is not a bounce.
Sir Peter Emery: We had an Adjournment debate on the matter.
Mr. Newton: We did indeed and the issues were considered in that debate.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr made some reasonable points. I cannot respond to all of them; I shall reflect on some of them and draw them to the attention of those people in the usual channels who will have to consider the membership of the Committee. They can consider some of the points that he raised in talking about the usual conventions.
It is often assumed that there are Select Committees on which Front-Bench spokesmen do not serve, but a significant number of Select Committees include Front-Bench spokesmen, including the domestic Committees dealing with broadcasting and House matters. The Select Committee on Members' Interests has Front-Bench spokesmen from both sides of the House. It is clearly not ruled out in principle. If it seems sensible that they should sit on the Committee, the matter could be considered.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that who had been consulted should be made clear. The intention is to say what consultations have taken place, unless the people involved specifically request confidentiality. Such information would, therefore, normally be available to the Committee. There is no attempt to cover up or prevent the Committee from having the information that it should have.
The requirement for the ministerial document to be laid specifically includes the consultation undertaken and any representations received, subject to the usual condition of confidentiality if requested. The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that that would be laborious and time-consuming work, but the Government are conscious of the need not to swamp the new process. Depending on how many proposals the Committee might want to inquire into in more detail, we would have to judge the number that could be considered at any one time. As I said, we intend to set up a special mechanism in Whitehall to ensure that there is a sensible flow of business to the Committee.
Mr. Rooker: The right hon. Gentleman again makes an analogy with the Public Accounts Committee, which deals with between 30 and 45 reports a year. Its programme of work comes from the National Audit Office more or less on a two-year basis. Not everything comes to fruition, but it has had good advance notice so that it can programme the timetable for membership and publication of any reports. I am not suggesting that there should be a requirement for two years' notice, but I believe that the new Committee should have decent up-front knowledge rather than three or four months.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman and I have been doing business together for 20 years so he should know me well enough to accept that, if someone makes a
786
reasonable point, I try to respond reasonably. His point certainly sounds reasonable and I shall ensure that it is examined.
Sir Peter Emery: The Government have assured the Committee that they would consult on such matters.
Mr. Newton: I come rapidly to my response to what I take to be the main thrust of the criticisms and concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Perry Barr and for Newham, South and, in passing, pick up on a particular point made by the former. I believe that I can quote almost the exact words used by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, who said that he wanted the legal adviser to the Committee to have as much to do with the Government as he did. In fact, the intention is that the Deregulation Committee will be given legal advice by the Counsel to the Speaker, not by Government lawyers. I think that the House authorities will confirm that the Counsel to the Speaker has precisely as much to do with the Government as the hon. Gentleman has and is entirely independent of the Government.
The notion that we are seeking to take powers away from the House is far-fetched. Under a different range of mechanisms, every proposal—whatever the Committee says—comes to the House, often for further discussion if the House so wishes, but always for a decision. That is an important and basic point. The hon. Member for Newham, South and, indeed, the hon. Member for Perry Barr, seemed to suggest that the Government would drop the vehicle licensing system or the health and safety at work system under the new legislation, but that is a ridiculous notion.
Mr. Spearing: I did not mention it.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps not, but that was the flavour of what the hon. Gentleman said. The implication was that the Government would charge around, overturning important Acts of Parliament at the drop of a hat and without a vote. That is far-fetched. The White Paper contains 55 examples and I accept that the one that I always choose is the most extreme. One of the proposals is to ensure that the Patent Office can accept documents in forms other than on paper, such as electronic filing. The Government believe that it does not make sense in this day and age to have to pass an Act to allow the Patent Office to accept documents in forms other than on paper. It is an extreme example but a good one; it threatens no one and is simply common sense. It is daft to have to go through the three or four stages of an Act in two Houses of Parliament to allow that to happen. We are devising a procedure to allow it to happen more simply and sensibly. I commend that and the Orders to the House.
Amendment proposed: (a), in Standing Order A, paragraph (14), leave out 'fifteen' and insert `twenty'.— [Mr. Spearing.]
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Amendment proposed: (b), in Standing Order B, paragraph (1)(a), leave out `forthwith' and insert
'not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion'.[Mr. Spearing.].
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Main Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That Standing Orders A and B below shall have effect and Standing Orders No. 14 (Exempted business), No. 124 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) and No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) shall be amended as set out below.

A. Deregulation Committee

(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Deregulation Committee, to examine every document containing proposals laid before the House under section 3, and every draft order proposed to be made under section 1, of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

(2) The committee shall report to the House, in relation to every document containing proposals laid before the House under the said section 3, either—

(a) that a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

(b) that the proposals should be amended before a draft order is laid before the House; or

(c) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of the proposals.

(3) The committee shall report to the House, in relation to every draft order laid before the House under the said section 1, its recommendation whether the draft order should be approved.

(4) The committee may report to the House on any matter arising from consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.

(5)

(A) In its consideration of proposals the committee shall consider in each case whether the proposals—

(a) appear to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation;

(b) remove or reduce a burden or the authorisation or requirement of a burden;

(c) continue any necessary protection;

(d) have been the subject of, and take appropriate account of, adequate consultation;

(e) impose a charge on the public revenues or contain provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribe the amount of any such charge or payment;

(f) purport to have retrospective effect;

(g) give rise to doubts whether they are intra vires;

(h) require elucidation or appear to be defectively drafted;

(i) appear to be incompatible with any obligation resulting from membership of the European Union.

(B) In its consideration of draft orders, the committee shall consider in each case all the matters set out in sub-paragraph (A) above and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard to any resolution or report of the Committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration.

(6) The committee shall consist of sixteen members.

(7) The quorum of the committee shall be five.

(8) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

788

(9) The committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, and to report from time to time;

(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;

(c) to appoint a sub-committee, of which the quorum shall be two, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;

(d) to communicate its evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest to any committee appointed by this House and to any committee appointed by the Lords to examine deregulation proposals and draft orders.

(10) The committee and the sub-committee shall have leave to meet concurrently with any select committee appointed by the Lords to examine deregulation proposals and draft orders and any sub-committee thereof.

(11) The committee and the sub-committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker and, if their Lordships think fit, the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees.

(12) The committee and the sub-committee shall have power to 'nvite Members of the House who are not members of the committee to attend meetings at which witnesses are being examined and such Members may, at the discretion of the chairman, ask questions of those witnesses; but no Member not being of the committee shall otherwise take part in the proceedings of the committee or sub-committee, or be counted in the quorum.

(13) It shall be an instruction to the committee that before reporting either—

(i) that any proposal should be amended before a draft order is laid before the House, or

(ii) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of any proposal, or

(iii) that any draft order should not be approved,

it shall afford to any government department concerned, an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to it or to the sub-committee appointed by it such explanations as the department think fit.

(14) It shall be an instruction to the committee that it report on every draft order not more than fifteen sitting days after the draft order was laid before the House, indicating in the case of draft orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division.

B. Consideration of draft deregulation orders

(1) If the Deregulation Committee has reported under paragraph (3) of Standing Order A (Deregulation Committee) that a draft order laid before the House under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 should be approved and a motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to that effect, the question thereon shall—

(a) if the committee's recommendation was agreed without a division, be put forthwith;

(b) if the committee's recommendation was agreed after a division, be put not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion.

(2) If the committee has reported that a draft order should not be approved, no motion to approve the draft order shall be made unless the House has previously resolved to disagree with the committee's report; the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion for such a resolution to disagree shall be put not later than three hours after their commencement; and the question shall be put forthwith on any motion thereafter made by a Minster of the Crown that such a draft order be approved.

(3) Motions to which this order applies may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.

Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business)

789
Line 14, after 'procedure))', insert 'or Standing Order B (Consideration of draft deregulation orders)'.
Standing Order No. 124 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee))
Line 22, at end insert 'and any draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994'.
Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments)
Line 101, after 'Accounts', insert 'and to the Deregulation Committee'.

European Community Type-Approval of Motor Cycles
6.55 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10904/93, 8037/94 and 8618/94 relating to European Community type-approval of motorcycles; supports the principle of a single market in motorcycles which such a process is designed to achieve; shares the Government's view that amendments must be sought to Document No. 10904/93 if it is not to impact adversely and unnecessarily on motorcyclists and the motorcycle industry; supports the European Parliament's amendments set out in Document No. 8037/94 on the deletion of a motorcycle power limit; but opposes the European Parliament's amendment in that Document seeking a role for it in 'comitology'.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to listen to the Lord President's speech. I enjoyed it hugely and was able to regain my breath. I gather that my right hon. Friend was worried that I might have missed his pearls of wisdom, which would have been a shame. It was clearly a stimulating debate, but I must make progress.
This debate provides a welcome opportunity for us to comment on the recent developments in the Community's formation of a single market in motor cycles and, in particular, on the draft multi-purpose and power directives and their place in it.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am puzzled by the motion and wonder whether my query could be dealt with before we move on. What does "comitology" mean? I have not been able to find it and gather that it has not been used in the House before. I should be grateful for an explanation.
Mr. Norris: There is to be no conferring on this. Would my hon. Friend like the short or long explanation? I have a 45-minute monograph on the subject because, perhaps not surprisingly, the first question to my excellent officials was, "What does 'comitology' mean?" As with most other "ologies"—as it was once remarked in a famous advertisement—it is the science of committee working. It refers to the rather arcane procedure by which the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) is taking this on board; no doubt she will correct me if I get it wrong. Perhaps she would like to explain it to my hon. Friend—or perhaps not.
The essence of the science is that a process was agreed at Maastricht whereby the European Parliament eventually had the power of veto over proposals made in the form of directives by the Council of Ministers and the Commission. Under the present arrangements, the comitology procedure means that minor detail, not of itself considered to be of sufficient importance to be in the main text of a directive, could be altered simply by, in essence, a committee arrangement.
The European Parliament latched on to the idea that, if it had the power of veto over main directives but did not have the power to deal with the detail, it would leave them with an imperfect power. The current debate about comitology is whether we should extend to the European Parliament the right of veto not only in respect of—[Interruption.] I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is following this

791
because it is good stuff. The current debate is whether we should extend the right of veto to the minor detail of directives as well as to the directives themselves.
I hope that I can usefully summarise the Government view now—that was the short version. We believe that it would be more appropriate to deal with those matters at the intergovernmental conference that is due to be held in 1996. In all seriousness, that is my explanation and I hope that it will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). It is a fairly arcane subject, but the principle is pretty clear in this case.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am most grateful.
Ms Joan Walley: What does the Minister mean by a minor detail?
Mr. Norris: That is not a trick question—nor is it a difficult one. The answer is those details that would have been contained in the subsidiary regulations that follow on and support Council directives. Under the post-Maastricht arrangement, the directive would eventually be the subject of a veto exercised by the European Parliament and all sorts of ramifications would follow. Under the existing, pre-Maastricht arrangement the detail, which could have been altered by committee within the Community, clearly escapes the new veto power.
The question is the extent to which the European Parliament should be permitted to accrete that new power, which would go significantly beyond what was agreed at Maastricht.
I fear that the Parliament has used motor cycle power limits to extend a concept that is not directly related to that measure but has wider political implications. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Government view is that the question should not be debated in this context, but at the intergovernmental conference in 1996.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Perhaps my hon. Friend could answer the question about which one or two of my constituents are most anxious. Is it correct that no decision affecting motor cyclists will be taken by the House this evening? The matter will be decided later, in the manner that he described.
Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is right. No decisions will be taken on the subject tonight. I appreciate that most of my hon. Friends and the Opposition Members present are keener to move on to the next business. I hope that the House will allow me, therefore, to make some rapid progress and to outline the measure in front of us.
Ms Walley: May I press the Minister? What does he mean by a detail of that kind? Could not technical issues, which could have a great bearing on legislation in one way or another, be involved? Can he give us an example?
Mr. Norris: I do not think that it would be especially helpful for us to go into such detail. That is asking for the 45-minute précis, which I hope that the hon. Lady is not keen to hear. My hon. Friends are not keen to hear it either. They have obviously heard me before. Perhaps I may leave the hon. Lady with this thought. She is right. Is it not often said of legislation—as much in this House as elsewhere—that the devil is in the detail? Detailed matters are immensely technical, but they are also capable of making vast differences to the impact of legislation. To that extent, the proposition that the European Parliament advances is perfectly serious. The Government's position,
792
which will find favour on both sides of the House, is that we should consider comitology in the context of the 1996 IGC, rather than in relation to the legislation under consideration tonight.
We are considering the issues that flow from the type-approval arrangements for motor cycles throughout member states. That process is intended to establish a single Community-wide market in motor cycles as the market is very fragmented.
Type approval involves the approval of pre-production models or components by European Community certification agencies and checking the conformity of production in accordance with those types. Many of the measures are already in place, but there are two outstanding before the package can be completed and they are quite controversial.
The first is the draft directive on maximum power, maximum design speed and maximum torque. As hon. Members will know, it is proposed that a limit of 74 kw—100 brake horse power—should be set. That is roughly equivalent to a modern 750 cc machine. That proposal found favour with all the other member states apart from the United Kingdom as our excellent manufacturer, Triumph, would be significantly disadvantaged by it.
Mr. Peter Butler: As someone who has held a full motor cycle licence since my 16th birthday, and had the great pleasure of riding a Triumph 900 cc bike for a few days at Easter, I find the proposal perturbing. That motor cycle had well over 100 brake horse power, but was the safest, as well as the most powerful, machine that I had ridden in a moderately long career of riding and falling off motor cycles.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The history of the hon. Gentleman's motor cycling abilities is interesting, but interventions are supposed to be short and to the point.
Mr. Butler: Indeed, it is shortening and becoming more pointed by the moment. The Triumph company said that three of its models will have to come out: of production if the 100 brake horsepower limit is imposed. I urge my hon. Friend to do all that he can to prevent that from happening.
Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend was merely seeking to condense, in the pithy way of which he is so capable, an entire speech into one intervention.
Mr. Butler: I have got more.
Mr. Norris: I withdraw that remark. Apparently, my hon. Friend has more to say. His intervention was absolutely to the point. So that we are in no doubt, virtually all Triumph's models would fall foul of the proposed restriction and it would certainly have a very adverse effect on the company's production, which is increasing by leaps and bounds. All of us with any interest in the industry are delighted at that increase.
To put it simply and quickly, the United Kingdom alone among European Community countries objected to the limit. It found an ally in the European Parliament, which saw the logic of the UK proposals, to the extent that in May the Parliament voted for nine amendments on Second Reading, which deleted all references to the power limit and substituted a Commission study into the possibility of a link between power and accidents. That

793
is the crucial ground. The amendments together with the comitology amendment are the documents to which the motion refers.
In the light of an adverse opinion from the Commission, it fell to the Council of Ministers to decide whether unanimously to accept all the amendments. In the absence of unanimity, the Council convened a meeting of the conciliation committee—between its representatives and those of the European Parliament—with the object of reaching agreement on a joint text.
At the meeting on 18 October, representatives of the United Kingdom and the European Parliament argued strongly in favour of the power amendments and I am pleased to inform the House that a joint agreement was provisionally reached to proceed on the basis of those amendments.
The whole issue of comitology remained unresolved.
Mr. David Tredinnick: As my hon. Friend knows, I represent Triumph. My information is that the worst-case effect of the anti-tampering chapter would be that the model range would have to be cut from 10 to one.
Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in those matters because he has represented the company for some time. That information only serves to emphasise the seriousness of the proposal for Triumph, which is not the least of the reasons why we believe that it is wrong.
Our objective in the conciliation process will be to ensure that nothing is agreed which is inconsistent with the present comitology rules or prejudices the separate, wider discussions on comitology that are taking place between the institutions.
Against that background, and having resolutely opposed the power limits and succeeded in our objective, the Government consider that it would be folly if the Council and the European Parliament failed to agree—in the context of the power directive—what to do about comitology. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of conciliation on that. However, there is every hope that common sense will prevail.
The other chapters of the measure that are controversial, or that have excited interest, are the proposals on noise and emissions. They need to be seen against the backdrop of a policy by the UK and its EC partners to try to limit noise and emissions as far as practicable in line with technological developments. I assure the House that motor cycles are not being singled out in that respect. We simply aim, in practice, to apply sensible restrictions on motor cycles which are consistent with those that have applied to the heaviest goods vehicles over the past decade.
Let me make clear the extent of the reductions in pollution levels. They have now reached the point at which the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, which reported fairly recently, has said there is now
"only limited scope for further modifications to vehicles … to make them quieter".
794
That underlines how far we have moved. Stricter noise limits are to be introduced for all classes of four-wheeled vehicles from October 1996, resulting in a maximum level of 80 decibels, which is the same as that proposed for the largest motor cycles.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that if one listens to a BMW or a Yamaha FJ1200, one realises that if they are properly tuned they purr very quietly? They are very pleasant—
Mr. Butler: They are quieter than my hon. Friend's Lotus.
Mr. Fabricant: As my hon. Friend says, they are considerably quieter than my Lotus. Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept, however, that part of the problem is that the current laws are not being enforced by European countries? Surely that point should be addressed before we even attempt to achieve a 37 per cent. drop in noise level, which is what is being asked for in the EU document.
Mr. Norris: I note what my hon. Friend says. He will forgive me if I do not accept his invitation to speculate on what should be the practice in other countries because we are, of course, concerned with the implications of the directives here. My hon. Friend was, however, right to point out that when motor cycles are properly tuned and properly operated, there is no reason why they should present offensively in terms of noise. Responsible motor cyclists themselves are happy to accede to that. Problems often arise when motor cycles are either inappropriately altered, to which I shall refer in a moment, or simply badly maintained.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) agrees that although there is no case for discriminating against motor cyclists unreasonably—indeed, I have made it clear that I believe that they have an immensely valuable role to play and that, in the urban context, two wheels will generally consume far less space than four—there is no principle on which one could justify offering preferential arrangements concerning noise and emissions to motor cyclists as against the arrangements that are offered to motor cars.
A series of directives in recent years will result, with the introduction of the latest directive, in passenger car emissions having been reduced, in the space of only six years, by about 90 per cent. in respect of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide, by 60 per cent. in respect of carbon monoxide and by 70 per cent. in respect of particulates. Similar reductions with respect to heavy diesel-engined vehicles, including buses and lorries, will have been achieved when the second stage of the directive comes into effect in October 1996.
Consequently, when we support the Commission's proposals, far from discriminating against motor cycles, we are applying an even-handed policy which reflects an increasing concern by the public at large for improvements in the environment. Against that background, we think that it would be wrong for motor cycles to receive preferential treatment. I shall not go into a great deal of detail on the proposals because the House would not greatly welcome that. Suffice it to say that I think that there is a reasonable level of agreement among the manufacturers and the representatives of the industry that the proposals are reasonable.

795
It may be worth pointing out that there are, of course, differences between the engines used in motor cycles and those used in cars. There is the issue of the catalytic converter which, since 1 January 1993, has been the basis for securing the large reductions of emissions in modern motor vehicles. The general presumption is that it would be desirable not to move to that—this is certainly the British view—in relation to motor cycles unless it proved absolutely necessary. The Germans take a slightly different view. We believe, however, that we can make a great deal of progress on that position simply by refining the current engineering techniques available to us.
The Government support the new proposals in both areas. We think that they are achievable within the time scale and that the economic cost is sensible. We do not believe that they will be to the detriment of motor cycle performance. The industry has advised the Department that the proposals can be met either by existing technology or by engine modifications. After-treatment systems, such as catalytic converters, will not be necessary. We are not entirely convinced that even more stringent exhaust measures can be justified in view of the low number of motor cycles in the UK in relation to the number of other vehicles. That underlines how we believe that conventional technology can solve the problem.
The remaining controversial chapter concerns anti-tampering. The principle there is fairly straightforward. We all understand why small motor cycles need to be protected from tampering. If they are not, people who are not allowed to ride large motor cycles because they do not have the appropriate licence simply tweak the motor cycles they have, which is dangerous for them and dangerous for other road users. We take the view, however, that anti-tampering is not an appropriate subject for the large motor cycle; that is not where the problem is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) knows perfectly well that interchangeability in this area is the key to the way in which the industry is developing. It would be futile to insist on anti-tampering measures in respect of larger machines when it is not clear what the objective of such legislation would be.
Sir Keith Speed: It would help the House and the Department's position if my hon. Friend would tell us where we have got on the Motor Cycle Noise Act 1987, which was introduced as a private Member's Bill by the late Robert Adley, the former hon. Member for Christchurch. That bans and causes penalties for fitting illegal exhausts. I do not think that the Act is yet fully operative and I do not know of any prosecutions under it. The Act seems to be totally in line with everything that my hon. Friend is saying, provided that we can bring it into operation.
Mr. Norris: I fear that I cannot advise my hon. Friend precisely on the status of the Adley Act; I am aware of it. [Interruption.] I may, indeed, be able to tell my hon. Friend. The message is, however, so opaque that I will not convey it to him now for fear of misleading him. I will, of course, write to him.
The Act addresses exactly the issue, which is that there is a tendency with motor cycles for people to want to meddle with the standard equipment. There is, however, a much more important issue in relation to small motor cycles. Riders in certain categories are allowed to use only motor cycles up to a certain output limit. Tampering with
796
that output would allow them to ride motor cycles for which they are not qualified. It would, however, be almost impossible to detect such tampering because, to the naked eye, the model would look perfectly standard. That is why at the lower end of the power range, anti-tampering makes reasonable sense. What does not make sense—this is the position that we have wanted to take—is to extend that principle right through the power range. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth knows, the effect there is quite counter-productive.
Mr. Robert Key: Will my hon. Friend keep fighting for motor cycles in this country? I am sure that he has demonstrated tonight his mastery of the detail which contains the devil, as he has illustrated. When I was doing my hon. Friend's job, I learned that there was no substitute for meeting the kind and generous people who make up the Motorcycle Action Group and who educated me about motor cycling. Let us suppose that I were to ask them to arrange for my hon. Friend to ride pillion on a motor cycle from his constituency to his office. Would he accept?
Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend tempts me with that offer. I should probably need to qualify who the rider of the machine was. My experience of motor cycles came to a somewhat abrupt end around 1960 when Aigburth road, Liverpool and I had a rather closer acquaintance than I intended, since when I have stuck to four wheels. My hon. Friend is a persuasive advocate and, if I may say so in passing, he was also an excellent representative of the industry in the negotiations that he carried out which preceded our present position. On that basis, subject to all the usual warranties, with a substantial independent insurance and, indeed, the obtaining of whatever last rites are suitable in the circumstances, I shall consider my hon. Friend's request favourably. That is about as diplomatic as I can be at this time of night.
In summary, the current EC discussion by officials preceding the Council negotiations has shown that only some progress is being made towards easing the restrictions on anti-tampering. There is no great indication of support for the UK's position. However, the rapporteur to the European Parliament committee which deals with economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy has recently expressed support for our view and has also proposed excluding category B and C machines. Obviously, I am normally referring to category D machines. We intend to support his proposal. We think that he is on exactly the right lines. There is also the issue, which I shall not discuss in great detail, of the chapter on electro-magnetic compatibility. That subject has largely eluded me due to its massive technical significance, nor is it a subject on which there is any great disagreement in the Community.
Overall, I hope that the House will agree that we should press ahead to secure EC type approval—if necessary by accepting those chapters which are not contentious and leaving to one side the chapters on power limits, noise and emissions, which may be contentious. That is in the best interests of Triumph and in the best interests of the Community as a whole. I must make it clear to the House—I know that this is what several of my hon. Friends want to hear—that we are not prepared to arrive at unanimity at any price. We shall continue to ensure that

797
the particular needs of the UK industry and of British motor cyclists are strongly represented and, indeed, are met. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.
7.20 pm
Ms Joan Walley: I am not sure of the circumstances under which I would ride pillion in the way in which the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) just suggested. However, it would certainly not be when the Minister was driving.
Labour Members welcome the bulk of the proposals and support the attempts that have been made to safeguard the interests of motor cyclists and the motor cycle industry. It is unfortunate that that entire complex, technical and drawn-out debate—we can see how technical it is if we look at the great weight of volumes in front of us—about how we seek to harmonise type approval of motor cycles throughout the European Union has become completely entangled with a much wider political debate on Europe after Maastricht. The debate tonight, which should have been solely about transport regulations, has become one that carries us to the heart of the argument abut democracy. I am thankful, however, that it has not been hijacked—as I thought it may have been at the start of our deliberations.
Mr. Butler: Does the hon. Lady accept that only one member state currently legally forbids tampering and powerful motor cycles, such as those in excess of 100 bhp: France? Surely to seek to enforce harmonisation with only one country out of the whole of the European Union cannot be a proper way forward. I should appreciate her support for that view.
Ms Walley: If the hon. Gentleman will wait to hear what I have to say on this mater, the Labour party's position will become abundantly clear. Our view has much regard to the motor bike industry in this country, especially the super-bikes and the position of Triumph.
The Government's proposals in respect of European Union directives 10904/93, 8037/94 and 8618/94 are none the less welcome and I say that categorically. I doubt that we should have wanted to have changed them. We support the single market and we want to apply and set standards. But we do not want to set standards in such a way that we price motor bikes out of the market. We recognise that it is not a single-sector market and we want to maintain the use that is currently made of motor cycles in rural as well as in urban areas. We recognise the important part that motor-bikes, motor cycles and three-wheel vehicles play in the entire integrated transport policy that we want to see. Now that a framework directive has been agreed, the 100-dollar question is, of course, how the Council of Ministers steers its way to seeking agreement on the many technical regulations which Europe needs to approve and which would need to be incorporated in UK law through the adoption of specific regulations.
Like the Minister, we have no problem at all with nine out of the 12 chapters in the proposal: those relating to tyres, lighting, external protectors, mirrors, fuel tanks, safety belts and so on. But we question the current proposals in respect of noise, anti-tampering and emissions. We accept that noise is a problem, especially when the motor bike is driven or maintained irresponsibly. We need to look carefully at what is feasible in the long
798
term. We should support research that addressed the contribution that all variables could make to reducing noise. We also want to see an immediate reduction of decibel levels. I was pleased that the Minister referred to that in his introductory comments.
Anti-tampering is, of course, related to power restriction. There is no doubt that the powerful motor cycle lobby deserves to be congratulated on the campaign that it has waged to secure a future for the super-bike and for British manufacturing.
Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady take it from me, as someone who has had a Yamaha throbbing between my legs while driving through the streets of Turkey, that, in fact, extra power and extra acceleration get one out of difficulty and not into it? I appreciate the value that she places on it.
Ms Walley: I think that the House will note what the hon. Gentleman says.
I also very much welcome the voluntary agreement that has been made in conjunction with the International Motorcycle Manufacturers Association, which looks at the relevance of the proposals for smaller vehicles, but which recognises that the manufacturing processes of the super-bike can survive. That is important. I am not so sure about similar compromise over emissions. I am very concerned that we ensure that we follow through the recommendations of the 18th report of the Royal Commission on transport and the environment. That is our most recent reminder that industry has to find a way in which to reduce emissions and that our perpetual objective has to be the production of even cleaner vehicles backed up by proper use.
Whether the proposals from Brussels are achievable by 1997 with those issues is a matter, therefore, for urgent and careful consideration. We must reduce emissions in the shortest possible time scale. We need targets and they need to be agreed across the Community. But, by the same token, those targets have to be realistic in quality and time. Equally, however stringent the controls applying to the motor cycle industry, which results in a small but none the less significant amount of carbon monoxide and other damaging pollutants, the same requirements must be levelled at other vehicles, and, indeed, other industrial processes.
I expect the Minister to set out how he expects to balance the interests of the industry with the equally compelling demands for environmental protection. I suspect that we shall return to that issue time and again. The problem is that all the modifications that we want to see to proposals from Brussels are part and parcel, as we have already heard, of the whole discussion about comitology and democracy.
Is not it ironic, therefore, that this debate is taking place not only as the Government's weakness and disunity over Europe is exposed, but after the previous debate on setting up a Deregulation Committee, which will be the basis of getting rid of regulations in future? Despite all our criticisms, and whatever we may say from the Labour Benches, at least Parliament, through its elected representatives, will have some say, however limited. I suspect that the Government will allow Labour Members nothing more than the opportunity to say that we disapprove of the rubber-stamping that they will give to

799
wiping regulations off the statute book. I refer to the debate that we have just had about setting up a special Committee.
Although those who are elected to the European Parliament have a proper part to play in the process of making primary legislation, the same cannot be said of their accountability to the people who elect them in respect of subsequent technical amendments to that legislation. I was interested to hear that the Minister could not define what the technical issues might be. I could give him many definitions.
Mr. Norris: May I say in my own defence that it is not that I could not give the hon. Lady such definitions, but that many of my hon. Friends advised me in the strongest terms that I should resist the temptation to do so?
Ms Walley: Obviously, the Minister has to make up his own mind about to whom he listens and to whom he is accountable. Technical amendments could easily follow primary legislation from the European Union and have all sorts of unforeseen consequences. That could make life very difficult for many manufacturers in this country.
The right of elected Members to have a say and to be consulted about future amendments, regardless of how technical the changes may or may not be, is fundamental to our democracy. That problem was not resolved by the Maastricht treaty, but the issue has surfaced and become central to this evening's debate about two or three-wheel vehicles.
We cannot support the last part of the motion. We believe that whatever is agreed must satisfy the principles of democracy and accountability. Parliamentarians, whether in this Parliament or in the European Parliament, cannot be denied the right to represent the people who elect them.
Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way on that point. Is not it excellent that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who has a Toyota factory in her constituency, drives a Toyota? Does the hon. Lady agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), who is the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, should drive a Reliant Robin three-wheeler, which is made in Tamworth?
Ms Walley: I think that the hon. Gentleman has managed to confuse the issue even further. In view of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, particularly those who ride motor bikes—my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) wishes to make a contribution—I do not wish to confuse the issue.
I should expect the Government— who have given us the "quango state" where Ministers are no longer accountable to anyone, even when they are found by the High Court to be in breach of their own law on compensation to victims of crime, and who have entrusted their massive deregulation programme to a committee of their own appointees and so-called "technical experts" who sat on the deregulation task force— to argue against the European Parliament having its say at each and every opportunity. It is entirely consistent with the Government's stance on accountability.
800
The Minister may ask what that has to do with the debate, but it has everything to do with it because the debate is about accountability. Fortunately, on this occasion what is written on the Order Paper has been overtaken by events. We cannot support the Government's position on comitology, but as that proposal has now been superseded by conciliation talks between the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the Community, we have no difficulty supporting the main part of the motion.
Whether the whole motor cycle package falls or proceeds will depend very much upon whether the European Union supports the principle of democracy at all levels—local, national and international. We want to ensure that there is further parliamentary scrutiny of the three controversial parts of the legislation. For those reasons, we shall not oppose the proposals.
7.34 pm
Mr. David Tredinnick: I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate. I am very proud to represent the new British motor cycle industry: the Triumph plant at Hinckley. I begin by congratulating the management and workers at the Triumph factory on their great achievements over the past few years. I also congratulate Conservative-controlled Hinckley and Bosworth borough council on making it possible for the factory to move to Hinckley and have such great success.
Nothing better illustrates the failure of socialist policies and the success of Conservative policies than the history of Triumph. The House may recall that the now right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) spent £4.2 million of public money on the Meriden motor cycle co-operative, which tried unsuccessfully to revive the old Triumph firm. From the start, the operation was plagued by inefficiency and union demarcation until its eventual collapse in 1983. It is remarkable that Triumph, like the phoenix, should have risen from the ashes. Garry McDonnell, a fitter at the new Triumph plant, has said:
"We don't need unions … I worked at Meriden and what a mess that was. Nobody seemed to know what was going on".
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited the plant, and he found— his findings are relevant to the motion— a factory which is ready to expand to a capacity of 30,000 machines a year and which is expected to bring 400 new jobs to the area. However, the Liberal councillors of Hinckley and Bosworth borough council opposed the company's expansion in Hinckley and, as a consequence, I believe that Triumph almost moved its entire works away from the area. I hope that the electorate will remember that in the local elections.
Triumph intends to build more than 12,000 vehicles world wide for the 1995 model year. Some 80 per cent. will be exported to 28 markets around the world. The number of employees at the factory has doubled in the past year from 160 to 330. Whereas in 1991 the factory produced only two models, in the three-year period since then, it has produced 10.
I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Minister the problems that the proposed European legislation could create for the factory. From conception to production, Triumph is now capable of creating a new motor cycle machine in 18 months—the fastest development rate in the world. The company has subsidiaries in Germany, France and America, and it has now started exporting to America. Triumph is now planning for an expansion into

801
a second state-of-the-art facility in the immediate future, and on 24 July this year the new Triumph motor cycles raced at Donnington for the first time.
The proposed multi-directive for motor cycle whole vehicle-type approval would have three serious consequences. My hon. Friend the Minister has addressed some of those consequences, and I shall expand on them a little more.
In its present form, the anti-tampering chapter would destroy the modular manufacturing process—a Lego process devised by Triumph—by disallowing the use of certain interchangeable parts in the engine. The industry has proposed that that chapter be restricted to small motor cycles and mopeds, as my hon. Friend knows. Triumph would like to see support for that proposal.
On the noise issue, Triumph believes that motor cycles of 175 cc or greater that achieve 82 or 80 decibels (A) are sufficiently quiet. Motor cycle noise pollution is an issue that involves not only the original equipment supplied by the manufacturer, but environmental conditions and individual driving styles. Because of that, it is impossible to determine what the effects of further proposed reductions will be.
In Triumph's opinion, after-market replacement silencers are making a large contribution to motor cycle noise problems. In many instances, the manufacturer's silencer is replaced by one that does not provide equivalent noise protection. That area requires greater control. Triumph believes that further research should be conducted before more severe noise level reductions are considered. The company has made a substantial contribution of time and money to research and my hon. Friend the Minister might like to follow that example.
Pollution has been mentioned, The majority of motor cycles are small two-stroke vehicles which are used because they consume little fuel and are inexpensive compared with larger machines. Making those vehicles comply with the noise limitations will increase their price by 25 per cent. because additional equipment will be required. That will destroy the market for an inexpensive, low-fuel consuming vehicle.
The British motor cycle industry has been reborn in the form of Triumph, and this is a crucial time for its development because it is the first year during which it will export vehicles to America. Triumph believes that the proposed chapters would seriously damage its hopes for continued growth and success. My hon. Friend the Minister should consider the harm that that would cause not only to manufacturers but to users.
Triumph now has a range of 10 machines based on its modular construction, which is as simple as a system of child's building blocks. It gives the company the ability to develop quickly new models that are in line with the requirements of the market. That principle is threatened with extinction by the anti-tampering chapter. It is in the interests of Britain for this measure to be examined in the most sympathetic light by the Minister. On behalf of all my constituents and those who work at and manage Triumph I hope that he will do so.
7.41 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that many motor cycle users,
802
including members of the Motor Cycle Action Group and others who have been mentioned, have expressed a great deal of anxiety about the implications of these European Union documents. The detail and extent of the proposed restrictions could lead one to conclude that the European Commission is seeking to become the designer of motor cycles.
It appears from the detail of the proposals that there is a clear strategy to reinforce the policy of limiting the power of motor cycles to 74 kw. That strategy is built on a range of subtle, minor but critical restrictions on engine design. For example, it is proposed that manufacturers should be prohibited from designing motor cycles that are able to accommodate a range of interchangeable parts. That restriction would apply if such interchangeability allowed the power of a particular model to be enhanced by more than 10 per cent.
We know that there is no evidence linking motor cycle power to accidents, and that on a number of occasions the European Parliament rejected the proposed power limit. Clearly, this new proposal to restrict interchangeability is designed to support such a power limit through the prevention of the interchangeability of parts. It seems to be a back-door attempt to avoid the opposition of the European Parliament to the imposition of the 74 kw limit, and it should be resisted.
Interchangeability of parts is a key factor for manufacturers who produce a range of motor cycles. Triumph's product range, costs and manufacturing efficiency depend on the modular design concept, and the foundation of that company's success has been the interchangeability of parts in the modular design process.
I am advised that since the new Triumph factory was established about three years ago, sales of motor cycles have been a great success and are predicted to pass 20,000 machines by the end of this year. The combined effect of the type-approval motor cycle proposals could be to eliminate some highly successful models from the company's range. It would reduce the sales volume by more than a third and the consequent loss of revenue could approach £20 million, to which must be added the loss of business to the numerous suppliers and sub-contractors who provide components to the main company.
The loss of business and jobs that the proposed restrictions on interchangeability would create, if implemented, is clearly unacceptable. The House would wish to be advised that Ministers have been able to assure the motor cycle industry and users that those concerns have been addressed and resolved.
7.44 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: I am delighted that the Government have taken a robust line on the proposals in the multidirective from the Commission. I welcome the fact that the European Parliament has reinforced its reputation by acting as a brake on the untrammelled ambitions of the Commission to extend its role and intrude unnecessarily into this area. I am glad that in their approach to motor cycling in recent years the Government have done a great deal to improve safety, especially on training.

803
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I pay tribute to the Motor Cycle Action Group, as well as to the British Motorcyclists Federation. I have certainly always found their representatives to be highly responsible and well-informed proponents of their case.
I should like to deal with the proposals that are objectionable. It is difficult to justify the proposal on tampering, even if it did not hit particularly at British manufacturers. It would certainly prevent riders from even legally upgrading their machines, thus reducing their freedom. It can reasonably be said that freedom is an intrinsic part of motor cycling, and many motor cyclists like to work on their machines and modify them. Sometimes that has regrettable effects, especially when people fit unacceptable silencers, about which I shall speak later. The freedom of motor cycle users to modify their machines should not be unnecessarily attacked in this way—provided the modifications remain always within the law.
Forbidding the interchangeability of parts would certainly affect Triumph in particular, but that approach would also be detrimental to many small United Kingdom manufacturers. This proposal could appropriately be applied to small motor cycles, especially restricted machines such as mopeds, but it is difficult to see how its extension to larger machines could he justified in any way.
There is no scientific evidence that the proposed power limit that the Commission seeks to introduce will increase safety. I am glad that that proposal seems to have been put off, at least until further investigations have been conducted.
I appreciate the perception of many people that motor cycles, as manufactured, can be noisy. Anybody who has attended the demonstrations by the industry will be aware that nearly all noisy machines are those that have been illegally modified by the fitting of after-market, unacceptable exhaust systems. If we enforced the existing law properly, we would eliminate nearly all the nuisance to which people refer. It is notable that in many countries that support these proposals nobody has even begun to seek to enforce the law as it stands.
All the evidence shows that motor cycles contribute only a tiny proportion of vehicle emissions. A figure of 3 per cent. has been quoted. I do not believe that it is necessary to adopt exaggerated means of limiting emissions. I note the view of the British Motorcyclists Federation that the proposed emission limits could not be achieved without the incorporation of catalytic converters. There are clear differences of view between the Department and that organisation on this matter, and I hope that they can be explored further.
In conclusion, the motor cycle is the means of personal powered transport that does the least damage to the environment. As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, it certainly takes up very little space.
The motor cycle is the means to jobs—running into seven figures—and enjoyment for many people in Britain . I believe that the multi-directive is wrong to seek in effect to discourage the use of motor cycles by pushing up the price beyond the reach of many people.
7.50 pm
Mr. John Fraser: As a practising motor cyclist who has ridden motor cycles ranging from a Corgi 50 cc to my current 1,000 cc, I shall say just a few words as a member of the all-party motor cycling group.
Our position on tampering is exactly right. Anti-tampering regulations should apply at the lower end of the range where people are learning and there is a risk of accident and death. Provided that problem is dealt with, there is no case whatever for regulations to apply to motor cycles of more than 125 cc. If people want power, they will buy it. There is a huge range available from 125 cc to 1,200 cc bikes. If people want it, they will get it and tampering is irrelevant.
The second issue is noise. I see no point in intensifying regulations on noise. We have to enforce the existing legislation. Noise mostly comes from smaller bikes. Many towns on the Mediterranean sound as if they are occupied from 5 o'clock in the morning to 4 o'clock the following morning by giant bumble bees and wasps as people ride up and down on small motor cycles and mopeds that have been adapted not to achieve as much speed as possible but to create as much noise as possible. We have to concentrate not on intensifying present limits, as most motor bikes do not create noise problems, but on enforcing existing regulations.
In respect of emission and noise control, the Minister should remember, first, that if regulations are applied too intensely they will damage a valuable and growing British industry.
Secondly, perhaps the motor cycle should possess some small advantage against the motor car, if it is not to the detriment of the community generally. Motor cycles occupy very little space, they consume much less fuel and they are much more efficient in terms of their use of the roads. If regulations push up the cost of manufacture and purchase, instead of buying motor cycles people will be shifted into buying cheaper old bangers that are much less environmentally friendly, consume more fuel and take up more road space.
The Minister has to have in mind, first, protecting British industry, and secondly, ensuring that the proper balance is struck between vehicles that take up very little space and are pretty efficient.
7.53 pm
Mr. Norris: We have had a good short debate. I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) wishes to give uncritical support to extensions of European powers against those of the European Parliament and I am sure that remark will be noted outside the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) made some sensible points on behalf of Triumph and I hope that he will be assured that, to a large extent, he was pushing at a open door because we understand the position of Triumph and we certainly do not want to do anything to frustrate it.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) was quite right just to mark the card on the extent to which interchangeability and anti-tampering are related and how interchangeability could be a threat to power output. We fully understand that point and will, of course, ensure that it is taken on board in resisting the Commission's proposal.

805
I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me for putting it in this way, but the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is a well-known motor cyclist and on this occasion he spoke eminent common sense. He was right about anti-tampering and made the point that when one is considering emissions and noise it is sensible to get the issue into proper balance. That is how we have tried to approach the matter—not by insisting on onerous regulations that would put motor cycles at a disadvantage to cars, but simply by recognising that, in general, society is seeking less harmful emission levels from all vehicles and less noisy vehicles. Not many hon. Members will disagree with him about the bumble bee effect, which we all understand.
The summary of our approach, which appears to have found favour with the House, is simply that we will be protecting British interests, particularly those of Triumph. That is not only the right thing to do from our domestic standpoint, but also represents a commonsense approach to issues such as power limits. We shall continue to press for what I believe to be a reasonable position on both noise and emissions—one for which there has been general support this evening—with the qualification that we do not want to be over-zealous.
We have taken a commonsense position on anti-tampering that appears to have found favour. On that basis I am happy to commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10904/93, 8037/94 and 8618/94 relating to European Community type-approval of motorcycles; supports the principle of a single market in motorcycles which such a process is designed to achieve; shares the Government's view that amendments must be sought to Document No. 10904/93 if it is not to impact adversely and unnecessarily on motorcyclists and the motorcycle industry; supports the European Parliament's amendments set out in Document No. 8037/94 on the deletion of a motorcycle power limit; but opposes the European Parliament's amendment in that Document seeking a role for it in 'comitology'.

Parliament
7.56 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.
As you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in a sense, the debate is simply consequential on the debate that we had, in November 1993, on the pay of Members of Parliament. It reflects no new decision, no new policy, but simply what was then announced as the basis on which the pay of Minister and others covered by the order would be settled from January 1995 and each year thereafter.
I went over the background in considerable detail last November, and I shall recall it only briefly today. There are three elements in that background. First, hon. Members, and of course Ministers, had accepted a freeze in their pay in January 1993, when they would normally have expected to receive the same 3.9 per cent. as had been agreed for the relevant civil service grades from August 1992.
Secondly, the actual linking mechanism for relating hon. Members' pay to that of civil servants in effect had ceased to be workable because of the move to performance-related pay in the civil service.
Thirdly, in asking hon. Members to accept the 1993 freeze, I had undertaken both to re-establish a workable link and to ensure that Members' pay levels would not be reduced permanently by comparison with those civil service links.
Thus a year ago I proposed, and the House agreed by a large majority, a new resolution which did two things. One was, as promised, to re-establish a workable linkage defined as the average pay increase each year for civil service grades 5 to 7. The other was to ask for yet further restraint. That is an important point as, by then under such a link, hon. Members were due both the 3.9 per cent. civil service increase of August 1992 and the 1.5 per cent. civil service increase of August 1993.
The House was asked, and agreed, to take 2.7 per cent. of those combined amounts in January 1994 and to defer the other 2.7 per cent. to January 1995, at which point hon. Members would also receive whatever increase had been agreed for the civil servants from August 1994, which turned out to be 2 per cent.
The resolution passed in November 1993 to establish those arrangements, which is what will lead to the Members' pay increase of 4.7 per cent. in January 1995, could not in itself provide for Ministers pay as well: that has required this order. The primary legislation does not allow it to be dealt with in that way. It requires this order. I said at the time, and I quote from the Official Report, leaving out only a few words for the sake of clarity:

807
"I should make it clear to the House that the Government think that the right course henceforth is for the salaries of Ministers … to be dealt with on exactly the same basis as Members".—[Official Report, 3 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 459.]
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I wonder whether the Leader of the House has had a chance for mature reflection on whether the "benefits" that the gesture brought have turned out to be worth the hassle.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps the cautious thing for me to say is that I shall continue to reflect on that and that I shall be willing to listen to anything that the hon. Gentleman might wish to observe on the point.
The proposal on linkage between Members and civil servants and between Ministers and Members and, therefore, Ministers and civil servants was neither queried nor opposed. It was, I think, regarded as entirely sensible by the great majority of people present or who thought about it. I am grateful to have that confirmed by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) from the Opposition Front Bench. As I have already said, the order now before the House simply implements what I said a year ago.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: One of the things that sticks in the gullet of people outside this place is that since last November the Government decided to tell signal workers in the summer of this year that they could not engage in a catching-up process. Yet that is what the Leader of the House wants to do for Ministers. People cannot stomach the idea that signal workers could not engage in a catching-up process to get more than 5.7 per cent. The Government told British Rail not to pay them. To request a catching-up process for Ministers when others were prevented from engaging in the same process is to have double standards.
Mr. Newton: That is not true, for a reason which I shall come to in a few moments. To describe what we are doing as a catching-up process in the sense that the hon. Gentleman means, certainly under the terms on which the original freeze was accepted, is not accurate.
The points that I was about to come to are also the key points in respect of Members' pay. The key points are the same for both Ministers' and Members' pay because they have been tied together. There are four points. The pay settlement for January 1995 is 2 per cent., reflecting what was agreed for civil servants from August 1994. The other 2.7 per cent. is a delayed payment—some of it delayed from as long ago as January 1993, two years ago, as it were—reflecting earlier civil service settlements.
The next two points are perhaps the key points for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Over the three years involved, the pay of Members of Parliament and Ministers has been restrained to exactly the same extent as that of civil servants, but—I come to the crunch in relation to the hon. Gentleman's point—because their payments have been delayed, in part by up to two years, Members of Parliament and Ministers have lost, permanently, some £2,000 and £4,000 respectively by comparison with their civil service links. That is a permanent loss. It is not something that has been made up. It is money that has gone for good. The rates are going back to what they would have been by comparison with the civil service, but there has been a substantial, actual,
808
financial loss along the way. That cannot be described as a catching-up process, as the hon. Member for Bolsover has described it.
Mr. Skinner: For three months in the summer of this year, when the Government were holding back their wages and telling British Rail not to pay them, signal workers said that they had lost wages over a considerable period because they had lost money in comparison to other grades in the railway industry and outside. All they were saying is what the Leader of the House is now saying on behalf of Ministers. Signal workers said, "We want the money because otherwise we will lose it for ever." They have not got it.
Mr. Newton: I have already made it clear that there is a significant difference. If I remember rightly—I have not checked the figure—the basic pay award to the signalmen in the settlement was 2.5 per cent., which is rather more than the settlement for this year for Members of Parliament and Ministers.
Before I conclude, I should of course make it clear that, although I have referred to Ministers' pay for reasons of simplicity, the order covers not only Ministers but the Opposition Leaders in both Houses, three Opposition Whips in the Commons, the Opposition Chief Whip in the Lords and Madam Speaker. Ah, Madam Speaker, you are here. I am glad to point out that there is a pay increase here. The same increase is also paid in the Commons to the Chairman of Ways and Means, and to the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, who has just left the Chair, and to the Chairman and the Principal Deputy Chairmen of Committees in the other place.
The arrangements for those in the other place are, however, slightly different, because they do not receive a reduced parliamentary salary as those of us in the Commons do. They will receive an increase equivalent to the aggregate cash increase received by their Commons counterparts.
Madam Speaker, just as I continue to believe that the arrangements for Members' pay agreed last year were sensible and right, so I believe that this proposal to determine Ministers' pay on exactly the same basis is one which the House should endorse.
8.5 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I have no interest to declare in the order and nothing that I say will affect your position, Madam Speaker, because I think you should be paid more. I think you are so popular outside the House that if there were a referendum you would be elected the nation's first president. That is the nature of the stature that you have gained as our Speaker.
I agreed with virtually everything that the Leader of the House said. We have arrived at a barmy position. We are here debating something that was decided a long time ago. When it was decided then, the Government and, I suppose, the House, got bad publicity. We will get it again for doing the same thing. So we have arrived at an inexcusable position. I do not know why we have not amended the main legislation and done something along the lines that we talked about earlier this evening in respect of the corner-cutting of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 so that we could get rid of this demeaning debate—not bury it. We have dispensed with such debates for many of the general arrangements for

809
Members of Parliament, I do not know. I am surprised that the Leader of the House has not had an opportunity to deal with it.
Mr. Newton: I want to find out whether there is an offer here. It is not that I have legislation in mind, but I should like to know what the position is. If we introduced primary legislation on the matter, would we have the co-operation of the Opposition in putting it through speedily?
Mr. Rooker: We would use our best endeavours to make sensible arrangements for payments to Members of the House, whether they are in Government or on the Back Benches. If the Leader of the House could get Jopling organised well before the House rises for Christmas, we might consider the position. It is not our job to negotiate across the Dispatch Box, but the Leader of the House gets the message.
Matters are made worse for the Government when clearly they plant stories in newspapers, such as that in The Sunday Times of 13 November, which had the headline:
"Cabinet split over move to cut large pay rises for ministers."
The only reason why such a headline arrives in a newspaper is that members of the Cabinet have briefed the press. The Government bring it upon themselves. It is not my hon. Friends or anyone else who cause the difficulty. The Sunday Times reported something that made me think, "There is no new decision there." The House debated the issue last November, as the Leader of the House rightly said, but members of the Cabinet had obviously been on the telephone causing trouble for someone.
I have been a Member of Parliament for 20 years as both a Government and an Opposition Back Bencher. So I know that it is difficult to write job descriptions for Ministers. I do not know what they do. My constituents often wonder what they do. They see what you do, Madam Speaker, keeping us in order on a daily basis, but they do not know what Ministers do.
A couple of days ago there was an analysis in The Guardian of the salaries of people doing different jobs. It listed the job and the age of the person doing it. Ministers are usually middle-aged. It listed the salaries. The ministerial salary is between £19,000 and £55,000. The next point concerned what the job entailed. For Ministers, it is obviously doing what Tory central office says or what the Maples memorandum dictates. Qualifications came next on the list. For Ministers, it is either none or an ability to say yes.
The next point concerns pay rises. I do not want to go into the background dealt with by the Leader of the House. What he said was correct. I did not notice a single person outside the House during the period when we were on a pay freeze saying, "Look what an example Members of Parliament have set," and calling upon his members or employers to do the same. I see no reason why people should, but that does not behove us to say, "Look what we are doing. Follow our example." We know that will not be done. We must have a more mature and civilised way of settling pay in Britain, not just for Members of Parliament, but for health visitors, home helps, gatekeepers, cleaners and managing directors. We need a
810
more civilised arrangement spread, throughout society, than we have. The pecking order fixed at certain levels years ago should not remain immutable forever.
The next thing that The Guardian touched on was prospects of poachability. If we have a general election before Christmas, Ministers may be out of office by 22 December, which is the first available working Thursday that can be used if they fail next week. They are all pretty tainted, so I do not give much for their prospects of poachability once they are ex-Ministers.
The final question asked whether employers were worth their pay. For Ministers, I would say on productivity no, on responsibility yes. That is where I draw the distinction. The productivity of Ministers has been pathetic. There are too many of them. They have got rid of much of their responsibility for looking after public money—£46 billion looked after by non-elected quangos. Ministers are no longer responsible for that, they simply pass our letters on to the chief executives of the quangos and we cannot get genuine accountability for the quangos. But, on their ultimate responsibility, the answer must be yes. The Government must have a real problem because they now have to employ part-time dentists as Ministers to make up the numbers.
This is my first day in the House this week, and I make no apology for that. I came here today via my constituency and the remarkable Dudley, West constituency. I have taken some time this week to listen to the good people of Dudley, West. I have talked to them about the business of the House and what has happened in the past 15 years. I have listened to their worries for the future for their families. I told them that, on Thursday, I would be coming to the House for a debate on Ministers' salaries and I asked them what they thought about that.
I offer the Leader of the House a few choice comments from the Tory voters in Dudley, West. They say that Ministers have been in power for too long; they are complacent; they have lost a sense of direction; they have failed to fulfil their promises; they are clumsy at implementing policy; they shoot themselves in the foot. We pay them £19,000 to £55,000 for that. Those are exactly the phrases that John Maples heard from Tory voters, which he published in his memo. They are exactly the kind of things that Tory voters in Dudley, West are saying and something should be done about it.
We could call for fewer Ministers to share out the kitty on a more even basis. We could call for more Ministers to contribute from their salaries, as I call on all Members to do, to the give-as-you-earn charity pay-roll scheme operated by the Fees Office. When I checked two years ago, some 55 Members were contributing, and I declare an interest as one of them. When I checked this week, the figure was only 43 out of 651. I am not saying that the other hon. Members are not giving to charity, but we are trying to encourage millions of people in Britain to give to charity through their employer. The legislation making that possible was agreed on a cross-party basis and Members of the House are setting a pathetic example in respect of that.
I do not say that I do not intend to vote myself if there is a vote, although I see no need for one, but I remind Conservative Members, in case any of them are minded to seek to make divisions on the Opposition Benches, that by and large people of my ilk do not spend their time in industry seeking to remove from other people their existing pay. I can remember during my service in the

811
House one occasion when Conservative Members of Parliament ganged up and voted to reduce the salary of a Labour Member of Parliament, and they carried the vote. They carried the vote to reduce the salary of Eric Varley by £1,000 in about 1978. Labour Members returned the following day and the matter was redressed. Conservative Members did not waste any time in saying that the salary of a Labour Member of Parliament should be voted down. It is true that he happened to be a member of the Cabinet. He was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It was their attempt to have a go at him, and they used the means of reducing a Member's salary to do so. I hope that Conservative Members will never think of doing that again.
8.15 pm
Sir Terence Higgins: There can be no doubt that this is a sensitive issue, perhaps even more sensitive than that of the pay of Members of Parliament. It is not surprising that that is so because the absolute level of pay in this case seems to many of our constituents, particularly pensioners, to be something of which they could only dream. It follows necessarily that there is never a good moment to increase Ministers' pay. None the less, for reasons that I shall put forward, I believe that it is extremely important that we should do so.
If there is one lesson that we have to learn from recent experience, it is the fact that if Members and Ministers take a pay freeze, it is unlikely to receive a line of publicity in any national paper. The idea that any wage negotiator, trade union or otherwise, will make the slightest difference to their wage claim as a result of that is utterly unrealistic.
However, when the adjustment is made to compensate for the freeze, there will undoubtedly be massive publicity of a kind to which I shall refer in a moment. The effect on pay settlements and on union leaders rushing round saying that they must have a similar increase is great. The whole thing is asymmetrical and the net effect of the freeze and what we are proposing this evening is, if anything, to encourage rather than discourage wage settlements outside. That is the simple point that I want to make. We should resume the link because we must have some way of showing that we wish not to decide our own pay but to relate it to what is happening outside.
I want briefly to say a word or two about the increase in ministerial pay in relation to inflation, civil servants, Members of Parliament and the population as a whole. First, with regard to inflation, headlines last week declared, "Pay increases for Members of Parliament well above the rate of inflation." They compared the increase to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred, part of which is anyway a deferred payment from an earlier period, with the current level of inflation. That is clearly rubbish. It must be compared with the date of the previous increase and, in this case, the date of the pay freeze and allowing for the subsequent staging of the increase. If one does that, far from being well above the level of inflation, it is near enough in line with inflation, but, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, with an important qualification.
That brings me to the question of the pay increase in relation to civil servants and, in particular, those with whom ministerial pay has, in a sense, been compared. If one does that, because of the time lags in the ministerial pay increases compared with those of the civil servants,
812
it is not the case that they have caught up. The reality is, as my right hon. Friend said, that Cabinet Ministers have lost £4,000 in hard cash once and for all. That will never be made up. Therefore, even in that respect the link has not been made.
The pay of Ministers has increased even more slowly than that of ordinary Members of Parliament and the differential has been constantly narrowing. In those terms, the Prime Minister's salary has increased less than that of members of the Cabinet, the Financial Secretary and Under-Secretaries of State.
With respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I regret that he followed the example of the former Prime Minister when she was in office, in not taking the whole increase. That is a bad example to follow. I am glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the additional pay that he receives as Leader of the Opposition. However, it seems a subtle distinction to take that increase but not the rise that was anyway deferred from a previous decision.
The squeezing of differentials has seriously affected those further down the scale. It will be increasingly difficult to attract high-quality recruits to ministerial office. The decision of the Leader of the Opposition not to take his increase squeezes the differentials further and provides less headroom. Anyone who has worked in industry, as I have, knows that it is dangerous not to have the headroom to be able to give appropriate increases to people further down the line.
It has been suggested that ministerial pay should be linked with productivity, and a number of my constituents say that the pay of Members of Parliament should relate to inflation. The startling inflation figure of only 7.8 per cent. over the past three years compares with 56 per cent. inflation under three years of Labour Government. The present Government can take credit for that, and might even argue for a reasonable pay increase for reducing inflation to its present level, which is of vital importance to my constituents. In productivity terms, the increase can be justified.
Figures that I received from the Library today take a serious and analytical view of certain statistics. There are some minor footnotes and qualifications, but the figures that I want to quote will not seriously mislead the House. I will, as I did in the debate on the pay of Members of Parliament, compare the position since I entered the House 30 years ago, in 1964, with the present.
Allowing for changes in the retail prices index and at 1994 prices, the real income of the Prime Minister has fallen 59 per cent. The income of Cabinet Ministers has fallen 60 per cent. and that of Under-Secretaries of State, 39 per cent. Members of Parliament are, in real terms, just about back where they were when I entered the House.
Throughout the intervening period, the real pay of Members of Parliament and, to a far greater extent, of Ministers has fallen way below the 1964 figure. In the country as a whole, average real incomes have increased nearly 80 per cent. Over a longer period, which is a reasonable way to view the matter, the income of a Cabinet Minister has fallen 60 per cent. while average real incomes have increased 80 per cent. To take the productivity argument, Ministers of whichever party has been in power—although most improvements have taken

813
place under a Conservative Government—could justify an increase in ministerial pay. Differentials have been enormously eroded.
I am seriously concerned about recruitment to the House and to ministerial office. When I entered the House during the Macmillan period, it was generally recognised that no one could afford to become an Under-Secretary of State at the pay rates then prevailing unless he had a substantial income. That precluded a large number of candidates or reduced new Ministers to utter penury. It is important to attract the right people to the House—and to your own office, Madam Speaker. We shall not do so if we continue to take the attitude to pay that we have in the past, particularly under the previous Prime Minister. I remember negotiations between the Prime Minister, Government representatives and Mr. Du Cann—then chairman of the 1922 Committee. Time and time again, we have failed to agree a reasonable level of pay.
The question can become mixed up with the issue of outside interests, and I dare say that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will mention that. To question whether or not a person is a full-time Member of Parliament is grossly misleading. It would not be unreasonable to estimate that a full-time job occupies 40 hours per week. Most hon. Members work far in excess of 40 hours.
It is nonsense also that Ministers do not receive their full parliamentary salary. When I served as Financial Secretary, I did not accomplish my constituency work less well or any better than I do now. I slept rather less than I do now, although I do not sleep that much now. We should question the historical justification, which goes back to Domesday, for Ministers not receiving their full parliamentary salary. The whole issue must be examined, perhaps in the context of the Nolan committee. I am not in favour of hon. Members working full time in the sense that they have no outside interests, but we must review our whole pay structure and at some stage take a brave approach.
I understand the point about railwaymen made earlier by the hon. Member for Bolsover, but I suspect that their pay increases have not, in real terms, been vastly different from those of other workers and that their pay has increased substantially. If one takes a reasonable time scale, Ministers and Members of Parliament have made considerable voluntary decisions that have seriously undermined their real pay position in relation to other employees.
It is not a question of supply and demand—arguing that there are dozens of candidates for every general election and that, as supply exceeds demand, pay should be reduced. Any first year economics student could tell us that supply in relation to quality is what matters.
I support the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, and I hope that the House will agree to them. I trust that we will give thought also to the long-term strategy that we should adopt with regard to the pay of Members of Parliament. I do not expect to get enthusiastic headlines for my speech, but I have tried to demonstrate the right thing to do.
8.28 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: We would not be having this debate were it not for the stupidity of the Government and their colleagues a little while ago in supporting the moratorium on ministerial pay. I suspect that, privately, the Leader of the House wishes that he could look the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), who is notable by his absence tonight, in the eye. I suspect that when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was the principal architect of the embarrassment now faced by the Government. As an Opposition Member, it is not my job to minimise the embarrassment of Ministers on the Treasury Bench, so I shall comment on their stewardship of this matter and say how I think pay for Ministers of the Crown should be guided.
Like other hon. Members, may I say that you, Madam Speaker, your three deputies and the deputy Opposition Chief Whip are exceptions to that rule, as your salaries pale into insignificance when we consider your real worth. Nevertheless, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important to bear in mind the fact that, although the Leader of the House is right to say that that moratorium exists, we must be sensitive to how these matters are seen outside the House, where people legitimately contrast with their own experience the fact that this pay award is way above the rate of inflation. Some people have had no pay award for 12 or 24 months and thousands have had pay cuts. They wonder why Ministers of the Crown should enjoy a catching up when their families and loved ones must tighten their belts. We cannot escape the fact that that is the experience of many of our constituents.
As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said yesterday, it is time that we were more conscious of how we are perceived outside the House. This week we had the backdrop of the Maples memorandum. I do not wish to go into Mr. Maples' analysis of the Government, but his term "yobbo" was important. What does it signal to the public when a vice-chairman of the Conservative party refers to some of his own kith and kin as "yobbos" and, in the same week, an attempt is made to increase the salaries of those whom they support?
Some 24 hours ago, another vice-chairman of the Conservative party spoke in a most unhelpful and unfriendly manner to our European neighbours. His comments were deeply offensive and an awful lot of Conservative supporters feel they were not to be expected from someone who supports and sustains the Government. Inevitably, that rubs off on the Ministers whom he backs.
I am conscious of the fact that our employees in the House are to have a pay award of some 2.2 per cent. this year. Although I do not want to get bogged down in percentages, we must be sensitive to the fact that many servants here work very hard and will inevitably go home to their spouses and discuss the award for Ministers on which we are voting tonight. When they contrast it with their pay award they will not be happy, and rightly so.
If the order goes through tonight, Cabinet Ministers will, from the triggering date of 1 January, enjoy an increase in pay of £3,070 per annum, which is a substantial sum at a time when the Government expect people to restrain their pay claims. The Government try to dodge that matter, but they are showing about the same restraint in terms of salaries of Ministers as are directors

815
of privatised companies. Contrast that with the actions of Jack Kennedy, who intervened forcefully against the president of United States Steel in one of his most important domestic statements, when he said that those people were selfishly putting their interests first when restraint was being demanded of workers elsewhere. I wish that the Prime Minister would emulate Jack Kennedy in terms of his position on both private pay awards for top directors in industry and Cabinet members.
Some important events happen when we are in recess. One that would have been probed much more had we not been in recess is the permitting—admittedly, under the rules—of a junior Minister of the Environment to continue to some extent his professional practice of dentistry. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister did not say, "Look, you takes your choice. I'd be delighted to have you in my Government but you must give it a full-time commitment."
Mr. Kirkwood: "Get your teeth into it."
Mr. Mackinlay: Indeed. That did not happen and even if the Prime Minister had good reason to allow the hon. Gentleman to continue to be in the Government—I read in the press that it was to keep up his skills—we must all make difficult choices when we enter public office. If one accepts ministerial office, it must be given 100 per cent. commitment and everything must be put aside. I regret that that did not happen in his case.
I was interested in what the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said on this and earlier occasions. However, I disagree with him about the differentials between the pay of Members of Parliament and Ministers. I may be in a minority of one, but I do not believe that Ministers of the Crown, perhaps with the exception of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, should receive more money than ordinary hon. Members. The system whereby Ministers receive a much higher salary means that Back-Bench Members who take seriously their role of checking, probing, cajoling and criticising the Executive are considered less important, less skilled and less diligent than Treasury Ministers.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing for significant increases in the salaries.of Members of Parliament? That would be an interesting point.
Mr. Mackinlay: I am talking in terms of principle. Members' salaries should be harmonised with those of Ministers. I am not discussing the level of salaries. I am content with my salary, but I am not happy with the resources that I receive to fulfil my role as a Member of Parliament. That is another debate and, although I am prepared to go into it, I suspect that I would tax your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman continually demotes me. He is bound to reduce my salary.
Mr. Mackinlay: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
The question of resources will never go away. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are eating into their salaries to provide a full service to their constituents. It is not a party point. Salaries should be ring fenced and we should have adequate resources, including a constituency office. Many hon. Members currently use the Conservative, Labour or Liberal party offices in their
816
constituencies. Unfortunately, the dear old Thurrock Labour party does not even own a pencil, so I have to rent one, which is eating into the office costs allowance of my salary. If resources for hon. Members were properly ring fenced, my salary would be more than sufficient.
May I return to the thrust of my argument? Ministerial and Members' salaries should be one and the same because the job of probing and criticising the Government is extremely important. Many members of the public would consider my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) good value as he makes at least as important a contribution as the vast majority of Treasury Ministers. I endorse that view. To be generous, I could cite the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) as another example of a Back-Bench Member who gives good combative value for money and who cannot be bought by the system.
We should therefore think in terms of parity of treatment for people who enter public life, which would reduce the desire to be in office in order to be on the pay roll. There is sufficient incentive and desire to be a Minister apart from the salary. If we are honest, we will admit that the vast majority of those who enter the House want to reach ministerial office. That should be sufficient incentive in itself. Perhaps some—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover—are an exception to the rule. I feel, however, that there should be no financial incentive.
Mr. Rooker: How does my hon. Friend know that he is right about that?
Mr. Mackinlay: I have a high regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, and I suspect that he would act in the way that I have suggested.
As for the history of ministerial salaries, it was realised early in our political development that Ministers of the Crown had to be employed full time. Salaries and other emoluments were provided accordingly, at a time when it was accepted that ordinary Members of Parliament were part-time workers: the vast majority had other incomes. Even at the time when the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) entered the House, the current extensive Committee structure did not exist. I do not.criticise the right hon. Gentleman's contemporaries in any.way, but in those days the role of Parliament was rnuch smaller in terms of the time demanded. Since then, things have moved on.
In an earlier debate, the right hon. Member for Worthing wondered whether Select Committee Chairmen should receive a higher salary. He decided that they should not—rightly, in my view—but I do not see why hon. Members with an obviously full commitment to Parliament should survive on the salary of an ordinary Member of Parliament while Ministers received additional emoluments.
I feel that, considering the current reputation of the House, it is time for us to avoid in future the nonsense of moratoriums and freezes, which obviously cause embarrassment. The Government must recognise that they are embarrassed, given the background of "yobbo" memorandums, their desire for wage restraint on the part of others and—unhappily—the low esteem in which, to some extent, the House is now held. Unless the order is withdrawn, the House should divide to demonstrate that some of us are not prepared to alleviate that embarrassment tonight.
8.41 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), and intend to deal with some of his comments.
I feel strongly about this issue. I also feel strongly that there are times when—in the best interests of Parliament and the people whom it serves—it is best to resist the temptation to swing along with popular opinion, given the current state of that opinion. It is a bit like believing in anti-cyclical investment: "In a recession, invest; in the frenzy of a boom, rein in." Sometimes the same applies to politics, and I believe that it applies to the issue that we are discussing. When the mood is against us, we should hold our ground; when we think that everyone loves us, we should beware of hubris.
As a champion of a number of unpopular causes, I know very well that any proposal to raise a Minister's salary will not meet with universal applause at the moment. Nevertheless, I wish to defend the proposed increase. Although it is against the fashion, I think that, when sense is restored, a broader base of opinion will be prepared to admit that it is really in agreement with tonight's proposal. In the present climate, it is almost impossible to conduct a reasoned national debate about the pay of Members of Parliament or Ministers; those in favour of any increase risk vilification.
Given the current press reports, anyone outside the House would be forgiven for thinking that Ministers are due to receive massive increases, way ahead of comparable awards elsewhere in the public sector. They are not: let us be clear about the facts. The first fact is that, in 1993, the pay of all Members of Parliament and Ministers was frozen. If anyone asked for a declaration of principle to be expressed in hard cash, that would be it. The pay freeze did not provoke great headlines or great expressions of gratitude, and neither should be asked for or expected; but, because of that freeze, and because of the delay in linking Ministers' pay with.civil.service.grades,Ministers.have.forgone—lost, never received, permanently missed out on—up to £4,000.
Because the former link with civil servants' pay had been undermined by changes in civil service pay arrangements, the House passed a motion that tried to re-establish a workable link for the pay of Members of Parliament with the average annual increase in salary for civil service grades 5 to 7 as a result of their pay settlement. It also provided for the resultant 1993 and 1994 increases for Members of Parliament to be staged, with 2.7 per cent. in January 1994 and 2.7 per cent. delayed until January 1995—when Members of Parliament would also be entitled to whatever increase was agreed for the 1994 civil service settlement. That settlement has turned out to be 2 per cent.
Although that motion could not determine the amount of Ministers' pay, it was made clear at the time that Her Majesty's Government believed that
"the right course henceforth is for the salaries of Ministers … to be dealt with on exactly the same basis as Members".—[Official Report, 3 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 459.]
The order that we are discussing simply implements the policy set out last November. The key points that we are now discussing are exactly the same as those relating to the increase in the pay of Members of Parliament.
818
The root of the problem, and the discontent, is that, for purposes of easy comparison, no market can be freely left to set the salary of a Minister. It is essentially a pretty arbitrary exercise, ranging from the contention of some that they should be paid nothing to that of others who think that they should be very highly paid. When the spectrum ranges from zero to infinity, there is room for quite a few suggestions about who should be paid what.
The House of Commons cannot be compared with a private firm. When a concern is someone's property—when their own risk and money are involved—they can pay themselves what they like: on that basis thousands of people are being paid tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of pounds, and it is none of our business to object. In the public sector, however, people have a rough idea of what is the fair rate for a job by comparing it with the private sector or by bargaining.
Some fall between the two—this is relevant to what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Thurrock—such as, I admit, a former nationalised industry, such as British Gas, in transition to a competitive position in private enterprise. Such industries have their own methods. If we accept that, in such cases, share options are unreasonable because in a monopolistic company there is little prospect of shares falling, it must be right for British Gas executives to be paid a single open salary—as they have been. Those fully defensible changes in salary structure,.however, fell on deaf ears, and few have pointed out that.if the managers were poorly paid we should all probably pay more for our gas.
The problem is that there is no market to set the salary of a Minister. Some may say that that does not matter: my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) pointed out that there is no shortage of people ready to do the job. I caution against that view, however. I have not been in the House for long, but I can already cite a handful of hon. Members who have declined to become Ministers or asked not to remain in ministerial posts, simply because of the pay.
Most, of course, would do the job at almost any price. Politics is unique: if it is in the head and the heart, one does the job. We all know that, but if he has to worry about money, even a Minister of the highest calibre may do the job less well. Either as Back Benchers or as Ministers, some will find themselves earning more in the House than they would outside; some—rather more, I suspect—find themselves working for less.
Some Back Benchers have outside interests and some do not, but, in the main, Ministers have none. They receive the official salary and that is it. In Britain I do not know anyone who has chosen to go into politics for the money. People here certainly do not go into politics to make money, but they do in other countries, and look what is happening to them. Most Ministers leave office considerably poorer than when they went in and that is a highly unsatisfactory way to produce the best possible culture for government.
What should we do? We should base salaries on a publicly acceptable link, and stick with that for ever and a day. Every time we do that, something goes wrong and we break the link. It is always a mistake to do so. We get

819
no thanks for the gesture and it serves no constructive purpose. All we do is guarantee that greater problems will accumulate for the future.
Mr. Mackinlay: Whose idea was it? Mr. Duncan: I shall come to that.
It is sensible to restore the link for which the House has already implicitly voted. We broke the link because the nature of civil service pay bargaining at the time did not allow us to stick with it.
I think that Ministers are grossly underpaid. Remuneration for our Ministers compares badly with that in other countries. In Singapore, which is much smaller but economically more successful, Lee Kuan Yew makes a point of impressing on his growing country that Members of Parliament there should be paid about the same as senior partners in an accountancy firm or a firm of solicitors or the same as senior managers in a bank or something like that. He believes that that is good for democracy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing pointed out that Ministers' pay has not kept up with earnings elsewhere or with inflation. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Lord President for answering a written question that I tabled yesterday. It points out that the differential between that which is earned by a Cabinet Minister and that earned by a Back Bencher in 1965 is now dramatically different from the differential that reigns today. If that same differential were to be in place, a Cabinet Minister would be paid well over £100,000 and the Prime Minister would be paid in excess of £150,000.
The salaries today are low compared with what could be earned in the commercial sector by most of those who hold a ministerial job.
Mr. David Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend address the relationship between ministerial pay and pay in the higher echelons of the civil service, particularly the pay of permanent secretaries? It is unsatisfactory that Ministers should be paid substantially less than those at the top of the civil service.
Mr. Duncan: That is a helpful point which further illustrates my argument. The remuneration of a Back Bencher compares poorly with that of many who work within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. We humble Back Benchers are paid less than the deputy chef. I imagine that there are some servants of the House—I do not begrudge them a penny of what they earn—who are paid more than many a Minister of the Crown.
Our Ministers are entrusted with enormous budgets. They shoulder heavy duties and responsibilities, more than many in commerce. In the world of commodities, I used to buy and sell. We could churn away in the market and, in an oil boom, we would find out at the end of the year that we had traded a volume perhaps in excess of £4 billion. That is an enormous volume but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security makes that amount look pretty paltry. He is in charge of £86 billion and I think that even the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would admit that my right hon. Friend is in charge of delivering that amount to those who need it most. It matters how he does his job. For that significant duty we pay him less than £70,000 a year. There are 30-year-olds in the City earning more than that. It would
820
not be impossible to find an adviser to a Cabinet Minister who is earning considerably more than the Secretary of State to whom he is answerable.
Those who parade their conscience by opposing the order do so to cement—so they think—some sort of identity with those who earn less and who resent a Minister earning more. They can claim compassion, as I would have it, on the cheap. They can enjoy a minute of applause and an echo of shared resentment. Such ephemeral posturing does not get us far. It serves no lasting purpose except to diminish further those who express the view and to encourage more to express unmerited discontent about Parliament and its work. At the end of the day, it makes everyone a loser and draws us all downwards.
I hope that, from now on, we can have a more enlightened approach to this issue. Let me immediately contribute to that enlightened approach by saying something that I believe to be true. Although the Leader of the Opposition has his car and his Short money, he is under-resourced. For the good of parliamentary democracy, I would give the Leader of the Opposition and his office far more than they receive at present.
"Every hon. Member knows that there is never a good time to increase the pay of Members of Parliament by so much as a ha'penny, regardless of the rate of inflation or the circumstances of the rest of the community. Those in the news media, who earn far more than any of us, will be loud in their condemnation … so will many members of the general public who do not earn as much … I believe in a fair rate for the job. I do not abandon that principle solely for Members of Parliament or other public servants … I believe that a fair rate for the job should be paid irrespective of a person's other circumstances."—[Official Report, 3 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 462.]
I am amused to see the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) shaking his head. I have cited word for word the statement made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) when she spoke in this debate last year. We learnt of the right hon. Lady's principles in that debate and I am afraid that they now conflict with the attitude of her party's leader, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
The Leader of the Opposition has said that he will not take the increase. He hardly needs to, having just received a rise on becoming Leader. His office has briefed the press to advise that he also thinks that, in principle, the increase for Ministers is wrong. There seems to be a conflict there. I must ask the Labour party whether the right hon. Member for Derby, South has jettisoned her principles, whether the Leader of the Opposition has decided to indulge in an opportunistic stunt or both.
I fear that the Leader of the Opposition has made that decision, which is a pity. He has one policy and no one can deny that the mood suits his purpose or that he is doing well out of it. That policy is to feed discontent and then to milk it for all it is worth. He is choosing to seize on grievance and to cash in on the politics of what I call the lowest common denominator. I urge him to forsake that policy in public to the House and to the press, in this case and in all others. All hon. Members should support the increase. Let us hope that both parties will approach this parliamentary matter with maturity and enlightenment today and in the future.
8.59 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I cannot follow the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who

821
may be trying to get a job. I have heard people make speeches like that before and in the next reshuffle they finish up as a Treasury spokesmen. We shall have to wait and see.
The furore over Mr. Brown and Mr. Giordano at British Gas has taken the heat out of the debate. Last weekend, the 4.7 per cent. pay increase for Ministers and the £3,000 increase for the Prime Minister were the issues. Twenty-four hours later, Mr. Brown came on to the scene with a £475,000 salary—so exit Members of Parliament from the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will admit that the anticipation with which he was looking forward to this debate rapidly melted away. However, some issues remain.
The Government are always on about performance-related pay for workers—the real wealth creators in our society. I cannot stand that policy. When I hear the Government telling all and sundry to accept individual payments and regional pay systems, all with a view to reducing the amount of money that workers receive and to breaking the back of the trade union movement, which is organising to raise pay and conditions, I cannot stand it.
I oppose not so much the 4.7 per cent. increase as the fact that workers in all sectors of industry and those in other professions such as nursing are being told that they must have performance-related pay. That is why there is so much controversy outside the House. The pay freeze causes difficulties. Workers cannot reconcile the fact that, somehow or other, they have to pull their socks up and tighten their belts every time, with the fact that Ministers and Members of Parliament, on some golden day, get their pay increased after a pay freeze. By and large, workers never catch up after a pay freeze. That is why I made my earlier comments to the Leader of the House.
The signal workers' attempt to catch up with money that they had lost, relative to other grades in the rail industry and elsewhere, is characteristic of the debate. The Government said that they could not have the money and fought them for three months, along with British Rail. That is why I feel intolerant towards the idea of extra pay for Ministers.
I used to work with miners. I do not know whether many people are aware of the fact that the National Union of Mineworkers has not negotiated a single pay increase since the strike. There has been a total pay freeze for many years, so it is not difficult to understand people's opinions when they read headlines about Ministers having a catching-up process and a 4.7 per cent. increase.
I do not go for this percentage business. A 4.7 per cent. increase for someone on £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000 a year is very different from a 2 per cent. increase for a nurse on £200 a week or less. A 4.7 per cent. increase involves real money. When the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) talks about percentages, he fails to recognise that the percentage increase for Ministers,
822
although it may have fallen relative to increases for other professionals, means that they get considerably more money.
Mr. Mackinlay: They get £3,000.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is right. The hon. Member for Worthing said that the increase was relatively small, but £3,000 is as much as some pensioners have to live on. That sticks in the gullets of a lot of people.
Sir Terence Higgins: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the difference between absolute and percentage levels, but my point was that ministerial pay has been cut by 58 per cent. in real terms.
Mr. Skinner: But that is not understood by people outside. Pensioners who have lost money see Ministers getting an extra £3,000 a year while they have to get by for a whole year on that kind of money. What about the minimum wage? How often have I heard Tory Members—one after the other, parrot fashion—attacking us because we are trying to get about £4 an hour for people on poverty wages? They then have the audacity to say that a 4.7 per cent. increase and £3,000 extra is chicken feed. That is the background to the debate; it is not about us talking as a gentlemen's club, but about people outside making comparisons.
Mr. Nigel Evans rose—
Mr. Skinner: No, I shall not give way. Two or three hon. Members have been here for the whole debate and are still waiting to speak. To give way to the hon. Gentleman would be unfair to them.
The motion will undoubtedly be passed, despite a vote, but I do not want to hear the Government say that nurses, local government workers and fire fighters will have to sup the mop in the next few months. Many people are waiting in the pay queue and they are due for an increase shortly. The Government should take note of some of them as they are in the public sector, but my guess is that the Government will tell them that they cannot have an increase greater than the rate of inflation—some will get less or even face a pay freeze.
I do not want to hear that argument from Tories who then say that they themselves have fallen behind and are simply catching up. That is what puts people's backs up. Yes, there will be a vote; but the chances are that, because of Mr. Brown and Mr. Giordano, some of our supporters have been lost.
9.6 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: As usual, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) made an excellent contribution. He has followed the issue for many years. He rightly said that there is never a right time to examine ministerial pay or, for that matter, Members of Parliament's pay.
I understand what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said about percentage increases, but it is worth noting that the percentage increase awarded to the Prime Minister from 1979 to 1995 has been 107 per cent. while the increase that he—the hon. Member for Bolsover—has received as a Member of Parliament has been 251 per cent. I do not dismiss what the hon. Gentleman said, but we have to consider ministerial pay in the larger context.

823
I hope that the Lord President will pursue a little further what he said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who made a very reasoned speech. If one looks back over the years, it is possible to find reasoned speeches made by Opposition Members on this subject. When the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was shadow Leader of the House he said:
"Of course, by any outside comparisons, Ministers of the Crown are underpaid. I say that in an objective sense, not in support of Ministers in the present Government."—[Official Report, 10 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 824.]
The notion has been long accepted.
I cannot understand why Ministers receive a reduced parliamentary salary. It is nonsense to say that they do less in their constituencies than Members of Parliament. I know that the time is not right to change that, but it is time that we at least considered doing so.
We should also examine the pay of some other office holders in the House who I do not believe are adequately recognised. It seems strange that, because of the usual channels, the Opposition Chief Whip and two of his deputies should be recognised and yet, from what the Leader of the House has told us on many occasions, it also seems that the usual channels involve the shadow Leader of the House. She has been involved in discussions on the Jopling proposals.
Perhaps, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said, the matter should be considered by Nolan and the contribution made by people who have responsibilities—other than ministerial responsibilities—should be recognised in some sort of salary payment. I see that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is saying that he, too, is involved.
Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Perry Barr mentioned the new Select Committees and said that the Members concerned will have extra responsibilities. It is true that some Members have more responsibilities and the matter should be considered on a far wider scale. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, the Nolan Committee could consider the matter.
It is astounding that the Solicitor-General is paid more than the Patronage Secretary. The Prime Minister is the second highest paid member of the Cabinet—the Lord Chancellor is paid considerably more. There are a number of nonsenses and they should be dealt with. I hope that at some stage the time will be right to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) mentioned the number of people in this place who are paid more than Members of Parliament. An interesting written answer in column 191 of yesterday's Hansard shows that 101 people employed here are paid more than Members. We should deal with that problem.
In some respects, I even agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover—two Derbyshire Members agreeing is most worrying—and it is probably the only issue on which we have agreed. We should consider the salaries of people with public responsibility on the various boards that have been set up. Some are paid far more than local councillors. We should consider that in more reasoned times. Perhaps the Nolan Committee would be the right means of doing so.
We have seen some examples of gesture politics recently. Last weekend, the Leader of the Opposition said that he would not take his percentage increase. That is
824
hardly surprising. On 1 July, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was paid about £31,687. According to the latest figures, he is now being paid about £61,349. It is easy to give up a 4 per cent. pay increase when one has recently received a 100 per cent. increase. I might have taken a little more notice if he had said that he would not take any increase, rather than trying to get some cheap, quick headlines, which he did.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to say at some stage that the whole issue will be referred to the Top Salaries Review Body or to the Nolan Committee.
9.12 pm
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly at the end of this debate. It is always difficult speaking at the end and I can assure the Leader of the House and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I have one eye on the clock and will stop at exactly 9.20 pm, which will no doubt be a relief to everyone in the House.
On a serious note, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) that this is a sensitive issue. Factory closures have recently been announced in Norwich, North. That is a very serious matter as some people will become unemployed and will go on to low incomes. As other hon. Members who represent East Anglia know, my constituency is in an area of low wages. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, therefore, in saying that the issue is sensitive to people outside this place.
In the remainder of my speech I shall speak in support of the order. From listening to the debate, it has become clear that the House supports it. Although the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not listening at the moment, I must say that his speech almost convinced me that he was secretly in favour of the order, especially following the controversy about British Gas, to which I may refer again in a moment.
Mr. Skinner: No, I am not.
Mr. Thompson: I may have got it wrong. Certainly,.the hon. Gentleman's opposition was nothing like as enthusiastic as I had expected—
Mr. Skinner: I am nearly an old man—[Laughter.]
Mr. Thompson: I have no personal axe to grind in this matter. It is fairly well known that my time in the House is limited.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: A couple more years.
Mr. Thompson: I hope so. I think that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has missed my point, but I shall not pursue that.
I well recall that in the 1980s I took a position that was not entirely shared by some of my hon. Friends and opposed the review of top salaries. I remind hon. Members that I believe that it is incumbent on people on high salaries to set an example from the top. I have riot departed from that view. I believe that it is important that people on high salaries are conscious of the effect of pay awards on those on lower pay. I have not changed my mind on that matter.

825
Nevertheless, I still feel that it is right to support the order. The hon. Member for Bolsover referred to the chief executive of British Gas. I put on record my own view which, I suspect, is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, even if not by all my hon. Friends. I believe that it is incumbent on senior captains of industry, even though there are no restraints on them as we have here, to set an example and to bear in mind their public responsibilities. Although it is not relevant to this debate, I join those, such as the hon. Member for Bolsover and some of my colleagues, who feel that the pay rise of the chairman of British Gas was an unfortunate example to set. I hope that lessons have been learnt from it.
I am in favour of a link not with captains of industry but with public and civil servants. I agree with my hon. Friends who have spoken of links with civil service pay, and about looking at the professions and other people who serve the public outside. It is wrong to look at captains of industry; it is right to look at civil servants. I go along with those who suggest that it may be a little odd that Cabinet Ministers are paid less than permanent secretaries. We should look at doctors, at editors, at teachers and at professionals generally when we make comparisons with Ministers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton.(Mr. Duncan) spoke about the salaries earned by editors.It is most unfortunate that our national newspapers are writing in such a derogatory way not about my party but about Parliament in general. I asked myself why I wanted to speak at all in this debate. The main reason—I agree, therefore, with comments from hon. Members on both sides—is the way in which this Parliament, and this is not a party point, and what goes on.here are being distorted by the press. That is another reason why I want to make a few remarks in support of the order.
I do not believe that this is the right time to talk about the pay of Members of Parliament, although a number of hon. Members have done so. After all, the issue of the pay of Members of Parliament is linked with other issues, such as whether they should receive pay from outside. The pay of Members of Parliament will be debated fully on other occasions. Ministers, of course, are constrained in the pay that they can get from outside. This is, as other hon. Members have said, a serious issue.
I remind the House that I do not support the order because I believe that there should be unrestrained pay increases at the top. I am in favour of restraint and I am in favour of an example being set, but I believe, as my hon. Friends and others have said clearly in the debate tonight, that Ministers' pay is low at present by any comparison.
A number of colleagues have referred to pay in the House. I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will not rule me out of order for concluding my remarks in the following way. I shall not refer to your salary again. That has been done already this evening. The Clerk of the House of Commons—I think that this is last year's figure—earns £95,051 a year. A Principal Clerk, junior to the Clerk, earns £64,283 a year. My final example, because we all know these figures, is that the Director of Catering Services earns £57,612 a year.
826
I rest my case. Ministers are not well paid by any standards. They work hard and ridiculously long hours, which is not good for Government, but that is another point. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be delighted, therefore, that I shall support a pay increase for him. I am delighted to support the motion.
9.20 pm
Mr. Newton: I am particularly grateful for the last point since, by the time I have finished this speech, in the past 24 hours I shall have made a total of five or six speeches, one statement and answered a lot of questions, so I have kept reasonably busy. [Interruption.] It links with what I was going to say. I shall comment briefly on each of the speeches, as far as I can. I did not in any way begrudge the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) his bit of knockabout and I was grateful for the serious support that he gave to the basic argument.
I am marginally less grateful, I must say, to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who I hope may not be as pleased with his speech when he thinks about it as he appeared to be at the time. [Laughter.] No, I have a serious point to make. He appeared to be denouncing the notion that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) could do anything to keep in his hand and his professional skills. In other words, the demand was that my hon. Friend should destroy his professional skills, or risk doing so.
Mr. Mackinlay indicated dissent.
Mr. Newton: At the same time, the hon. Gentleman was saying that my hon. Friend should not have any pay increase at all in comparison to a Member of Parliament. There were two parts to his argument: Ministers were to be paid no more than Members of Parliament and that my hon. Friend should not even be allowed to practise his professional skill. I ask him to think about that. Apart from that, I do not begrudge him his knockabout either.
I do not even begrudge the viewpoint of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which he expressed with some vigour. I do not share his point of view, but I understand why he makes it. Indeed, I found the first part of his remarks about what had happened on another front quite engaging.
It would be very grudging indeed not to express my gratitude for the fact that nearly all of my right hon. and hon. Friends urged that should there be a bigger pay increase than I had thought remotely practicable to propose. Indeed, they put forward an impressive range of arguments for precisely such a pay increase. The point with which I am most readily able to agree, because it is exactly what I am proposing—this is not to imply that I dismiss any of the other points as there were some good points on which I hope others outside will reflect when they comment on our affairs—was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan): that we need to fix a link and stick with it. That is, of course, the basis of what was done in November last year and what is being proposed now. I am grateful once again to have the support of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen on that.
The only other point that I shall make is directed to almost all Conservative Members, to some of those on the Opposition Benches implicitly and to some of those who asked me questions in discussion and interviews on the

827
matter outside the House. People say—some of my hon. Friends were edging towards this—that the entire matter should be put to some great and good independent review body. Indeed, for all I know, the Nolan committee may decide to make some observations on it. One of the great ironies of the suggestion that it should go to an independent body, such as the senior salaries review body, is that not a person in this House does not know that, if it did, the recommendation that it would make would exceed by a huge amount what I have thought it right to put before the House. Every time that Members' pay and allowances—certainly in my political lifetime here and before—have been put to some great and good body, recommendations have come forward so large that the Government of the time have not felt able to recommend them to the House. Most notably, I recently made a recommendation to the House on Members' pay and allowances that was so much lower than the proposal of the senior salaries review body that the House voted to reject my advice because it believed that Members deserved more.
The key point, as everyone in the House knows, is that an independent body would recommend far more than I have thought it right to propose. I hope that others outside the House will reflect on that fact. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 179,Noes 13.

Division No. 4]

[21.24 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

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

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripen)

Alexander, Richard

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Amess, David

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Ancram, Michael

Dicks, Terry

Arbuthnot, James

Dixon, Don

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Atkins, Robert

Duncan, Alan

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Eggar, Tim

Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Baldry.Tony

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bates, Michael

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Bellingham, Henry

Evennett, David

Body, Sir Richard

Faber, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Booth, Hartley

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Boswell, Tim

French, Douglas

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gale, Roger

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Gallie, Phil

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Garnier, Edward

Bowis, John

Gillan, Cheryl

Brandreth, Gyles

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bright, Sir Graham

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Burt, Alistair

Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)

Butler, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Cash, William

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Chapman, Sydney

Hague, William

Clappison, James

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Harris, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hawkins, Nick

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hayes, Jerry

Coe, Sebastian

Heald, Oliver

Colvin, Michael

Hendry, Charles

Conway, Derek

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Horam, John

Cormack, Patrick

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Couchman, James

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

828

Hoyle, Doug

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Rendel, David

Hunt, Fit Hon David (Wirral W)

Richards, Rod

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jack, Michael

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Janner, Greville

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Jenkin, Bernard

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Johnston, Sir Russell

Sackville, Tom

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

King, Rt Hon Tom

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shersby, Michael

Kirkwood, Archy

Sims, Roger

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

Soames, Nicholas

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Spink, Dr Robert

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spring, Richard

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Sproat, Iain

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Stephen, Michael

Lidington, David

Stem, Michael

Lightbown, David

Stewart, Allan

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Streeter, Gary

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

MacKay, Andrew

Temple-Morris, Peter

Maclean, David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Tredinnick, David

Mans, Keith

Trend, Michael

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Trotter, Neville

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

McLoughlin, Patrick

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Merchant, Piers

Waller, Gary

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Ward, John

Moate, Sir Roger

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Waterson, Nigel

Monro, Sir Hector

Watts, John

Moss, Malcolm

Wells, Bowen

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Whitney, Ray

Nelson, Anthony

Whittingdale, John

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Widdecombe, Ann

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Norris, Steve

Willetts, David

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wolfson, Mark

Ottaway, Richard

Wood, Timothy

Page, Richard

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Paice, James

Pickles, Eric

Tellers for the Ayes:

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Mr. Simon Burns and

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dr. Liam Fox.

NOES

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Parry, Robert

Carttiss, Michael

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Chidgey, David

Skinner, Dennis

Chidgey, David

Spearing, Nigel

Chisholm, Malcolm

Welsh, Andrew

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Tellers for the Noes:

Mackinlay, Andrew

Mr. Harry Barnes and

Mullin, Chris

Mr. D.N. Campbell-Savours.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.

CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL
Ordered,
That the Children (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by Madam Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Maternity Services, Edinburgh
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
9.36 pm
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I applied for the Adjournment debate a couple of weeks ago because of the clear intention of Lothian health board to centralise all Edinburgh maternity services at one hospital, the proposed new Edinburgh royal infirmary at the southern edge of the city, and also because it planned to break its clear promise to reopen a maternity unit at the Western general hospital, which serves large areas of my constituency.
There were several reasons why that caused anger in my constituency and beyond. First, and most important, it was a denial of the fundamental principle of choice. Choice for women means not just choosing the kind of unit in which to give birth, but the location of that unit.
Secondly, there would have been very long travel times for women in my constituency when they had to go into hospital to have their children, for antenatal visits and for visits from their relatives when they were in hospital. That would have involved great expense and many people in the catchment area of the Western general hospital are poor and deprived.
The third reason was that the health board had overlooked the high density of population and the high birth density in north Edinburgh. It seemed an ideal solution to have a maternity unit at the Western general hospital, which serves an area where there is much poverty and deprivation. It seemed a good idea to have a maternity unit near such an area rather than miles away on the other side of the city.
The fourth reason was that there seemed to be no evidence for the proposition that one centralised maternity unit was safer. That argument was being advanced by many health professionals. Yet that opinion is not shared by other health professionals. There does not seem to be any evidence to back up such a proposition.
I received a copy of a letter from a professor of paediatrics in Canada who previously worked at the Western general hospital but now works in the university of British Columbia. He said:
"We were, until recently, the only tertiary perinatal centre for a birth population of 45,000, with 8,000 births, heavily high risk oriented, in house. In my experience 8,000 deliveries is about twice too many."
People were particularly angry because the original acute services strategy put out for consultation earlier this year contained a proposal for a maternity unit at the Western general hospital. That was overwhelmingly approved by people during the consultation process. Therefore, people were angry when that proposal was rejected and it was decided to work up another proposal in which all the births would be centralised at one mega-unit in the south of Edinburgh.
Since then, there has been a strong and vociferous campaign against that proposal. It was spearheaded by a group called the Women's Health Lobby. They did a great deal of research which showed that women simply did not want such a proposal. The group was also supported by both councils in Lothian—Lothian regional council and
830
Edinburgh district council. It was supported by many general practitioners and by the local newspaper, the Edinburgh Evening News.
That campaign was so strong and the opposition was so overwhelming that Lothian Health was forced late in the day to come up with a compromise proposal. That became clear only at the health board meeting on Tuesday. In that compromise, the board has come up with the smallest concession that it could get away with. It is a proposal for 1,000 deliveries a year in a midwife-led unit at the Western general hospital in Edinburgh.
I am not opposed in principle to a midwife-led unit, but there are several problems with the proposal. I should like to mention at least three of them. First, there is no guarantee that it will go ahead. The health board stated in the proposal that it would evaluate other midwife-led units currently in operation in Scotland and then come to a decision. We do not know what the result of the evaluation will be. Beyond that, the proposal has to obtain the approval of the Scottish Office. We know that Lord Fraser, the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for health, did not accept Fife health board's proposal for a midwife-led unit at Dunfermline. That is an analogous proposal to the proposal for the Western general. Both are stand-alone units without obstetric back-up on site. It is by no means clear that the proposal will be implemented.
Secondly, even if the proposal is implemented, we are talking about a single unit of 18 beds and about 1,000 deliveries a year. That will not meet the demand for that type of delivery. If Lothian Health is now saying that such a unit is acceptable at the Western general, why not have one in other places in the city? If the principle of midwife-led units is accepted, why not have more? It is clear that there will be far more demand not only from the local population but from all over the area because many women are attracted to such small units rather than the large mega-unit on the outskirts of the city.
Thirdly, many women will not be allowed to go into such a unit. In the proposal that was worked up by Western general hospital, it was stated that only 40 per cent. of local women would be eligible for such care. So the majority of women in the area which I represent would not even be allowed to have their babies in such a unit. I shall listen carefully to what women in my constituency say about the proposal for a midwife-led unit. If they accept it, I will certainly accept it, but the message that I am getting now is that such a proposal simply is not enough.
I should like to know why Lothian Health did not adopt the proposal made my me and many other people that there should be two units with perhaps the larger at the new royal infirmary. It could even have a unit of 4,000-plus deliveries, and there could still be one of 2,500-plus deliveries at the Western general. Within those large units, there could be midwife-led units. An innovation in maternity practice is to have midwife-led units in a hospital setting alongside obstetrician-led units. That proposal was not even discussed seriously at the health board meeting on Tuesday. In fact, many attempts have been made to rubbish such a proposal.
In correspondence in the past few weeks, the chairman of Lothian Health said that there would not be enough people to use such a unit at the Western general and that the catchment area would mean that only about 1,700 deliveries a year would take place there. I cannot for the life of me understand how he comes to that conclusion,

831
because more than half of Edinburgh is nearer to the Western general than to the new royal infirmary proposed at Little France. Therefore, I do not see how he arrives at a figure of 1,700 or fewer deliveries at the Western general and, presumably, 4,500 or nearly 5,000 deliveries at the new royal infirmary.
One of the mysteries of the process has been how many deliveries we are talking about. When the proposal was first put forward, we were talking about 7,500 deliveries at the new royal infirmary, which would provide the largest maternity unit in the United Kingdom. But as the debate went on, it suddenly became clear that we were talking about 6,500 deliveries. There may be a good explanation for that. It has not been given to me. Some people are slightly sceptical about this, because the lower number of deliveries may have made it slightly easier to sell the case for a large unit.
I would like the proposal for the two units to be seriously considered. Most of all, I would like there to be a full consultation process on the new proposal. What we have before us is not the same proposal as went out to consultation earlier this year. It is for a small midwife-led unit. The indications that I am getting are that it is not accepted as adequate by the women whom I represent, so I would like an assurance from the Minister that he will ask Lothian Health to carry out a full and proper consultation. There was a slight ambiguity at the end of the meeting on Tuesday. The chairman began to talk about marketing the proposal and fortunately somebody else on the board objected and said that we needed consultation, but it was not clear if we would get it.
The most important principle in all this is that women should decide what kind of maternity care they want. Therefore, it is essential that we have full consultation on the proposal. I suspect that, if that takes place, women will say that they want a larger unit at the Western general; that they want something more in line with the original proposal that was thrown out earlier this year. That is what I am arguing for this evening and shall continue to argue for as long as the women of my constituency want it.
9.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for.Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) on his success in the ballot and on initiating this debate on an issue which we all accept is of great interest and concern to the people of Edinburgh and to his constituents in particular. He has put his case in his customary well-researched and forthright way.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the timing of the debate and, as he rightly pointed out, it was only 10 days ago, after he had applied for the debate, that my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State announced ministerial endorsement for Lothian Health's acute services strategy. At that time, proposals for the future of maternity services in Lothian were still to be finalised.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out that the board has taken a decision in the past two days on how it wishes maternity services to be provided from now until the 21st century. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State will need to take time to consider the proposals carefully. Therefore, I am not in a position tonight to confirm the Government's endorsement or otherwise of
832
the proposals. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that what he has said tonight will be read carefully by my noble and learned Friend and all the points that he has reasonably made to the House will be taken fully into account.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we have made great strides in developing maternity care in Scotland. I agree with his point about meeting in principle the wishes of mothers, who have been saying loud and clear that they want services that are accessible, flexible and treat them with dignity. That shift in attitudes had led to positive changes in maternity care throughout Scotland, and we are actively encouraging those developments.
This debate is specific to Edinburgh, which has long been at the forefront of innovations in maternity care. It had the first professor of midwifery in the world in 1726—Professor Joseph Gibson. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the pioneering work later of Professor James Simpson.
To respond to the hon. Gentleman's question about the number of births in the city, there are currently 7,000 a year, and mothers have access to a full range of antenatal and post-natal services. Most women experience shared care between GPs, obstetricians and midwives. Both the Simpson Memorial maternity hospital and the Eastern general hospital offer home births, domino deliveries, midwife care and shared midwife and obstetrician care. Lothian Health is committed to building on that range of choices.
I know that the hon. Gentleman joins me in paying tribute to the major contribution that the Simpson and the Eastern general have provided to mothers over the years. Tribute should be paid also to the excellent delivery services formerly provided by the Elsie Inglis maternity hospital and the Western general hospital.
There have been major changes in the pattern of maternity care in Edinburgh over the years and growing recognition of the need for proper community-based maternity care. Lothian Health would freely admit that there is considerably further to go in developing community-based services and ensuring that delivery services are fully sensitive to the needs of mothers. It is addressing those issues in its review of maternity services.
The immediate spur to action for Lothian Health has been the need to reconfigure maternity services in the light of its acute services strategy. In future, adult acute in-patient hospital services will be provided from three modern hospitals in Lothian. For Edinburgh, that means a new state-of-the-art royal infirmary, which will be built in Little France in south-east Edinburgh, and a substantial redevelopment and upgrading of the Western general. That is excellent news for Edinburgh, which for too long has had to make do with aging and increasingly outdated hospital buildings.
The proposals were, of course, strongly supported in Lothian Health's public consultation, and they promise substantial improvements in acute in-patient care. The hon. Gentleman raised the specific issue of further consultation. That matter is for Lothian, which will no doubt carefully read the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
To deliver that 21st century pattern of hospital services, it is necessary to close outdated and old buildings. More specifically, when Lothian consulted the public on its acute strategy, it proposed three maternity units in Lothian, with one each at the new royal infirmary and at

833
the Western general hospital—the third being at St John's hospital in Livingston. That proposal was, of course, widely welcomed.
Subsequently, the board accepted that it should take account of concerns expressed that the highest standards of care might not be possible unless deliveries were kept to just two sites in Lothian. The health board was mindful of the need to consider both the importance of local accessibility, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred, and the requirement to secure a pattern of service that offers the greatest possible scope for successful outcomes. The board therefore commissioned its maternity services liaison committee to conduct a full appraisal comparing the two-site and three-site options. As the hon. Gentleman told the House, the committee's report came down in favour of two sites—one at St John's and one in Edinburgh—and the board undertook to consider that report at its meeting on 22 November. Ministers were happy to announce their approval of the acute services strategy last week on the understanding that the maternity issue could remain unresolved for a little longer, but Ministers would need to approve the board's final proposals.
As the hon. Member knows, the board has now decided to accept its maternity services liaison committee's recommendations. It is committed to the principles that primary care should be the main focus of maternity services; community-based midwifery teams are needed to ensure greater continuity of care; and consultant-led obstetric outreach facilities should be further developed to provide local community care for more complex pregnancies. The board also intends further to develop neonatal services, enhance the range of anaesthetic services and look into furthqr developing maternal intensive care services for those with the greatest need for medical care.
Mr. Chisholm: Does the Minister realise that, in some ways, the centralisation plan was sold under the cover of having community services for antenatal care, yet in the
834
original acute services strategy, it was proposed that antenatal care should be given in the community, so the issue of antenatal care is separate from that of a mega-unit?
Mr. Stewart: Yes, but in the context of the strategy as a whole, antenatal care is a key issue. The hon. Gentleman and I do not disagree about that. If those principles are taken together, they represent an impressive list of commitments and the key principle of the strategy is a major move towards community-based ante and post-natal maternity services. I am not pre-empting anything that my noble Friend the Minister of State may decide by saying that those principles are to be welcomed.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the key issue of whether facilities should be supplied in addition to those already proposed by the board. The Government welcome the evaluation of the midwife-led model of care for deliveries. In proposing the unit to which he referred for the Western general hospital, the health board has been mindful of the experimental midwife units that have been set up in Glasgow, Aberdeen and Kirkcaldy, as well as south of the border. We are now starting to learn about the key conditions that need to be met to ensure that such units can work effectively and safely, especially if they are not alongside an obstetric delivery unit. The support of all participating professionals is needed. Midwives running the units need the necessary skills and confidence. That is common ground.
To sum up, I congratulate the health board on coming up with proposals for maternity services which clearly demonstrate its commitment to delivering the highest possible quality of service. I welcome its concern to deliver greater choice in delivery, to ensure the highest standards of safety and further promote the availability of accessible and flexible services based in the community.
I congratulate the hon. Member on raising this debate, in such timely fashion, on these important matters and assure him that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State will take his comments fully into account before final decisions are made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested for Lord Chancellor's Department existing next steps agencies is given in the table.

  Agency

  Remuneration of postholder prior to chief executive £

  End date of previous postholder's tenure

  HM Land Registry

  53,420

  31 December 1990

  Public Record Office

  49,300 plus 2,000 Inner London Weighting

  31 March 1992

  Public Trust Office

  50,525 plus 1,776 Inner London Weighting

  8 June 1994

  Court Accommodation
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will bring forward proposals to meet the problems of witnesses fearing intimidation in the waiting areas of court houses.

  Mr. John. M Taylor
  This Department recognises the concern witnesses may have about the fear of intimidation and has taken steps to minimise the risk. The court standards and design guide makes provision for one courtroom witness suite per Crown court centre, and similar arrangements are made for new magistrates courts, with the provision of multi-purpose suites. Approximately 40 per cent. of existing Crown court centres already provide separate and exclusive witness waiting areas. Where these are not available, special arrangements can be made to ensure that, as far as possible, intimidation does not occur.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Tax
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average council tax in England and Wales for each of the property bandings.
  236
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The average council tax in 1994–95, before transitional relief and council tax benefit, for a property containing two adults, is as follows:

  Band

  England £

  Wales £

  A

  387

  234

  B

  451

  272

  C

  516

  311

  D

  580

  350

  E

  709

  428

  F

  838

  506

  G

  967

  584

  H

  1,160

  701

  Averages cannot be calculated for England and Wales combined because a different banding structure operates in each country.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against council tax valuation banding have been received; and what percentage of these appeals have been (i) resolved, (ii) withdrawn or (iii) are still outstanding(a) nationally and (b) by valuation office.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  As at the end of October the Valuation Office had received 946,149 council tax banding appeals in respect of dwellings in England. Of these (i) 63.9 per cent. had been resolved, (ii) 20.7 per cent. had been withdrawn before a tribunal hearing, and (iii) 36.1 per cent. were outstanding.

  The numbers of appeals received as at 31 October and the percentage for (i), (ii) and (iii) by VOA office are as follows:

  Region: East Anglia Office

  Received

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  Bedford

  9,829

  62.3

  18.9

  37.7

  Cambridge

  10,108

  59.7

  25.0

  40.3

  Chelmsford

  15,805

  70.9

  13.8

  29.1

  Colchester

  17,253

  61.1

  11.9

  38.9

  Ipswich

  11,416

  55.3

  9.5

  44.7

  Norwich

  14,421

  54.8

  9.5

  45.2

  Peterborough

  11,327

  58.3

  8.0

  41.7

  St Albans

  9,480

  61.0

  20.7

  39.0

  Stevenage

  8,291

  54.4

  13.3

  45.6

  Region: East Midland Office

  Received

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  Derby

  12,654

  65.6

  12.8

  34.4

  Doncaster

  6,410

  71.1

  9.3

  28.9

  Grimsby

  7,295

  63.7

  10.2

  36.3

  Hull

  9,459

  66.4

  18.5

  33.6

  Leicester

  6,858

  66.2

  22.0

  33.8

  Lincoln

  10,327

  68.5

  11.6

  31.5

  Loughborough

  8,090

  66.0

  15.3

  34.0

  Mansfield

  7,470

  70.5

  10.6

  29.5

  Northampton

  7,811

  70–5

  18–6

  29.5

  Nottingham

  8,375

  72.7

  11.1

  27.3

  Sheffield

  7,942

  63.6

  15.9

  36.4

  Region: London Office

  Received

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  Barking

  4,175

  58.1

  21.1

  41.9

  Bromley

  18,112

  60.1

  12.3

  39.9

  Camden

  7,983

  59.9

  14.8

  40.1

  237

  Region: London Office

  Received

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  City

  224

  86.2

  37.9

  13.8

  Ealing

  9,877

  65.1

  14.4

  34.9

  Enfield

  20,442

  58.6

  21.2

  41.4

  Greenwich

  11,788

  55.1

  13.2

  44.9

  Harrow

  10,167

  59.7

  12.8

  40.3

  Islington

  8,873

  59.1

  12.3

  40.9

  Kensington

  16,561

  60.3

  13.2

  39.7

  Lambeth

  13,354

  65.0

  14.8

  35.0

  Redbridge

  6,564

  61.7

  23.6

  38.3

  Tower Hamlets

  3,867

  60.7

  14.9

  39.3

  Westminster 1

  3,096

  61.2

  13.3

  38.8

  Westminster 2

  5,921

  78.7

  15.1

  21.3

  Wimbledon

  12,850

  59.3

  14.2

  40.7

  Region: North Western Office

  Received

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  Bolton

  6,450

  65.9

  6.8

  34.1

  Burnley

  8,515

  63.0

  8.1

  37.0

  Chester

  7,846

  61.9

  8.9

  38.1

  Crewe

  10,286

  60.1

  14.5

  39.9

  Lancaster

  9,557

  69.0

  8.3

  31.0

  Liverpool

  8,797

  62.4

  6.1

  37.6

  Manchester

  2,509

  61.4

  9.6

  38.6

  Preston

  7,629

  62.1

  6.5

  37.9

  Rochdale

  3,539

  76.0

  13.2

  24.0

  Salford

  6,496

  73.8

  6.5

  26.2

  Stockport

  7,197

  60.7

  9.6

  39.3

  Warrington

  10,042

  65.0

  11.3

  35.0

  Region: Northern Office

  Received

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  Alnwick

  7,146

  68.6

  11.7

  31.4

  Bradford

  6,250

  63.1

  13.6

  36.9

  Carlisle

  6,978

  65.0

  11.1

  35.0

  Durham

  8,280

  71.3

  21.1

  28.7

  Halifax

  11,706

  72.7

  9.8

  27.3

  Harrogate

  12,538

  69.3

  11.0

  30.7

  Leeds

  8,654

  67.6

  13.7

  32.4

  Middlesborough

  4,935

  77.8

  12.0

  22.2

  Newcastle

  4,607

  75.7

  21.1

  24.3

  Sunderland

  4,971

  77.5

  14.3

  22.5

  Ulverston

  6,658

  60.8

  16.0

  39.2

  York

  10,688

  65.7

  11.1

  34.3

  Region: South Eastern Office

  Received

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  Brighton

  11,533

  71.8

  13.9

  28.2

  Chatham

  7,610

  65.2

  20.2

  34.8

  Eastbourne

  11,184

  58.4

  9.3

  41.6

  Folkestone

  9,464

  67.1

  14.8

  32.9

  Guildford

  12,273

  59.1

  9.9

  40.9

  Reigate

  18,047

  54.8

  19.3

  45.2

  Tunbridge Wells

  16,189

  61.0

  7.2

  39.0

  Worthing

  15,495

  60.9

  12.6

  39.1

  Region: Southern Office

  Received

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  Aylesbury

  15,662

  64.9

  11.3

  35.1

  Basingstoke

  12,280

  59.5

  11.6

  40.5

  Bournemouth

  12,697

  63.0

  14.1

  37.0

  Dorchester

  7,377

  59.8

  15.6

  40.2

  238

  Region: Southern Office

  Received

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  Oxford

  14,830

  72.7

  14.3

  27.3

  Portsmouth

  7,173

  63.0

  13.8

  37.0

  Portsmouth (IOW)

  4,259

  60.0

  13.5

  40.0

  Reading

  17,720

  60.8

  15.0

  39.2

  Southampton

  16,324

  64.5

  8.5

  35.5

  Swindon

  12,854

  66.4

  9.5

  33.6

  Region: West Midland Office

  Received

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  Birmingham

  8,958

  69.3

  17.0

  30.7

  Coventry

  7,241

  63.1

  15.8

  36.9

  Kidderminster

  7,150

  62.1

  13.0

  37.9

  Lichfield

  6,082

  61.4

  12.6

  38.6

  Sandwell

  1,814

  75.6

  22.0

  24.4

  Shrewsbury

  11,821

  63.5

  11.7

  36.5

  Stoke

  7,796

  65.2

  8.4

  34.8

  Warwick

  10,319

  62.5

  8.7

  37.5

  Wolverhampton

  5,870

  75.8

  25.3

  24.2

  Worcester

  15,135

  62.5

  15.9

  37.5

  Region: Western Office

  Received

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  Barnstaple

  8,704

  65.7

  11.7

  34.3

  Bath

  8,889

  69.8

  11.3

  30.2

  Bristol

  11,779

  64.8

  14.8

  35.2

  Exeter

  14,742

  63.4

  16.3

  36.6

  Gloucester

  18,140

  67.7

  11.2

  32.3

  Plymouth

  13,942

  64.1

  10.9

  35.9

  St Austell

  13,235

  63.6

  13.1

  36.4

  Taunton

  13,902

  53.2

  13.1

  36.8

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about delays being experienced by applicants for mandatory housing improvement grants; and what provision in the relevant regulations would prevent claims for consequential loss by households whose property suffered marked deterioration in condition between the date of initial inquiry and final grant approval which has necessitated extra works and additional expenditure.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We are aware that some applicants for house renovation grants have experienced delays in the processing of their applications by local authorities.

  The grant legislation in part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 does not provide for additional claims from householders. However, authorities must ensure that a property is fit for human habitation on completion of grant-aided works. The amount of grant may also be re-determined where unforseen works arise.

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

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Tables A and B list bodies which existed in 1979, were classified as
  239
  non-departmental pubic bodies, and have been wound-up as such bodies by the Department of the Environment since 1979. Table C lists non-departmental public bodies which have been both created and wound-up by the Department of the Environment in the period since 1979.

  Table A

  Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies

  Advisory Panel on Institutional Finance in New Towns

  Centre for Environmental Studies

  Location of Offices Bureaux

  London Housing Staff Advisory Committee

  National Building Agency

  English Water Authorities (9)

  National Water Council

  New town Development Corporations

  Aycliffe

  Basildon

  Bracknell

  Central Lancashire

  Corby

  Harlow

  Milton Keynes

  Northampton

  Peterborough

  Peterlee

  Redditch

  Runcorn

  Skelmersdale

  Stevenage

  Telford

  Warrington

  New Towns Staff Commission

  Water Space Amenity Commission

  The above Table includes organisations, some, or all, of whose functions have been transferred to bodies other than Non-Departmental Public Bodies. It excludes organisations whose functions have largely been transferred to, or merged with, other Non-Departmental Public Bodies.

  Table B

  Advisory Non-Departmental Public Bodies

  Advisory Committee on Bird Sanctuaries in Royal Parks

  Advisory Committee on Housing Cooperatives

  Advisory Committee on Local Government Audit

  Advisory Committee on Protection of Birds England and Wales

  Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances

  Advisory Committee on Sculptures in Royal Parks

  Advisory Committee on Trees in Royal Parks

  Ancient Monuments Board Committee for Rescue Archaeology

  Area Archaeological Advisory Committees (13)

  Building Research Establishment Advisory Committee

  Clean Air Council

  Committee to Examine Standards of Lawn Tennis in Great Britain

  Commission on Energy and the Environment

  Construction and Housing Research Advisory Council

  Construction Industry Manpower Board

  Detergents and Allied Products - Voluntary Notifications

  Scheme Scrutiny Group

  Economic Planning Councils (8)

  Environmental Board

  Hadrian's Wall Advisory Committee

  Historic Buildings Council for England

  Housing Association Registration Advisory Council

  Housing Services Advisory Group

  240

  Hydraulics Research Station Advisory Committee

  Local Government Commission for England

  National Consultative Council for the Building and Civil Engineering Industries

  Noise Advisory Council

  Planning and Transportation Research Advisory Council

  Recreation Management Training Committee

  Scientific Authority for Animals

  Standing Technical Committee on Synthetic Detergents

  Table C

  Executive

  Greater Manchester Residuary Body

  Merseyside Residuary Body

  South Yorkshire Residuary Body

  Tyne and Wear Residuary Body

  West Midlands Residuary Body

  West Yorkshire Residuary Body

  Advisory

  Committee on the Management of Privately-Owned Blocks of Flats

  London and Metropolitan Government Staff Commission

  Review of Rating of Plant and Machinery

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

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  In 1979 the Department of the Environment was responsible for a total of 114 non-departmental public bodies—45 executives, 66 advisory and three tribunals. In 1993, the Department was responsible for a total of 41 non-departmental public bodies—28 executive, 10 advisory and three tribunals.

  Ethnic Minorities (Education)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what amount of money was distributed to local education authorities through the standard spending assessment formula to meet the additional educational needs of those from non-English speaking backgrounds in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  In each of the last five years the additional education needs index has contributed the following amounts to authorities standard spending assessment:

  Total England contributed on the Additional Educational Needs index

  (£ million)

  1994–95

  3,241

  1993–94

  3,749

  1992–93

  3,986

  1991–92

  3,696

  1990–91

  3,458

  The additional educational needs index is composed of indicators which measure lone-parent families, children of income support claimants and ethnic background.

  Registration of Architects
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce legislation or produce the draft of a Bill for introduction by a private Member covering the registration of architects.
  241
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I hope that appropriate legislation can be introduced at an early opportunity. My noble Friend, the Minister for Construction and Planning, wrote to the chairman of the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom on 21 November setting out our proposals for reform of the Architects Registration Acts. A copy of his letter has been placed in the library.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will respond to the Latham report on the future of the construction industry.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  In common with the whole of the construction industry, the Government gave a warm welcome in the speech of my noble Friend the Minister for Construction and Planning on 25 July to the thrust of Sir Michael Latham's report. We are now supporting the review implementation forum's work. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has approved an interdepartmental scrutiny of Government's procurement of construction which will respond to Sir Michael's recommendation that Government should commit itself to being a best practice client.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the next report from Sir Michael Latham; when he expects to be able to announce his response; what provision is being made for the working parties on the Latham report while he is considering his response; and when he expects to announce whether the Government will introduce legislation to implement the Latham report.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The review implementation forum, chaired by Sir Michael Latham, is due to report on the limited range of issues within its remit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the end of December. My right hon. Friend will consider the report at a meeting with industry organisations currently fixed for 2 February. Meanwhile, the secretariat of the forum and the working parties will remain in place. We have made it clear that we are prepared in principle to legislate on Sir Michael Latham's proposals subject to agreement on the need for, and form of, such legislation.

  CITES
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment if he will make a statement to the House on the outcome of the Conference on International Trade in Endangered Species meeting in Florida.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the recent CITES meeting in Fort Lauderdale.

  Mr. Atkins
  The CITES conference on the parties agreed new measures to strengthen the operation and effectiveness of the convention. Twenty-seven species presently included on appendix II will be uplisted to appendix I, and 25 species presently on appendix I or II will be downlisted, including seven which will be deleted from the appendices altogether. The current listing of a further eight species will be unchanged but attached conditions will be relaxed. Thirty-seven species will be added to the convention for the first time.

  The United Kingdom was instrumental in securing progress on several important issues. A new enforcement resolution identifies priorities for funding including the
  242
  secondment of law enforcement officers to the CITES secretariat; the development and implementation of regional law enforcement agreements; additional training and technical assistance; and closer international liaison between CITES, national enforcement agencies and existing international bodies, particularly the World Customs Organisation and Interpol.

  There was overwhelming support for a United Kingdom proposal that a group be established to find solutions to technical problems associated with the listing of timber species on CITES, and to address other related matters. The group will bring producing and importing countries together to discuss issues of timber in trade in preparation for the next CITES conference in 1997.

  Through our scientific authorities, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, the United Kingdom played a prominent role in drawing up new criteria to guide CITES parties in deciding what level of control to apply to species in the future. No parties voted against the new criteria which will introduce more objectivity while allowing flexibility in some cases.

  There was a constructive debate on South Africa's proposal to downlist its elephant populations to allow trade in hides and meat only. The debate produced a strong commitment to continuing the dialogue among African range states begun at the recent meeting in Botswana organised by the United Kingdom on behalf of the European Union. In the absence of support from other African range states, South Africa withdrew its proposal.

  Germany withdrew its proposals to include a number of African and one Asian timber species on appendix II, but there was a full and considered discussion of the Netherlands proposals to list American mahogany—Swietenia macrophylla. The United Kingdom voted in support but the proposal failed by a small margin to secure the necessary two thirds majority. However, a number of producer countries announced their intention to list the species on appendix III.

  The conference agreed a proposal to allow trade in live white rhinos from South Africa for conservation purposes only. In addition, a resolution on rhino conservation in Asia and Africa was adopted to strengthen law enforcement co-operation and to encourage the development of recovery plans for endangered populations.

  Tiger range states collaborated with countries where trade in tiger parts persists to produce a resolution call for greater co-operation and stronger legislation to combat illegal trade. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, the United Kingdom announced £50,000 to assist in the work of the recently formed global tiger forum. This is additional to the £97,500 previously announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for a study into the Asian medicine trade to find ways of eliminating illegal trade and reducing demand for medicinal products derived from endangered species such as rhinos, tigers and bears.

  The conference agreed to expand membership of the convention's standing committee to make it more representative of the 126 parties. The United Kingdom and the Russian Federation were chosen as the European representatives on the committee which is chaired by Japan. The United Kingdom and Trinidad and Tobago are vice-chairmen. The committee can expect a heavy work

  243
  load and we will play an active part in progressing key issues between now and the next conference which is to be hosted by Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has on those countries currently overdue in their payments to the CITES secretariat;

  (2) if he will list those countries currently in arrears with their payments to the CITES secretariat.

  Mr. Atkins
  At the recent CITES meeting in the USA it was reported that for the four years 1990–93, 53 parties owed a total of 530,000 Swiss francs in outstanding contributions to the trust fund. For the current year, 1994, only 34 per cent. of contributions due had been received. Details of individual parties in arrears or with contributions overdue were not made available to the meeting but only to the budget committee chaired by the United Kingdom. It would not therefore be appropriate to publish this information. The United Kingdom is not among those countries which are in arrears or whose contribution is overdue.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to send Ministers to future meetings of CITES.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend decides before each conference whether the United kingdom delegation should be led by a Minister. Ministerial representation at CITES conferences is rare among delegations from most of the parties.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what support is offered by his Department to non-governmental organisations to assist in their work relating to CITES.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are presently supporting three major projects at a total cost of £215,000. These are:'Support for the implementation of CITES in the Uinted Kindom' carried out by TRAFFIC International 'and jointly funded with the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF);
  The appointment of a scientific co-ordinator for the African Rhino Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union (IUCN); and
  Assistance to the IUCN's African Elephant Specialist Group for a scientific/programme officer.

  In addition, we provide strategic funding to Wildlife and Countryside Link, which fields a CITES liaison group, at a cost this year of £17,450.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to promote within the European Union a funding and enforcement implementation programme for CITES.

  Mr Atkins
  We are keen to see enforcement and implementation issues properly addressed in the new draft regulation on wildlife trade and continue to encourage progress in the negotiating process. The European Commission helped to provide funding for the recent meeting in Botswana on the African elephant and, resources permitting, we will encourage it to consider further financial support for CITES issues, for example in assisting further dialogue on elephant issues among the range states.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to convene a donor range state liaison forum to develop mechanisms within CITES for the disposal of the elephant products currently stockpiled in African countries.
  244
  Mr. Atkins
  At the recent CITES meeting in the USA there was general agreement that African elephant range states should continue their recently renewed dialogue on elephant issues within CITES and this process was set in hand by meetings of the African regional group. In addition, the CITES standing committee, of which the United Kingdom is vice-chairman, was asked to consider the issue of stockpiles in liaison with the African range states and to report to the next conference on the parties. The United Kingdom does not therefore need to take a specific initiative but expects to be involved in the relevant discussions via the standing committee.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of the infractions report from CITES.

  Mr. Atkins
  Copies of the report are today being placed in both Libraries.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current level of financial support provided to CITES by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Atkins
  Our annual subscription to CITES is currently £130,000. In addition, we provide a contribution of £10,000 per annum to support the attendance at CITES meetings of delegates from developing countries.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect on stockpiles of vicuna products resulting from the downlisting of vicuna from Al to A2 of CITES; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The downlisting will not take effect until 90 days after the conference of the parties. We shall be discussing with other European Union member states how the Community should implement the downlisting in so far as current stockpiles are concerned.

  Recycled Waste
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proportion of recycled demolition waste is included within the concrete structures of the new Department of the Environment headquarters building in Bressenden place, London SW1.

  (2) what steps his Department has taken to ensure recycled demolition waste is used in the main structure of its new headquarters building in Bressenden place, London SW1.

  (3) what proportion of the concrete arising from the demolition of the building on the site of the Department of the Environment's new headquarters in Bressenden place, London SW1 has been re-used for aggregate purposes.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The redevelopment of Eland house is being undertaken by Land Securities plc. The Department has signed an agreement to take a 25-year lease with a 15-year break provision against an agreed performance specification.

  The recycling of demolition waste in the construction of a building is one of the criteria of the building research establishment environmental assessment method. The developers of the new headquarters building are under contractual obligation to use reasonable endeavours to maximise its rating under BREEAM.

  Uncontaminated demolition materials were specified by the developers for fill and hardcore and, where possible, used. The proportion of reuse is likely to be less than 50 per cent. by volume because concrete made from such

  245
  materials has an inappropriate strength-weight ratio in the context of this building's design.

  The demolition of the building previously on the site of the new headquarters building was a matter for the developers. Figures relating to the proportion of concrete taken off site for crushing and re-use are not available but I understand from the developers that approximately 18,000 tonnes were dealt with in this manner.

  National Parks
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to bring forward legislation relating to the national parks.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Environment Bill, announced in the Queen's Speech last week, will contain a number of environmental measures including provisions to meet our commitments to the future care and protection of the national parks.

  Dumplington Shopping Centre
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what costs have so far been incurred by his Department in respect of the Dumplington shopping centre legal proceedings.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Secretary of State's current liability for legal costs arising on this case is provisionally estimated to be in the order of £150,000. This is contingent upon the outcome of his appeal to the House of Lords.

  "Paying for our Past"
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusion the Government have reached in the light of responses to their consultation paper "Paying for our Past".

  Mr. Gummer
  The Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office have today published a paper, "Framework for Contaminated Land", which sets out the Government's proposals for the machinery for dealing with contaminated land and of liabilities and concludes the review into these subjects set up last year by my right hon. Friends and then Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales—Official Report; 24 March 1993, columns 633–34.

  The Government remain committed to the "suitable for use" approach to the control and treatment of existing contamination relating to any requirement for remedial work to the presence of any unacceptable risks to health or the environment and to the actual or intended use of the site. This was widely supported in the consultation responses. It provides the basis for tackling real hazards where they exist in an orderly and controlled fashion. By not imposing unnecessary financial and regulatory burdens, we will not discourage enterprise, which is itself a major contributor to the reinstatement of contaminated land.

  We have already issued guidance about the treatment of contaminated land in the planning process, and shall continue to publish a series of research reports and guidance notes designed to help businesses and regulators determine when remediation is required and to what level, striking an appropriate balance between the costs and the environmental benefits of any action.
  246
  Subject to parliamentary approval, we propose that the Environment Agency should take over this programme of research and guidance, providing a nationally coherent framework for remedial action. It will also be asked to oversee progress.

  We shall at the same time propose legislative amendments to the provisions whereby regulators—the Environment Agency and the borough and district councils, or unitary authorities—can require the prevention or abatement of contamination. We do not believe that there is a need for radical change to the effect of these provisions nor to the underlying incidence of financial liability. There is, however, a need for greater clarity and certainty, based on the principle that costs should as far as possible follow responsibility.

  The overall aim will be for the regulatory authorities to work with private and public sector organisations to promote the treatment of contaminated land and, where possible, the productive re-use of such sites. English Partnerships and the Welsh Development Agency will continue to have important roles in tackling dereliction and the treatment of contaminated sites.

  Home owners and small firms may face particular difficulties both in assessing their potential liabilities for contamination and in meeting any liabilities which they might have acquired unwittingly. We are keen, therefore to see improvements in the effectiveness of the conveyancing process. Guidance published by the Department of the Environment and the proposed agency should also make it easier for people to both predict and address their problems. Regulatory authorities will also be required to consider questions of hardship resulting from their enforcement of environmental obligations.

  Financial institutions expressed concerns during our review that they might be held responsible for the actions of their clients or the companies for which they act. We have no intention of pursuing a "deep pockets" approach to liability. Whilst financial institutions should not be shielded from normal commercial risks, they should not be subject to potentially open-ended liabilities resulting from damage for which they were not responsible. To the extent that there are any uncertainties in the existing statutory provisions, we shall clarify them.

  In "Paying for our Past" we said that, in the light of the emerging conclusions of the review, we would re-assess the justification for the present unique statutory exemptions in respect of water escaping from abandoned mines which pollutes controlled waters. In view of the concerns that have been expressed about water pollution from abandoned mines, we shall propose legislative amendments to remove the existing statutory defence and exemptions for mines abandoned after the end of 1999 so that the agency will have the same powers for those mines as for other discharges.

  We shall also propose a duty on mine operators to give the agency six months' notice of any proposed abandonment. This will provide an additional safeguard to ensure that when mines are abandoned this is done in a responsible manner with full regard to the effects on the water environment.

  These provisions on abandoned mines will end a long-standing anomaly and enhance the agency's ability to tackle and prevent pollution.

  The regulatory authorities will have the task of identifying problems caused by contamination and

  247
  establishing priorities for dealing with them. In the light of this, we do not consider that a general register of land subject to potentially contaminative uses is warranted, and we propose to repeal section 143 of the Environment Protection Act 1990.

  At the time that the review was announced, there were also concerns about the application of the common law to civil liabilities for contamination. Following the House of Lords judgment in the case of Cambridge Water Company v. Eastern Counties Leather plc we believe that the law in this area is now better understood and provides a sensible balance between the interest of all potential parties. Accordingly, we do not propose legislative amendments to the common law.

  We are very grateful to the 349 individuals and organisations who responded to our consultation paper, "Paying for our Past". A summary of the responses and a list of those who agreed for their responses to be made public has been placed in the Library of the House, and reference copies of their responses have been placed in the DOE library. Responses relating specifically to Wales have been placed in the Welsh Office library.

  The Government's proposals are set out in detail in the paper, "Framework for Contaminated Land", which I have placed in the Library of the House and the Vote Office. They should lead to greater certainty and confidence in the market, helping ensure that contaminated land is brought back into productive use and that environmental hazards are removed.

  The necessary legislative provisions will be published shortly in the Environment Agencies Bill.

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the guidelines issued by his Department to regulate relationships with lobbying companies.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" states the general principles of conduct applying to Ministers.

  Conditions of service for the staff of my Department incorporate the general principles of conduct that require civil servants not to misuse information which they acquire in the course of their official duties; to be impartial in carrying out their official duties; not to make use of their official position to further their private interests or those of others, and not to accept favours or benefits of any kind from a third party which might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity. These principles and guidance are set out in the Department's "Staff Handbook" and are in accord with the requirements of the civil service management code.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list and date those occasions over the last two years when Ministers or officials in his Department have met lobbying companies prior to a decision being made on the subject of the meeting with the lobbying company.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  This information is not held centrally in my Department and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  This Department has five next steps agencies—the Building Research Establishment, the Planning Inspectorate, the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, the Security Facilities Executive and the Buying Agency. The salary of the official in the post equivalent to that of chief executive in the month before the creation of each agency was as follows:

  BRE (March 1990) £39,300 (+£2,000 London Allowance)

  PINS (March 1992 £48,000

  QEII CC (June 1989) £32,826 (+£1,750 London Weighting)

  SAFE (September 1993) £45,959 (+£1,776 London Weighting)

  TBA (October 1991 £39,402

  All these officials were paid under the normal arrangements for their respective civil service grade, and were not in receipt of any other emoluments.

  Police Budget, Merseyside
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect the cutting in the police budget will have on Merseyside council tax payers over the next five financial years.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The level of the police budget on Merseyside, and its effect on council tax payers, is a matter for the Merseyside police authority.

  Town Twinning
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cities and towns in England are twinned with German cities and towns.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department does not collect this information.

  Property Valuations
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce measures to appoint the Scottish rating assessors for the purposes of valuation of properties for rating purposes in England and Wales.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Scottish Assessors Association
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has met or intends to meet representatives of the Scottish Assessors Association; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend has not met representatives of the association, nor does he have plans to do so.

  National Environmental Code of Practice
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the economic impact of the national voluntary environmental code of practice on businesses; if he will list the
  249
  businesses which have agreed to follow the national environmental code of practice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The are a number of voluntary codes—promoted by, for example, individual industries, the International Chamber of Commerce, and the CBI—through which a commitment to environmental management may be demonstrated.

  The Government welcome such voluntary initiatives: the more industry chooses to operate in a sustainable manner, the less need there will be for Government to regulate.

  New Century House
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when New Century house on Westminster Bridge road was vacated; what has been the cost of maintenance since then; and what plans his Department has for the building.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Century house, Westminster Bridge road was vacated on 1 August 1994. Maintenance payments since that date total £47,657.38.

  Negotiations with the landlord and the planning authority are in hand to enable the building to be used as an emergency shelter by the Construction Industry Relief and Assistance for the Single Homeless—CRASH—during the winter of 1994–95.

  A Government Department has expressed some interest in using the building after then and refurbishment. Value for money studies are currently being undertaken. It is being offered to other Departments and will be placed on the open market if no long-term user can be found within Government.

  Houses (Heating)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the percentage of extra fuel which is required to heat identical houses in(a) Edinburgh, (b) Glasgow, (c) Aberdeen, (d) Dundee, (e) Lerwick and (f) Braemar, taking Bristol as the base; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The percentage of extra fuel required to heat a typical semi-detached house with gas central heating is as follows for each of the specified locations:(a) Edinburgh +28 per cent., (b) Glasgow +23 per cent,. (c) Aberdeen +41 per cent., (d) Dundee +32 per cent., (e) Lerwick +53 per cent. and (f) Braemer +66 per cent.

  These figures have been calculated using the Building Research Establishment domestic model, BREDEM.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on English Partnerships' role and progress.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the role and progress of English Partnerships.

  Mr. Curry
  English Partnerships is making excellent progress, demonstrated by the launch today of its "Investment Guide", explaining how developers, and others in the public, private and voluntary sectors can 250
  access its advice and resources to deliver effective and lasting regeneration.

  English Partnerships was set up under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. Its remit, informed by the Secretary of State's guidance issued in April 1994, is to promote the regeneration of areas of need, across England, through the reclamation and development of derelict or vacant land and buildings.

  English Partnerships was formed on 10 November 1993 and immediately assumed responsibility for administering the city grant programme; but only came into full operation on 1 April 1994, when it took over, in addition, the management of derelict land grant and the English Estates development programme, previously overseen by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  In that short time English Partnerships, under Lord Walker's chairmanship, has made very substantial progress. It has announced a £122 million land reclamation programme; and has already approved 285 separate regeneration projects with a total English Partnerships investment of £200 million. This includes English Partnerships' key role in facilitating Samsung's £600 million inward investment at Cleveland, which will generate 3,000 jobs.

  English Partnerships has now appointed six regional directors to a network of offices covering the whole of England. They will plan and deliver support for regeneration, working closely with the private sector, local authorities and communities; and liaising with the Government offices for the regions on projects within the single regeneration budget, main programmes relevant to regeneration and opportunities for European funding.

  English Partnerships' "Investment Guide", a copy of which I am depositing in the Library, builds on that foundation. The guide explains the integrated approach which English Partnerships will follow and, in particular, its new unified regime for supporting regeneration strategies and projects, which will supersede the programmes it inherited. Building on the freedoms provided by the Government's private finance initiative, the new regime ensures that English Partnerships can operate as a strategic partner and investor in regeneration through a flexible mix of instruments—including grants, loans, guarantees and joint ventures—tailored to the particular needs and opportunities each project presents. Existing city grant, derelict land grant and English Estates commitments will be met.

  The guide marks an important milestone. English Partnerships will now be building on its success, working with private, public and voluntary sector partners to deliver the employment and environmental benefits flowing from successful regeneration.

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Walter Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue the draft housing revenue account subsidy determinations for 1995–96.

  Mr. Curry
  The draft housing revenue account subsidy determinations for 1995–96 have been issued today and local authorities have been invited to let my Department have their views by 15 December 1994.

  The proposed average guideline rent for 1995–96 is £33.82 a week nationally; an average increase of £2.28 a week on this year, 1994–95. Increase range between £1.82

  251
  a week in authorities with relatively low value housing and £2.82 in authorities with high value stock.

  The average management and maintenance allowance per dwelling would increase by 3.75 per cent.—an extra £125 million nationally—which would take total M and M provision to £3,445 million. These extra resources would benefit 216 authorities, whose present M and M allowance is below the Government's assessment of their relative need to spend. As a result, each authority's allowance would be a minimum of 97 per cent. of their target.

  These proposals strike a reasonable balance between the need to contain public expenditure and the need to ensure council tenants receive decent services at acceptable cost. The percentage increase in guideline rents is lower than in 1994–95, while the extra provision for management and maintenance expenditure means that it should be possible to improve services in many areas. Nearly 80 per cent. of tenants stand to gain from the higher management and maintenance allowances.

  Local authorities determine their own expenditure and set their own rents. But I hope that they will follow the Government's lead in adopting a balanced approach, and will respond positively to our proposals.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment during how many of the overseas visits made by Ministers in his Department between 1 January and 30 June 1994 those Ministers participated in fund-raising activities for the Conservative party; and if he will list the Ministers and the countries in which those activities took place.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: Between 1 January and 30 June 1994, Ministers in my Department made 21 overseas visits in their official capacity. Fund-raising activities for the Conservative party are not part of our official duties.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account he is taking of the needs of deaf people for assistance to live in the community in his consideration of legislation to assist people with disabilities.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 23 November 1994]: Part M of the building regulations, which contains requirements relating to access facilities for disabled people in non-domestic buildings, was revised in 1992 and extended to cover provisions to assist people with impaired hearing. The regulations at present apply to new buildings and most extensions. The building regulations advisory committee is considering whether these provisions should be extended to include where alteration work is proposed to existing buildings.

  Non-domestic Council Tax
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to relieve owners of unlet shops from non-domestic council tax to bring them in line with owners of warehouses and industrial units.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 23 November 1994]: I have no such plans.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish details of the annual costs to(a) the Department of Education and (b) education and library boards in Northern Ireland related to the transfer procedure in each of the last three years for which records are available.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  £000

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Department of Education1

  143

  156

  246

  Education and Library Boards

  454

  485

  508

  1 Excludes teacher substitution for the completion of Transfer Report forms, which cannot be identified separately but includes the cost of appeals regarding placements in grammar and non-grammar secondary schools.

  Legal Students (Exam Results)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students in Northern Ireland were dissatisfied with the advanced level grades allocated to them and asked for their papers to be re-marked in each of the last three years; and in how many cases original marks were(a) upgraded, (b) downgraded and (c) unchanged.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Requests for re-mark of Northern Ireland GCE A Level papers

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total Requests

  1,401

  1,333

  1,148

  Results Upgraded

  122

  98

  82

  Results Unchanged

  1,279

  1,235

  1,066

  Note:

  It is not the council's policy to reduce the grade originally awarded to an examination candidate. The information relates to examinations conducted by the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (formerly the Northern Ireland Schools Examinations and Assessment Council.

  Prison Privatisation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the present list of Her Majesty's prisons in Northern Ireland which are now under consideration for privatisation.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Office has responsibility for four prisons and a young offenders centre, none of which are under consideration for privatisation.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the pupil-teacher ratios for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94 for public sector (i) nursery schools, (ii) primary schools, (iii) secondary schools, (iv) non-maintained schools, (v) special schools and (vi) all schools; and whether these figures include unqualified teachers.
  253
  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  (i) Nursery

  24:4

  24:7

  (ii) Primary

  22:2

  21:6

  (iii) Secondary

  15:3

  15:2

  (iv) Non-maintained1

  —

  —

  (v) Special

  6:9

  6:8

  (vi) All schools

  18:2

  17:9

  Note:

  1 Northern Ireland does not have any schools in this category. The figures do not include unqualified teachers.

  Livestock
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the personnel licensed to export livestock from Aldergrove have previous convictions for offences relating to the welfare of livestock.

  Mr. Ancram
  There is no requirement for such personnel to be licensed. I am satisfied that the principals involved in the recent export of animals from Aldergrove have no past convictions for welfare offences.

  Before any consignment leaves Northern Ireland the Department carries out checks to determine that the facilities for the export of the livestock are sufficient to ensure that the welfare of the animals can be properly safeguarded throughout the journey.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Sir John Wheeler
  In some cases, the work currently carried out by the chief executive was not carried out by a single individual before the establishment of the agency and in these cases salaries have been estimated.

  Agency

  Salary £

  Emoluments

  Training and Employment Agency

  43,100

  NIL

  Rate Collection Agency

  28,619

  NIL

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  46,122

  NIL

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  22,761

  NIL

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  34,898

  NIL

  Child Support Agency

  1—

  —

  Social Security Agency

  45,690

  NIL

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  54,000

  NIL

  Compensation Agency

  42,724

  NIL

  Note:

  1 No comparable post in DHSS (Northern Ireland)

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce a grading system to establish the quality of facilities and services in private nursing homes.

  Mr. Moss
  None. I am satisfied with the present arrangements under which the registration and inspection units of the four health and social services boards are 254
  responsible for setting and inspecting the standards of facilities and services provided in all residential care and nursing homes.

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans exist for the reinstatement of the cross-border electricity interconnector.

  Mr. Ancram
  The reinstatement of the cross-border electricity interconnector is a matter for Northern Ireland Electricity and the Electricity Supply Board in the Republic of Ireland. I understand, however, that an announcement on the future of the interconnector is imminent.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average waiting period for patients needing hip replacement treatment, at each hospital where this operation is provided; and what steps are being taken to reduce the waiting period.

  Mr. Moss
  It is not possible to provide an average waiting period for patients still waiting for treatment. It is usual instead to refer to median waiting times, which indicate the length of time the middle person on the list has been waiting. This information is not available for the specific procedure of hip replacement but it is available for the speciality of trauma and orthopaedics and is as follows:

  Hospital

  Median Waiting Time. Months

  Altnagelvin

  3–5

  Belfast City

  6–8

  Musgrave Park

  3–5

  Ulster

  0–2

  A total of £10 million was made available last year spread over three years to reduce waiting lists in all specialities. As a result, the number waiting more than 18 months in the trauma and orthopaedics speciality has reduced from 367 in September 1993 to 84 in September 1994, and we expect no patient to have to wait more than 18 months by 1 April 1995.

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the guidelines issued by his Department to regulate relationships with lobbying companies.

  Sir John Wheeler
  While no specific guidelines have been issued, the conditions of service for the staff of the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments incorporate the general principles of conduct that require civil servants not to misuse information which they acquire in the course of their duties; not to make use of their official position to further their private interests or those of others; and not to receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party, which might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list and date those occasions in the last two years when Ministers or officials in his Department have met lobbying companies, prior to a
  255
  decision being made on the subject of the meeting with the lobbying company.

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

  International Fund for Ireland
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland during what period Mr. John McGuckian was chairman of the International Fund for Ireland; by whom he was appointed to that position; and what were his given reasons for resigning.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Mr. McGuckian served as chairman of the International Fund for Ireland from 1 October 1989 to 31 December 1992. The board of the fund, including the chairman, is appointed jointly by the British and Irish Governments and normally serves a three-year term. On this occasion the term of appointment for Mr. McGuckian and the other board members was extended by three months for operational reasons. A new chairman and board were appointed on 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the occasions when grant from the International Fund for Ireland was paid to a business in which(a) one of the fund's board members or (b) the spouse, sibling or son or daughter of one of the fund's board members was a shareholder or director;

  (2) if he will list all grants of over £10,000 made by the International Fund for Ireland since it was established; how precisely each grant furthers the aims of promoting reconciliation between Roman Catholics and Protestants; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The International Fund for Ireland is an international organisation established by the British and Irish Governments and administered by an independent board appointed jointly by the two Governments. All decisions on disbursements by the fund are a matter for that board and questions regarding disbursements should be directed to the fund's chairman, Mr. William T. McCarter, PO Box 2000, Belfast, BT4 3SA. I understand, however, that the fund provides full details of all offers of assistance in its annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the purpose of the International Fund for Ireland; how much money it has received from(a) the British Government, (b) the Irish Government and (c) other public sector sources in each year since it was established; and for what those funds were used.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The International Fund for Ireland was established in 1986 by the British and Irish Governments with the twin objectives of promoting economic and social advance and to encourage contact, dialogue and reconciliation between Nationalists and Unionists throughout Ireland. The fund is resourced by contributions from the United States of America, the European Union, Canada, New Zealand and more recently Australia has also agreed to contribute to the fund. The British and Irish Governments do not contribute to the fund's resources nor is any funded provided from other public sector sources. Under the terms of the agreement establishing the fund, the two Governments provide the accommodation and secretarial services necessary for the proper functioning of the fund, together with its general administrative and organisational expenses.

  DeLorean Motor Car Company
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums were paid and when by(a) the Northern Ireland industrial development board, (b) the International Fund for Ireland or (c) other public sector bodies to the DeLorean Motor Car Company.

  Mr. Ancram
  DeLorean Motor Cars Ltd.—DMCL— received a total of £77.3 million from the industrial development board's predecessors, the Department of Commerce and the Northern Ireland development agency, on various dates between August 1978 and April 1982. Information on training grants paid to DMCL is not readily available but my noble Friend will write to the hon. Gentleman in due course with the details.

  The International Fund for Ireland was not in existence during the lifetime of DMCL.

  Forensic Science Laboratory
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the prior options study of the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory was completed; and what was the outcome of the study.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  On 18 January 1994, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) announced that the prior options study of the Northern Ireland forensic service laboratory—NIFSL— was coming close to completion, and that if agency status were agreed for the service, a further announcement would be made,Official Report, columns 521–22. The prior options study has been completed and I have decided that NIFSL should become an executive agency by 1 September 1995.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to publish the 1994 report on the Royal Ulster Constabulary by Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Copies of the 1994 inspection report, which is the second RUC inspection report to be published, have today been placed in the Library.

  I am grateful to Her Majesty's inspector for the report and am pleased to note that overall he regards the force as efficient. I welcome the findings and will be considering the report's recommendations carefully.

  HMIC inspections offer the opportunity of professional examination of policing policies and priorities. This inspection form part of an on-going programme intended to examine over succeeding years various aspects of police management. It is the second in the series and has concentrated on a limited number of areas selected because of their contribution to the effectiveness arid efficiency of operational policing.

  Rail Services
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what progress has been made towards implementation of the recommendations contained in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report of December 1990 on rail services in Northern Ireland provided by Northern Ireland Railways Company Ltd. and if he will make a statement.
  257
  Mr. Moss
  I have today placed in the Library of the House the third and final response to the report which has been prepared by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland in consultation with Northern Ireland Railways and the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company. I am pleased to confirm that good progress has been made on the implementation of the Monopoly and Mergers Commission's recommendations since this matter was last reported to the House in January 1993. The response now indicates that 31 of the 34 recommendations made by the MMC have been fully implemented and that the remaining three recommendations have been accepted and their implementation is ongoing.

  The rail passenger's charter, first published in November 1992, reaffirms NIR's commitment to providing a quality rail service which is safe, efficient, and competitive in satisfying the needs of customers. Monitoring of the charter standards has enabled marketing efforts to be focused on those areas which can be improved as well as those which are considered most important by customers such as reliability, punctuality and cleanliness.

  Considerable effort has gone into improving communications within the company and new negotiating and consultative procedures are now in operation. I am confident that the company is dedicated to achieving further improvements in standards, better value for money and the provision of a more attractive service to customers.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clerical Resignations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners how many clerics have resigned and are claiming severance pay as a consequence of the ordination of women priests; how many resignations there have been in each diocese; and what is the cost in severance pay so far awarded and projected costs in 1995 and 1996.

  Mr. Alison
  As at 31 October 1994, 215 men eligible for financial provision had resigned; they have so far received a total of £1.9 million from re-settlement grants and continuing periodic payments. The following schedule gives a breakdown of numbers by diocese.

  On current projections we expect the cost to be £2.3 million in 1994, about £3.5 million in 1995 and about £3.0 million in 1996.

  Ordination of Women Measure

  Resigners at 31 October 1994

  Bath and Wells

  8

  Birmingham

  3

  Blackburn

  2

  Bradford

  —

  Bristol

  —

  Canterbury

  3

  Carlisle

  2

  Chelmsford

  12

  Chester

  2

  Chichester

  9

  Coventry

  1

  Derby

  4

  Durham

  10

  258

  Ordination of Women Measure

  Resigners at 31 October 1994

  Ely

  2

  Exeter

  6

  Gloucester

  3

  Guildford

  1

  Hereford

  1

  Leicester

  6

  Lichfield

  13

  Lincoln

  6

  Liverpool

  1

  London

  14

  Manchester

  10

  Newcastle

  2

  Norwich

  4

  Oxford

  8

  Peterborough

  7

  Portsmouth

  1

  Ripon

  4

  Rochester

  6

  St Albans

  2

  St Eds & Ips

  4

  Salisbury

  4

  Sheffield

  8

  Sodor amp; Man

  1

  Southwark

  6

  Southwell

  4

  Truro

  13

  Wakefield

  9

  Winchester

  3

  Worcester

  1

  York

  3

  Other

  6

TRANSPORT

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

  Mr. Norris
  The non-departmental public bodies that my Department has abolished or declassified since 1979 are as follows:

  Advanced Ground Transport Working Group

  Advisory Committee on Motor Cycle Rider Training

  Air Travel Reserve Fund Agency

  Commissioners of Irish Lights

  Disciplinary Inquiry under s471 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894

  Freight Integration Council

  Honorary Medical Advisory Panel for Driving and Disorders of the Nervous System

  Inquiry on Lorries, People and the Environment

  Landscape Advisory Committee

  London Rail Advisory Committee

  Motor Rallies Advisory Committee

  National Ports Council

  Pilotage Commission

  Railways and Coastal Shipping Committee

  Red Sea Lights Company Limited

  Road Safety Education Development Unit

  Standing Advisory Committee on the Carriage of Dangerous Goods in Ships

  Transport and Road Research Laboratory Advisory Committee Working Party on Medical Standards for HGV and PSV Drivers

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many quangos his Department was responsible for(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which a number is available.
  259
  Mr. Norris
  (a) Some 15 non-departmental public bodies in 1979, as listed in "Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies", Cm 7797, January 1980; and (b) eight non-departmental public bodies at 1 April 1993, as shown in "Public Bodies 1993".

  Roads
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to subject all road construction proposals to environmental assessment.

  Mr. Watts
  Environmental assessment is already required by law for all proposals for the construction of motorways and for all other road construction proposals which are likely to have significant effects on the environment.

  Sustainable Transport
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent the evaluation and assessment of highway and traffic management schemes need to be changed to meet his objectives of sustainable transport.

  Mr. Watts
  Existing procedures for the evaluation and assessment of highway and traffic management schemes provide for this evaluation of economic, safety and environmental factors and for an appropriate balance to be struck. These procedures are kept under review and updated as necessary.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to undertake comparative studies of representative towns and villages before and after the completion of bypasses, in order to improve understanding of their environmental and other effects.

  Mr. Watts
  For all its road improvements, including bypasses, the Department of Transport compares forecast traffic with the actual traffic after opening.

  Highways Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of funding has been set aside to fund(a) the cost to redundancies and (b) the restructuring of the Highways Agency.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Funding for the Highways Agency's redundancy and restructuring costs will form part of its running costs and administrative capital expenditure for 1995–96 and subsequent years, subject to 80 per cent. of the cost of redundancies being met from the central civil

  Numbers of licensed cars and lorries by type of fuel used

  cars1

  millions lorries2

  petrol

  diesel

  petrol

  diesel

  year3

  unleaded

  leaded

  1989

  5.85

  12.89

  0.51

  4—

  0.43

  1990

  7.83

  11.28

  0.62

  4—

  0.45

  1992

  9.96

  9.24

  0.91

  4—

  0.39

  1993

  10.70

  8.22

  1.19

  4—

  0.38

  1 Cars within the private and light goods tax class.

  2 General goods vehicles with gross weights more than 3.5 tonnes.

  3 Figures relate to the 31 December of each year.

  4 Negligible, less than 5,000.

  A few vehicles are not powered by petrol or diesel (ie powered by electricity, steam, gas etc) and these are excluded from the table.
  260
  superannuation vote as announced in paragraph 3.36 of "The Civil Service: Continuity and Change" (Cm 2627).

  Part-worn Tyres
  Mr Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to regulate the trade in part-worn tyres for motor vehicles.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) at column 119.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the cost to public funds of employing ministerial special advisers in his Department.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My Department employs one special adviser.

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable and the salary spine reflects this.

  Smart Cards
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the items of data stored on the experimental payment smart card which was used by London Transport buses in Harrow; and if holders of smart cards were informed of all these items of data and of all the purposes for which the data were to be used.

  Mr. Norris
  The smart cards in use on London Transport's trial in Harrow store the serial number of the card, the name of the cardholder, the validity of the card—for example travelcard for use in zones 2–5—and the date when its validity expires. LT has registered the trial in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Petrol
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the numbers of(a) cars and (b) lorries using (i) leaded petrol, (ii) unleaded petrol and (iii) diesel in (1) 1989–90, (2) 1990–91, (3) 1992–93 and (4) for the latest date information is available.

  Mr. Norris
  No estimates of the number of lorries using unleaded and leaded petrol are available. The number of petrol-fuelled lorries is very small—presently about 3,000 vehicles. They are usually small and account for less than 1 per cent. of petrol used.

  The other data requested are in the table:

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list and date those occasions over the last two years when Ministers or officials in his Department have met lobbying companies, prior to a decision being made on the subject of the meeting with the lobbying company.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the guidelines issued by his Department to regulate relationships with lobbying companies.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department maintains strict rules on conduct and propriety which cover all external organisations. They are set out in a number of documents, notably the "Staff Handbook", "Government Accounting" and in local instructions.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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.

  Mr. Norris
  The following is the information:

  Agency

  Salary1£

  The Coastguard Agency

  2—

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (1990)

  40,900

  Driving Standards Agency (1990)

  37,186

  Highways Agency

  2—

  Marine Safety Agency (1992)

  48,856

  Transport Research Laboratory (1991)

  48,415

  Vehicle Certification Agency (1990)

  33,991

  Vehicle Inspectorate (1988)

  30,644

  1 No emoluments were paid.

  2 There is no direct comparison between the Current Chief Executives of the Coastguard and Highways Agencies and those civicl servants who carried out the work previously as the work and responsibilities were significantly reorganised within the Department.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will take steps to amend the road vehicle construction and use regulations or the road vehicle registration and licensing regulations in order to ensure that any vehicle which has been seriously damaged in an accident will require notification to be given the DVLA concerning its drivability, and for the road licence for such a vehicle to be withdrawn pending either its certified scrapping by an authorised dealer or its certification of road worthiness by an appropriate authority; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it a criminal offence for any vehicle to be rebuilt, and to be put back on the roads without
  262
  being first approved by an authorised inspector's agency following a road accident.

  Mr. Norris
  No. I am not aware of any evidence that rebuilt vehicles represent a particular threat to road safety.

  Service Stations
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's standard for the desirable distance between service stations on M roads and other major routes.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir David Mitchell, dated 24 November 1994:
  Your Parliamentary Question about the spacing of services on motorways and other major routes is a matter for the Highways Agency. It has therefore been passed to me for reply.
  Until 1992 the Department of Transport was itself responsible for promoting new MSAs, and its policy was to provide them at intervals of around thirty miles, or half an hour's driving time, throughout the motorway network. Following criticism that this policy was not delivering MSAs quickly enough, particularly on the more recently completed motorways such as the M25 and M40, Ministers announced a new policy in August 1992. Under these arrangements it is now for the private sector to bring forward proposals for new MSAs. At the same time the minimum spacing has been reduced from about thirty miles to around fifteen.
  The fifteen mile minimum is, however, neither a target nor an absolute limit. On the one hand we recognise that there are stretches of motorway where either demand is unlikely ever to support MSAs every fifteen miles, or where planning constraints will dictate a lesser frequency. On the other hand, we are prepared to be flexible in applying the fifteen mile minimum, for example where existing MSAs are a little less than thirty miles apart and a new one is proposed roughly half way between them.
  Services on other trunk roads, for which the Secretary of State for Transport is the highway authority, have always been a commercial matter for the private sector who are encouraged to provide comprehensive facilities. Local authorities are encouraged to work with the private sector in identifying suitable locations.
  There are no standard rules about spacing, though guidance has been issued to local planning authorities in Circular Roads 4/88 "The Control of Development on Trunk Roads". This is widely available to developers, a copy is also in the Library.
  The Circular advises that half an hour's driving time, or 25 miles, should be regarded as the maximum which any driver should have to travel without the availability of fuel, refreshment, toilet and parking facilities. However, on trunk roads where high average speeds normally obtain, it will not in general be unreasonable to expect a driver to travel at least 12 miles before reaching petrol filling and related facilities. Shorter intervals may be warranted in other circumstances. This is also covered in the Circular.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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.
  263
  Mr. Robert G. Jones
  The information is as follows:

  Agency

  Salary and emoluments of civil servant immediately prior to creation of agency £

  Date agency created

  Chessington Computer Centre

  48,646

  1 April 1993

  Civil Service College

  42,900

  6 June 1989

  Occupational Health Service

  50,900

  2 April 1990

  Recruitment and Assessment Services

  53,659

  2 April 1991

  Central Office of Information

  41,496

  5 April 1990

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  48,000

  14 December 1988

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Information Service
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the cost of the pilot information service the Government are currently developing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  CCTA's pilot government information service makes available a range of information about public services through the global Internet. The total cost in terms of computer hardware, software and communications infrastructure amounts to under £50,000.

  Information Super-highway
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if his Department will formally respond to the European Commission's proposals for a European information super-highway.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Government policy in relation to the European Commission's proposals for development of the information society is being co-ordinated by the Department of Trade and Industry. My Department will, of course, continue to consider the implications of technological innovation when formulating the policies for which it is responsible.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement concerning the cost to public funds of employing ministerial special advisers in his Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department does not employ any special advisers.

  BBC
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of state for National Heritage if his Department will consider the status of independent producers within the BBC's programme commissioning procedure in the forthcoming legislation on the future of the BBC.
  264
  Mr. Dorrell
  Under the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1990, the BBC is required to commission 25 per cent. of its qualifying television output from independent production companies. There are at present no plans to change this requirement. The BBC's commissioning procedure is a matter for the BBC.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if his Department will review the need for a freedom of information Act when it decides to legislate to protect privacy.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government's proposals on access to information held by public authorities were set out in the White Paper "Open Government" (Cm 2290), published in July 1993. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has no present plans to review the need for a freedom of information Act. The Government's conclusions on protection of privacy will be set out in their response the National Heritage Committee's report on privacy and media intrusion.

  Independent Television News
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to examine the procedure by which the Independent Television Commission came to its decision last week on the ownership of ITN.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. The procedure by which the Independent Television Commission comes to decisions is entirely a matter for the Independent Television Commission.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Attorney-General 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.

  The Attorney-General
  The present chief executive of the Government Property Lawyers agency, Mr. Tony Osborne, is the relevant civil servant and he was paid at the rate of £56,410 per annum immediately before the agency was established on 1 April 1993.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legal advice he was given before making the decision to approve the expenditure from the aid budget and the budget for the Pergau dam project.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 23 November 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) gave on 22 April, Official Report, column 699 to the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). No legal advice was given before my right

  265
  hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took the decision to support the Pergau dam project.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployed People (Qualifications)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of those unemployed for(a) more than one year and (b) more than two years who have no academic or vocational qualifications; and what was the percentage in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is available from the labour force survey and is given in the following table:

  Percentage of those of working age who have been ILO unemployed for more than one and two years who have no academic or vocational qualifications

  Not seasonally adjusted-Great Britain (per cent.)

  Quarter

  Unemployed for over 1 year

  Unemployed for over 2 years

  Spring 1984

  58.4

  62.6

  Spring 1985

  56.4

  59.8

  Spring 1986

  55.8

  60.6

  Spring 1987

  55.9

  60.6

  Spring 1988

  58.0

  62.8

  Spring 1989

  55.4

  59.1

  Spring 1990

  56.2

  60.3

  Spring 1991

  53.6

  60.2

  Spring 1992

  45.7

  54.3

  Spring 1993

  41.9

  48.2

  Spring 1994

  37.7

  41.8

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of those with no academic or vocational qualifications who have been unemployed for more than one year; and what was the percentage in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is available from the labour force survey and is given in the following table:

  Not seasonally adjusted—Great Britain all people of working age

  Quarter

  Proportion of those with no qualifications ILO unemployed for over one year Per cent.

  Spring 1984

  6.3

  Spring 1985

  6.1

  Spring 1986

  5.9

  Spring 1987

  5.8

  Spring 1988

  4.8

  Spring 1989

  3.6

  Spring 1990

  3.2

  Spring 1991

  3.1

  Spring 1992

  4.4

  Spring 1993

  5.4

  Spring 1994

  5.7

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the rate of unemployment among those with no academic or vocational qualification for(a) males and (b) females; and what was the rate in each of the last 10 years.
  266
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is available from the labour force survey and is given in the following table:

  ILO Unemployment rates amongst those of working age with no academic or vocational qualifications

  Not seasonally adjusted-Great Britain (Per Cent.)

  Quarter

  Males

  Females

  Spring 1984

  18.2

  13.4

  Spring 1985

  17.8

  12.7

  Spring 1986

  17.8

  12.5

  Spring 1987

  18.2

  12.8

  Spring 1988

  15.5

  11.0

  Spring 1989

  13.3

  9.0

  Spring 1990

  12.8

  8.7

  Spring 1991

  15.3

  9.3

  Spring 1992

  18.8

  9.5

  Spring 1993

  20.3

  10.0

  Spring 1994

  21.0

  9.8

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of those with no academic or vocational qualifications who have been unemployed for more than two years; and what was the percentage in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is available from the labour force survey and is given in the following table:

  Not seasonally adjusted-Great Britain all people of working age

  Quarter

  Proportion of those with no qualifications ILO unemployed for over two years (Per Cent.)

  Spring 1984

  4.5

  Spring 1985

  4.3

  Spring 1986

  4.4

  Spring 1987

  4.4

  Spring 1988

  3.5

  Spring 1989

  2.6

  Spring 1990

  2.3

  Spring 1991

  2.0

  Spring 1992

  2.3

  Spring 1993

  3.2

  Spring 1994

  3.7

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of(a) the number of people in part-time jobs because they cannot find full-time work and (b) the number of people in temporary jobs because they cannot find permanent employment.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Estimates form the spring 1994 labour force survey show that in Great Britain, 797,000 employees and self-employed people were in part-time jobs because they could not find full-time work; this was just 13 per cent. of all part-time employees and self-employed people.

  In the same quarter, 587,000 employees were in temporary jobs because they could not find permanent employment; this represented 43 per cent. of all employees in temporary jobs.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of women with(a) working

  267
  partners and (b) unemployed partners are in work; and what were the equivalent figures in 1979.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Estimates from the spring 1994 labour force survey for Great Britain show that 73 per cent. of women with partners in employment, and 33 per cent. of women with ILO unemployed partners, were in employment. Equivalent figures for spring 1984, the earliest available, were 59 and 25 per cent. respectively.

  Benefits
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many decisions on claims in 1993–94 for unemployment benefit where payment was suspended pending investigation of whether the claimant had left a job voluntarily without just cause were delayed due to the failure of former employers to respond to request for evidence within the periods specified by Employment Service guidelines.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 24 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of claims for unemployment benefit where payment was suspended pending a decision on whether a claimant had left employment voluntarily without just cause and where the decision was delayed due to failure of an employer to respond to a request for information within the period specified by the Employment Service.
  Unfortunately we do not collect the information you have requested. We record the number of adjudication decisions not suspensions. In addition there is no time limit for employers to respond to enquiries from adjudication officers. In general adjudication officers allow employers three weeks in which to reply to requests for information. However, this will vary depending on local circumstances.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Employment Service has undertaken research into periods of disqualification from unemployment benefit following a finding of voluntary unemployment.

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

  Letter from M.E.G Fogden to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 24 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about whether the Employment Service (ES) has undertaken research into periods of disqualification from unemployment benefit following a finding of voluntary unemployment.
  Collection of this information would involve a special exercise which ES has historically not undertaken. However, because of the interest shown by Members and others in the length of disqualification periods, it has been decided that a limited amount of data on this issue should be collected as part of a larger project, which is currently under way. This will provide a snapshot picture of average periods of disqualification imposed during October. The results should be available by the end of 1994 and I will forward them to you.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in respect of claims for unemployment benefit, where payment was suspended pending investigation of whether the claimant had left a job 268
  voluntarily without just cause, what was the average length of time in 1993–94 and in each of the five preceding years (a) between the logging of the claim with the Employment Service and its referral to an adjudicator, (b) between the logging of the claim with the Employment Service and receiving a response from the former employer, (c) between the referral of the claim from the Employment Service to an adjudicator and the adjudicator's decision and (d) between the lodging of an appeal and the appeal hearing.

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

  Letter from M.E.G. Fogden to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 24 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of claims where payment was suspended pending a decision on whether a claimant had left employment voluntarilly without just cause and the times taken to refer the question to an adjudication officer, for employers to reply to enquiries, for the adjudication officer to decide the question and for an appeal hearing to take place once an appeal has been lodged.
  Unfortunately we do not have all of the information you have requested. We record the number of adjudication decisions not suspensions or referrals to adjudication. We do not keep information on the time taken by employers to reply to requests for information as it has no operational value.
  Because of the independence of the adjudicating authorities, and the limited use we could make of the information, we do not collect statistics on the time taken to make decisions. However, due to the interest shown in this data by various people we have recently conducted an exercise during the quarter ending 30 September to measure the time from when a referral is received by the adjudication officer to when a decision is made. The exercise monitored several different types of decisions. Of the sample of disqualifications examined, which included leaving voluntarily cases, 28 per cent. were decided within 14 days, 54 per cent. within 28 days and 88 per cent. within 56 days.
  The administration of Social Security Appeal Tribunals (SSATs) is the responsibility of the Independent Tribunal Service. I am therefore unable to respond to your question about the time taken by them to list appeals for hearing. We do collect information on the time taken by adjudication officers to clear appeals. However, this information is not available specifically for leaving voluntarily questions. During the quarter ending 30 September 76 per cent. of appeals were cleared within 28 days and 93 per cent. within 56 days. This data includes appeals that were withdrawn by the claimant, reviewed and allowed by the adjudication officer and those submitted to the SSAT.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in how many of the total number of unemployment benefit claims in 1993–94 and in each of the five preceding years benefit was(a) suspended, (b) suspended but subsequently reinstated by the adjudication officer and (c) suspended but reinstated on appeal.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  269
  Letter from M.E.G. Fogden to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 24 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of claims suspended, suspended and reinstated by an adjudication officer and suspended and reinstated on appeal.
  Unfortunately information is not available in the form you have requested. We record the number of adjudication decisions and opinions not suspensions. It may be helpful if I explain that a benefit suspension is not imposed in all cases referred to adjudication for a

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Quarter ending 31 March 1991

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Total Decisions/Opinions

  1,642,021

  1,284,482

  1,326,016

  40,203

  1,930,676

  2,203,816

  2,138,936

  Appeals Received

  30,339

  24,152

  19,493

  5,860

  27,942

  23,601

  20,311

  Appeals Reviewed and Revised

  8,066

  5,157

  3,792

  1,188

  6,440

  5,336

  4,456

  Appeals Submitted to Tribunal

  20,375

  17,554

  14,506

  3,703

  17,953

  16,539

  13,978

  For 1988, 1989 and 1990 the statistical year ended on 31 December.

  From 1 April 1991 the statistical year was amended to coincide with the operational year end of 31 March.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people were refused benefits, and for what reasons, in each of the last five years.

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

  Letter from M.E.G. Fogden to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 24 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of claimants refused benefits and the reasons for these refusals.
  It may be helpful if I explain that decisions on entitlement to benefit are made by independent adjudication officers. Employment Service (ES) adjudication officers only determine claims for unemployment benefit. Decisions on other benefits are the responsibility of my colleagues in Benefits Agency.

  The statistics your asked for on ES adjudication officers' decisions for each region and for Great Britain as a whole are contained in the quarterly summary entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions". Copies are held in the Library of the House. The latest available information relates to the quarter ending June.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment 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.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The work broadly comparable to that of the chief executive of the Employment Service was undertaken by a civil servant who received a salary of £49,600—including the grade 3 London allowance of £2,000—in the year to March 1990. The Employment Service was established as an executive agency in April 1990.

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the guidelines issued by his Department to regulate relationships with lobbying companies.
  270
  decision. In addition not all adverse decisions and opinions result in a loss of benefit.
  The only data held on appeals is: the number received, the number reviewed and revised by an adjudication officer and the number submitted for determination by a Social Security Appeal Tribunal.
  The attached table gives details of the number of decisions made in the year ending 30 March 1994, the five preceding years and appeals data for the same period.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Conditions of service for the staff of the Department incorporate the general principles of conduct that require civil servants not to misuse information which they acquire in the course of their duties; not to make use of their official position to further their private interests or those of others; and not to receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party, which might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list and date those occasions over the last two years when Ministers or officials in his Department have met lobbying companies, prior to a decision being made on the subject of the meeting with the lobbying company.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Workplace Incidents
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees were(a) killed or (b) injured at work in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Provisional figures for the year commencing 1 April 1993, published today in the Health and Safety Commission's annual report, show a total of 235 fatal injuries, 16,326 major injuries and 132,343 other injuries to employees causing incapacity for normal work for more than three days reported to enforcing authorities across Great Britain.

  Training
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money he plans to spend on training for unemployed people in the next financial year; and what has been the spending on training for the unemployed in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Paice
  An announcement about the resources the Department plans to devote in the next financial year to training unemployed people will be made after my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget announcement.

  The following table provides details of how much the Department has spent on training through employment

  271
  training, training for work and learning for work in each of the last five years.

  Year

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1989–90

  1,097

  1990–91

  1,072

  1991–92

  737

  1992–93

  630

  1993–94

  782

  Note: Expenditure up to and including 1990–91 is for Great Britain. Expenditure in 1991–92 is England and Wales. Expenditure from 1992–93 is for England only.

  Employment Service Regulation
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to amend the current regulations that prevent the Employment Service from assisting the unemployed unless they have been registered as unemployed for at least 26 weeks.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 23 November 1994]: The Employment Service assists a large number of jobseekers who have been unemployed for less than six months; between April and September this year it placed 700,000 such people into jobs. As well as vacancy displays, the ES's advisory interview service, and at 13 weeks, job search seminar and job review workshop programmes are available. Some programmes have an eligibility requirement of 26 weeks unemployment in order to focus resources on helping long-term unemployed people, who are at a greater disadvantage in the labour market. There are currently no plans to change the eligibility rules for Employment Department programmes.

  Travel to Interview Scheme
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to amend the travel to interview scheme so that the unemployed can be assisted when the prospective employment will initially not last 12 months.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 23 November 1994]: A revision of the rule is being tested in the Employment Service's north-west region as part of a package of changes to improve the working of the scheme as a whole. The tested revision includes people in scope who may be appointed at first for a trial period with the prospect of an extension beyond if all goes well. The pilot began in October and will run until the end of March next year, after which the changes will be evaluated.

EDUCATION

  Quangos
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many quangos her Department was responsible for(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which a number is available.

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of bodies sponsored by the Department in 1979 was 30, as shown in the "Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies"—Pliatzky Report, Cm 7797, January 1980. In 1993 the figure was 14, as shown 272
  in "Public Bodies 1993". Copies of these publications are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

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

  Mr. Boswell
  Since 1979 the following bodies were dissolved while under the sponsorship of the Department:Centre for Information and Advice on Educational Disadvantage

  Youth Service Forum

  Kennedy Memorial Trust

  Advisory Committee on Business Sponsorship of the Arts

  The Cockroft Committee of Enquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in Schools

  Youth Service Review Group

  Science Museum Advisory Council

  Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education

  Educational Counselling and Credit Transfer Information

  Service Steering Committee

  Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group

  Schools Council

  Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Children from Ethnic Minority Groups

  Industrial Scholarships Trust

  Advisory Committee for the Microelectronics Educational Programme

  Assessment of Performance Unit

  Burnham Further Education Committee

  Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee

  Council for the Accreditation of Correspondence Colleges

  Council for Education Technology for the United Kingdom

  Micro-electronics Education Support Unit

  National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education

  National Advisory Council for the Youth Service

  University Grants Committee

  Voluntary Sector Consultative Council

  School Curriculum Development Committee

  Secondary Examinations Council

  Computer Board for Universities and Research Councils

  Co-ordinating Committee on Marine Science and Technology

  National Youth Bureau

  Open University Visiting Committee

  Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council

  Universities Funding Council

  Visiting Committee for Cranfield Institute of Technology

  Visiting Committee for the Royal College of Art

  National Curriculum Council

  School Examinations and Assessment Council

  Teaching as a Career Unit

  Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education

  Council for National Academic Awards

  SuperJANET
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many institutions and research centres are currently connected to the SuperJANET broadband fibre optic network.

  Mr. Boswell
  Sixty-eight higher education institutions and research centres are currently connected to the national broadband optical fibre network known as Super JANET. It is intended that all higher education institutions will be connected to the network over the next three years.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement concerning the cost to public
  273
  funds of employing ministerial special advisers in her Department.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department employs one special adviser.

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on the special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Full-time non-clinical academic wholly university funded staff in former UFC-funded English universities, 1992–93

  Cost centre

  Age Under 25

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  50–54

  55–59

  60 and over

  Total

  Education

  2

  19

  55

  163

  295

  359

  301

  190

  85

  1,469

  Medicine, dentistry and health

  14

  104

  247

  354

  393

  422

  299

  166

  106

  2,105

  Engineering and technology

  23

  156

  382

  425

  488

  544

  526

  419

  237

  3,200

  Agriculture, forestry and veterinary science

  5

  39

  44

  67

  71

  92

  55

  38

  30

  441

  Biological, mathematical and physical sciences

  29

  314

  649

  764

  765

  1,010

  1,127

  811

  384

  5,853

  Administrative, business and social studies

  47

  359

  607

  676

  956

  1,186

  710

  403

  177

  5,121

  Architecture and planning

  —

  13

  26

  39

  46

  54

  61

  27

  21

  287

  Language, literature and area studies

  46

  170

  259

  280

  392

  563

  497

  274

  141

  2,622

  Other arts

  4

  67

  183

  226

  311

  445

  365

  212

  139

  1,952

  Libraries, museums, etc (research only)

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  1

  5

  1

  1

  12

  Total

  170

  1,244

  2,452

  2,995

  3,717

  4,676

  3,946

  2,541

  1,321

  23,062

  Source:

  Universities' Statistical Record.

  Full-time non-clinical academic wholly institutionally funded staff in former polytechnics in England,1992–93

  Cost centre

  Age Under 25

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  50–54

  55–59

  60 and over

  Total

  Education

  4

  19

  52

  137

  250

  356

  242

  137

  42

  1,239

  Medicine, dentistry and health

  10

  38

  86

  129

  160

  169

  96

  49

  12

  749

  Engineering and technology

  41

  157

  277

  367

  441

  557

  524

  375

  150

  2,889

  Agriculture, forestry and veterinary science

  —

  2

  3

  10

  4

  10

  4

  3

  2

  38

  Biological, mathematical and physical sciences

  32

  252

  363

  500

  585

  776

  510

  308

  97

  3,423

  Administrative, business and social studies

  70

  301

  555

  778

  1,299

  1,276

  684

  383

  165

  5,551

  Architecture and planning

  4

  15

  40

  63

  102

  148

  95

  51

  23

  541

  Language, literature and area studies

  17

  58

  65

  84

  139

  158

  102

  56

  17

  696

  Other arts

  10

  112

  199

  262

  361

  532

  329

  151

  54

  2,010

  Libraries, museums, etc (research only)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  188

  954

  1,640

  2,330

  3,341

  3,982

  2,586

  1,513

  562

  17,096

  Source:

  The Academic Staff of Polytechnics and Colleges: PCFC/HEFCE Return.

  College Fees
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is the amount by which the recurrent grant to each university with recognised collegiate status has been reduced in recognition of college fees payment in the current academic year;

  (2) what is the current level of college fees reimbursed through a student's mandatory award in each of the colleges or universities which have recognised collegiate structures.

  Mr. Boswell
  Reductions to universities' recurrent grant in recognition of college fee payment are

  Universities (Academic Staff)
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will publish a profile of academic staff at English universities in terms of age and department similar to that provided by the Secretary of State for Scotland in his answer of 3 February 1994,Official Report, column 920.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  determined by the Higher Education Funding Council for England—HEFCE. However, I understand that the following adjustments to recurrent grant have been made in the current academic year:

  £

  Cambridge

  -10,737,660

  Durham

  -169,351

  Kent

  -105,735

  Lancaster

  -120,578

  Oxford

  -14,239,512

  York

  -90,244

  275
  The current maximum levels of college fees reimbursed through a student's mandatory award in 1994–95 are shown in the table:

  Fee £

  Cambridge Colleges

  Christ's

  2,577

  Churchill

  2,589

  Clare

  2,595

  Clare Hall

  2,502

  Corpus Christi

  2,664

  Darwin

  2,619

  Downing

  2,730

  Emmanuel

  2,607

  Fitzwilliam

  2,745

  Girton

  2,646

  Gonville and Caius

  2,601

  Hughes Hall

  2,562

  Jesus

  2,628

  King's

  2,568

  Lucy Cavendish

  2,673

  Magdelene

  2,730

  New Hall

  2,724

  Newnham

  2,718

  Pembroke

  2,721

  Peterhouse

  2,562

  Queens'

  2,685

  Robinson

  2,700

  St. Catharine's

  2,646

  St. Edmund's

  2,523

  St. John's

  2,526

  Selwyn

  2,718

  Sidney Sussex

  2,718

  Trinity

  2,502

  Trinity Hall

  2,664

  Wesley

  2,661

  Wolfson

  2,601

  Durham Colleges

  University

  189

  Hatfield

  189

  Grey

  189

  Van Mildert

  189

  Collingwood

  189

  St. Hild & St. Bede

  189

  St. Cuthbert's

  189

  St. Mary's

  189

  St. Aidan's

  189

  Trevelyan

  189

  St. Chad's

  960

  St. John's

  960

  Ushaw

  960

  Kent Colleges

  Darwin

  165

  Eliot

  165

  Rutherford

  165

  Keynes

  165

  Lancaster Colleges

  Bowland

  175

  Cartmel

  175

  Charlotte Mason

  175

  The County

  175

  Furness

  175

  Fylde

  175

  Grizedale

  175

  Lonsdale

  175

  Pendle

  175

  Oxford Colleges

  Balliol

  2,986

  Blackfriars

  2,867

  276

  Fee £

  Brasenose

  3,005

  Campion Hall

  3,183

  Christ Church

  3,003

  Corpus Christi

  2,996

  Exeter

  3,037

  Greyfriars

  3,060

  Hertford

  3,168

  Jesus

  3,009

  Keble

  3,237

  Lady Margaret Hall

  3,161

  Lincoln

  2,952

  Magdalen

  3,036

  Manchester

  3,064

  Mansfield

  3,354

  Merton

  2,919

  New College

  3,027

  Oriel

  3,161

  Pembroke

  3,012

  Queen's

  2,970

  Regent's Park

  3,170

  Ripon (Cuddesdon)

  2,823

  St. Anne's

  3,146

  St. Benet's Hall

  3,129

  St. Catherine's

  3,061

  St. Edmund Hall

  3,121

  St. Hilda's

  3,114

  St. Hugh's

  3,149

  St. John's

  2,967

  St. Peter's

  3,216

  St. Stephen's House

  3,063

  Somerville

  3,119

  Trinity

  2,989

  University

  3,022

  Wadham

  3,081

  Worcester

  3,072

  Wycliffe Hall

  3,063

  York Colleges

  Alcuin

  160

  Derwent

  160

  Goodricke

  160

  Langwith

  160

  Vanburgh

  160

  Wentworth

  160

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she 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 her Department before the agency was established.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has established one next steps agency, the Teachers' Pensions Agency. The civil servant carrying out the duties now held by the chief executive was a grade 5 and was paid a salary within the relevant range for the grade, which is currently £36,739 to £54,815 nationally. No other payments or emoluments were made.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the current members of the Further Education Funding Council and the remuneration they receive.
  277
  Mr. Boswell
  The information is listed in the table. Except for the chief executive, all members and the chairman are part-time.

  Name of member

  Annual remuneration £

  Chairman:

  Mr. Robert Gunn

  34,975

  Chief Executive:

  Sir William Stubbs

  91,107

  Other members:

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett

  4,000

  Mr. Anthony Cann

  4,000

  Dr. John Capey

  4,000

  Mr. Anthony Close

  4,000

  Mrs. Margaret Davey

  4,000

  Mrs. Patricia Haikin

  4,000

  Mrs. Margaret Hobrough

  4,000

  Mr. Christopher Jonas

  4,000

  Cllr. Les Lawrence

  4,000

  Sir Michael Lickiss

  4,000

  Mr. Michael Rowarth

  4,000

  Dr. Anne Wright

  4,000

  Funding Agency for Schools
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the current members of the Funding Agency for Schools and the remuneration they receive.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The current membership of the Funding Agency for Schools is:

  Name

  Sir Christopher Benson

  Chairman of the Sun Alliance Group plc (Chairman) and Costain Group plc.

  Mr. Shailendra Adwalpalkar

  Finance Director, Gillette International, AMEE Group

  Sir Robert Balchin

  Chairman, Grant-maintained Schools Foundation

  Canon Gerald Greenwood

  Director of Education, Southwark Diocesan Board of Education

  Dr. Arthur Hearnden OBE

  General Secretary, Independent Schools Joint Council

  Mr. Stanley Kalms

  Chairman of the Dixons Group

  Mr. Lee Karu

  Barrister

  Mrs. Jacqueline E. Kearns MA

  Headteacher, Homewood GM

  FRSA

  School, Tenterden, Kent

  Mrs. Lesley King

  Headteacher, St Joseph's RC GM Primary School, Aldershot

  Mrs Pauline Latham

  Chairman of Governors, Ecclesbourne GM School, Derbyshire

  Cllr. Edward Lister

  Leader of Wandsworth Council

  Dr. Francis Patterson OBE

  Headteacher, St. Francis Xavier's College, GM School, Liverpool

  Mr. Peter Turner OBE

  Recently retired Head, Whitefield Schools and Centre, Waltham Forest

  The chairman receives an annual fee of £34,350 for an equivalent of two days per week. Other members of the agency are entitled to claim a fee of £155 for days on which they are transacting agency business. Members
  278
  may also claim travel and subsistence expenses incurred on those days.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the current members of the Higher Education Funding Council and the remuneration they receive.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is listed in the table. Except for the chief executive, all members and the chairman are part-time.

  Name of member

  Annual remuneration £

  Chairman: Mr Brandon Glough

  34,974

  Chief Executive:Prof. Graeme Davies

  87,435

  Other members

  Mrs. Joan Bingley

  4,000

  Sir John Cadogan

  —

  Prof. Colin Campbell

  4,000

  Mr. Michael Fallon

  4,000

  Prof. Brian Follett

  4,000

  Prof Kay-Tee Khaw

  4,000

  Sir Idris Pearce

  4,000

  Sir Robert Scholey

  4,000

  Dr. John Strickson

  4,000

  Dr. Robert Telfer

  4,000

  Miss Janet Trotter

  4,000

  Prof. David Watson

  4,000

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list and date those occasions over the last two years when Ministers or officials in her Department have met lobbying companies, prior to a decision being made on the subject of the meeting with the lobbying company.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the guidelines issued by her Department to regulate relationships with lobbying companies.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The conduct of officials of the Department is regulated by a terms and conditions of service handbook. This incorporates the general principles of conduct that require civil servants not to misuse information which they acquire in the course of their duties; not to make use of their official position to further their private interests or those of others; and not to receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party, which might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity.

  Educational Exchanges
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about educational and youth exchange with the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Boswell
  Germany is the most popular destination for young people taking part in United Kingdom youth
  279
  exchange programmes. In 1993–94, over 5,000 young people took part in over 300 United Kingdom German exchanges. The German educational exchange programme is the United Kingdom's second largest. In 1993–94, the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges invested some £1.15 million—13.5 per cent. of gross expenditure—in educational activities with Germany.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Quangos
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which quangos his Department has abolished since 1979.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is as follows. For the period 1979 to 1988 the information relates to those social security public bodies for which the then Department of Health and Social Security was responsible.

  Advisory Steering Group on Resettlement

  Family Fund

  Invalid Three-Wheeler and Wheelchair Repair Maintenance Liaison Group

  Review of Artificial Limb and Appliance Centres

  Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunal Advisory Group

  Medical Boarding Centres, including Pneumoconiosis Medical Panels

  In addition, the attendance allowance board has been replaced by the disability living allowance advisory board; the national insurance advisory committee and the Supplementary Benefits Commission have been replaced by the social security advisory committee; and the national insurance local tribunals and the supplementary benefit appeal tribunals have been replaced by the Social Security Appeal Tribunals.

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

  Mr. Hague
  In 1979, the then Department of Health and Social Security was responsible for 97 non-departmental public bodies, as listed in the "Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies"—Pliatzky Report Cmnd. 7797, January 1980–15 of which were concerned with social security matters. At 1 April 1993, the latest year for which data is available, the Department of Social Security was responsible for 12 non-departmental public bodies, as listed in "Public Bodies 1993".

  Benefits Agency
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what action is being taken to ensure that Benefits Agency offices meet their charter targets;

  (2) if he will list those Benefits Agency offices that have not achieved their charter targets for (a) income support, (b) retirement pensions, (c) sickness and invalidity benefit and (d) social fund crisis loan claims.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  280
  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 23 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Charter targets.
  I should first of all clarify that the information I have provided for Income Support, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit and Crisis Loans is in respect of the Secretary of State's primary targets as set out in the Benefits Agency's (BA) Business Plan. For Retirement Pension I have provided information relating to the Management target for clearance of claims in District offices. It is these targets that underpin the Charter Standards for the benefits set out in the Agency's Customer Charter.
  I have enclosed the information you requested about the Benefits Agency offices that have not achieved these targets at year end 1993–94 and a copy has been placed in the Library.
  Since its inception, the Agency has engineered a significant overall improvement in service delivery from 159 District offices. Charter Standards for claims clearance represent only one part of the overall performance of the BA and have to be considered together with other wider aspects of delivering a quality service.
  Where there are problems in a particular area, every effort is made to provide support from the BA's Central Services. For example the complementing system, which allocates resources to business units within the Agency, takes account of external factors affecting a District's performance; and a recent initiative has seen an Area Directorate, with low performance, given extra money in the short term under a "contract" for specific improvements in performance in return.
  We carefully monitor the range of performance behind the national figures. The importance of steady improvement to attain convergence of performance geographically is one of the key messages in my Strategic Steer to staff this year. I am confident that we have effective monitoring procedures in this area. BA Districts provide reports of their performance on a monthly basis to Area Directors and to Central Services. Central Services provide a monitoring report to the BA Management which highlights any areas of concern and the action being taken to resolve them.
  Managers are required to account for the shortfall when targets have not been met and to provide details of action proposed to meet the targets in future.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will change the Child Support Agency form so as to show the detailed breakdown of all relevant finances and arrangements of those assessed.

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Iain Mills, dated 24 November 1994:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about changes to the Child Support Agency form so as to show the detailed breakdown of all relevant financial information.
  The information which the Child Support Officer must provide to the parties to a maintenance assessment is specified under Child Support legislation. The Agency must provide sufficient information to allow clients to decide whether the assessment formula has been applied correctly, whilst respecting the confidential nature of the information which has been supplied by those clients, and ensuring compliance with the Data Protection Act. The Agency has no current plans to increase the amount of detailed information provided in the assessment notification.
  I hope that this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefits of either a financial or emotional nature he believes accrue to children who have been the subject of a CSA assessment.
  281
  Mr. Burt
  Payment of child maintenance is of direct financial benefit to many parents with care and their children; those who are not in receipt of income support will see an immediate rise in their income as a result of regular maintenance. Even when income support is in payment, the knowledge that maintenance is a portable income is a positive incentive and help for parents with care to seek employment, thereby improving the children's standard of living. In addition, the establishment of regular maintenance helps to reinforce the responsibilities which parents have for their children, even where they live apart.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to the findings of research carried out by Barnardos's, the Children's Society, NCH Action for Children, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Save the Children on the impact of the Child Support Agency's activities on children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  We have carefully noted the content of the recent report from these five charities and will take it into account, along with reports from other organisations, in formulating our proposals for changes to the child support arrangements.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much will be saved in the social security budget by cutting the entitlement to unemployment benefit from 12 to six months in each financial year from 1 April 1996.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Using the most recently published unemployment benefit figures it is estimated that cutting the entitlement to unemployment benefit from 12 to six months will save £70 million in 1996–97 and £220 million in 1997–98.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates assume 2.55 million unemployed claimants (GB) and 600 thousand Unemployment Benefit claimants.

  2. Savings are estimated using 1990–91–92 FES data and 1994 Unemployment Benefit Statistics.

  3. Savings are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  4.1996–97 savings are in 1996–97 prices. 1997–98 savings are in 1997–98 prices.

  5. Figures assume transitional protection in 1996–97.

  6. Estimates for years beyond 1997–98 are not available.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing, for the most recent available date, the number of people in receipt of(a) the higher rate and (b) the lower rate of statutory sick pay.

  Mr. Hague
  During 1992–93, the latest year for which information is available, an estimated 330,000 people received statutory sick pay at any one time. One third—around 110,000—of these cases were estimated to be in receipt of the lower rate, and two thirds—around 220,000—were estimated to be in receipt of the higher rate.

  Notes:

  1. Data from the April 1993 New Earnings Survey (GB) suggests that two thirds of people eligible for Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) would have received the higher rate if they had fallen ill; the remaining one third would have received the lower rate. Applying this breakdown to actual
  282
  SSP recipients assumes a constant distribution of sickness across earnings bands.

  2. Most SSP recipients receive occupational sick pay in addition to SSP when they are sick. In many cases, this brings the total payment received up to full pay.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the current higher rate of statutory sick pay if it had been uprated annually in line with the retail price index since April 1990.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newport West (Mr. Flynn) on 27 October,Official Report, column 794.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the effect on revenues, expressed in today's prices, of the freeze in the higher rate of statutory sick pay since April 1990 giving figures for(a) each year and (b) total savings to date.

  Mr. Hague
  The estimated savings arising from freezing the higher rate of statutory sick pay in each year from April 1991, and the cumulative savings up to April 1994, are set out in the table.

  Estimated savings generated from freezing higher rate SSP

  Year

  Estimated savings £ million

  1991–92

  60

  1992–93

  80

  1993–94

  95

  Cumulative total

  235

  Estimates are given at constant 1994–95 prices. Figures are rounded to the nearest £5 million but are not accurate to that degree.

  Sickness Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of non-contributory sickness benefit are people with industrial injuries.

  Mr. Hague
  The number of sickness benefit claimants whose incapacity is the result of an industrial injury or a prescribed industrial disease who did not satisfy the contribution conditions and are in receipt of benefit is 1,000.

  Source:

  One per cent. sample of claimants in Great Britain at 3 April 1993 rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the Benefits Agency proposes to publicise the new incapacity benefit being introduced in April 1995 to Britain's ethnic minority communities, with particular reference to(a) the new medical test for those sick more than six months and (b) those severe medical conditions that will exempt people from the new medical test.

  Mr. Hague
  In February 1995, a leaflet outlining the new benefit, the medical test and the groups affected will be available from BA offices and via a freephone response line. It will be translated into Punjabi, Urdu and Bengali and produced on audio tape as well as being produced in print in English and Welsh and in braille and on tape.
  283
  An advertising campaign aimed at advisers will also draw attention to the leaflet.

  A second leaflet will be produced in June in the same formats and languages providing information about job-hunting and in-work benefits. This leaflet will be included with the letter sent to people who have been assessed as capable for work.

  Local information initiatives will be undertaken in the run up to the introduction of incapacity benefit to ensure existing claimants are aware of how the changes will affect them.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what facilities will be available under the new incapacity benefit procedures for those referred for medical examination by a Benefits Agency doctor, for those who require an interpreter.

  Mr. Hague
  All customers who require an assessment by Benefits Agency medical services—BAMS—will be sent an information pack with their appointment. This information pack will include an invitation to the customer to inform BAMS of any special requirements they may have, including the need for specific language skills. BAMS will then arrange for the customer to be seen at a time when someone is available to act as interpreter. In many instances, this will be a member of staff with the appropriate language skills, usually either the examining doctor or the medical examination assistant. However, if no member of staff has the appropriate language skills an interpreter will be provided.

  Benefits Ready-reckoners
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a ready-reckoner, on the same basis as the tax revenue ready-reckoner published by the Treasury, showing the value of benefits in April 1995 assuming normal indexation using the retail price index or Rossi index as appropriate.

  Mr. Hague
  We have no plans to do so.

  Adult Dependency Increase
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of(a) sickness benefit and (b) invalidity benefit received an adult dependency increase on behalf of an adult dependant who is not caring for dependent children.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Benefit

  Number of beneficiaries receiving an increase for an adult but not for a child

  Sickness Benefit

  24,000

  Invalidity Benefit

  378,000

  Note:

  Estimates of total number of recipients of adult dependency increases are based on a one per cent. sample of claimants in Great Britain at 3 April 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library copies of each survey listed in his answer of 25 October,Official Report, column 562–63.
  284
  Mr. Hague
  Those surveys referred to in the reply given on the 25 October at columns 562–63, which are already published, have been placed in the Library. Copies of other surveys will be placed there after publication.

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

  (2) how many income support claimants are currently receiving disability premium, with a breakdown of their means of qualification, at Porth, Tonypandy, Aberdare and Pontypridd in Mid Glamorgan in respect of (a) receipt of invalidity benefit or (b) submission of medical certificates only or (c) receipt of severe disablement allowance or (d) receipt of disability living allowance;

  (3) if he will give the number of invalidity benefit/disability premium claimants found fit for all work and fit for light work in the last 12 months in the Porth, Tonypandy, Aberdare and Pontypridd areas.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Kim Howells, dated 23 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Michael Bichard to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Invalidity Benefit (IVB) and Income Support (IS) customers in Mid Glamorgan. This was in respect of the total number of IVB customers and also regarding the number of IVB and Disability Premium customers found fit for work and the qualifying reason for IS customers being in receipt of a Disability Premium. Mr Bichard is on annual leave and I have, therefore, been asked to reply on his behalf.
  I have provided details at Appendix A of the number of IVB customers in the areas you requested.
  Information is not readily available regarding Disability Premiums being withdrawn following a reference to the Benefits Agency Medical Services (BAMS); to obtain this information would be at disproportionate cost. This is because the Disability Premium is a component of IS payable to customers in prescribed circumstances, including when they have entitlement to IVB. Loss of entitlement to the Disability Premium does not always result in loss of entitlement to IS. No statistics are maintained to record changes in components of IS entitlement.
  However, that information that is available relating to disallowed IVB claims following reference to the BAMS has been provided at Appendix B. Information is not readily available in the exact format requested because to obtain details of those found capable of suitable alternative work as opposed to capable of work would be at a disproportionate cost.
  The figure for Aberdare Benefit office in Appendix B relates entirely to that office, whereas that relating to Pontypridd is for the whole Taff Rhonda District comprising of Pontypridd, Porth and Tonypandy. To separate the figure given for Pontypridd into the three offices within the District could only be done at a disproportionate cost.
  As you requested, I have attached at Appendix C a table giving at 30 August 1994, the date of the last count, the number of IS customers at the offices named who were receiving the Disability Premium.
  However, with regard to your request for details of a breakdown of customers means of qualification for a Disability Premium, I should explain that the full range of information requested is not routinely collected in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. This is because statistics are not maintained about the qualifying condition which was satisfied and

  285
  led to the award of a premium. To identify in each case the precise criteria that was satisfied would be at disproportionate cost.
  However, I have placed at Appendix D information which has been obtained from the Quarterly Statistical Enquiry which was based on a five per cent. sample of IS customers at November 1993. The information is for the Wales administrative region but cannot be broken down to a local level. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 1000.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Number of IVB claimants at 31 October 1994

  Porth

  6,317

  Tonypandy

  7,017

  Pontypridd

  6,265

  Aberdare

  6,189

  Number of IVB awards disallowed following reference to the Benefits Agency Medical Service

  Aberdare BO

  391

  Pontypridd BO

  733

  Appendix C

  Number

  Porth

  1,108

  Pontypridd

  1,184

  Tonypandy

  1,141

  Aberdare

  1,257

  Total

  4,690

  Source:

  Management Information Statistics—August 1994.

  Appendix D

  Number

  In receipt of Invalidity Benefit

  5,000

  In receipt of Severe Disablement Benefit

  4,000

  In receipt of Disability Living Allowance Other

  25,000

  All cases

  44,000

  Source:

  Quarterly Statistical Enquiry—November 1993.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had from building societies and banks about the effect that reducing the eligibility to housing benefit will have on their ability to lend to housing associations.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he is prepared to review the work of the compensation recovery unit to take more note of the future medical, social and financial needs of sick and injured people.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Compensation is subject to recoupment only up to the date of award or settlement.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the projected income of the compensation recovery unit for this financial year.
  286
  Mr. Roger Evans
  On current trends, it is estimated that the compensation recovery unit will recoup approximately £100 million in 1994–95.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend the market testing initiative to the compensation recovery unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The work of the compensation recovery unit is currently the subject of a feasibility study to determine whether all or part of the work should be subject to a market test. Some initial research has been done which merits further careful consideration before any firm decisions are made.

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list and date those occasions over the last two years when Ministers or officials in his Department have met lobbying companies, prior to a decision being made on the subject of the meeting with the lobbying company.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the guidelines issued by his Department to regulate relationships with lobbying companies.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department follows the guidelines in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". The conditions of service for the staff of this Department incorporate the general principles of conduct that require civil servants not to misuse information which they acquire in the course of their duties; not to make use of their official position to further their private interests or those of others; and not to receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party, which might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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.

  Mr. Hague
  No one civil servant had the same or similar responsibilities as any of the agency chief executives before the decision was taken to establish the agencies.

  Attendance and Disability Living Allowances
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claims were submitted for attendance allowance in each year since 1990 for(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom; how many went to appeal; and what percentage were accepted upon appeal;

  (2) how many claims were submitted for disability living allowance in each year since 1990 for (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom; how many went to appeal; and what percentage were accepted upon appeal.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available information is in the tables.
  287

  Attendance Allowance

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  All Claims Received

  Appeals Registered

  All Claims received

  1990–91

  429,295

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  594,497

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  500,388

  2,130

  51,260

  Disability Living Allowance

  New claims received

  Appeals registered

  Successful appeals

  Year

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  1992–93

  523,695

  63,631

  6,918

  n/a

  33 per cent.

  n/a

  1993–94

  428,927

  53,716

  29,617

  2,141

  50 per cent.

  43 per cent.

  Source: Analytical Services Division DSS.

  1. Prior to 1992 there was no right of appeal for Attendance Allowance claimants.

  2. DLA appeal figures for 1992–93 may include a small number of Mobility Allowance cases.

  3. Appeals registered in the period shown may not relate to claims made during the same period.

  4. Successful appeals are those where the rate of award has been increased, figures include cases where the disabled person's condition has deteriorated since the initial decision was made.

  This Department is responsible for social security only in Great Britain. For information relating to Northern Ireland I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is estimated to be the saving of public money resulting from the introduction of the proposed jobseeker's allowance with reference to existing expenditure on the unemployed.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Using the most recently published unemployment benefit figures it is estimated that the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance would reduce expenditure on benefits by about £150 million in 1996–7 and £300 million in 1997–8.

  Notes:

  1. Assumes transitional protection in 1996–7.

  2. Estimates assume 2.55 million unemployed claimants (GB) and 600 thousand Unemployment Benefit claimants.

  3. Savings estimated using 1990–91–92 FES data and 1994 Unemployment Benefit statistics.

  4. 1996–7 figures are in 1996–7 prices. 1997–8 figures are in 1997–8 prices.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he is making for the remuneration of those members of police authorities appointed by himself.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Secretary does not appoint any members of police authorities. Councillor and independent members of new police authorities will be able to claim £15 per hour for time spent on police authority business, up to a limit of £120 per day and £3,000 per year—£6,000 per year if they are the chairman of the authority.

  Magistrate members of new police authorities will, as at present, be able to claim financial loss allowance at the rates payable to them as magistrates.
  288

  Attendance Allowance

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  All Claims Received

  Appeals Registered

  All Claims received

  1993–94

  439,020

  5,025

  46,636

  1994–95

  285,676

  n/a

  31,059

  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how many the number of police officers has increased since 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  Between August 1992 and August 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of police constables increased by 750. Over the same period, the total numbers of officers fell by 603, reflecting the thinning out of unneeded supervisory ranks.

  Special Constables
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his proposals for increasing the number of special constables.

  Mr. Howard
  I am firmly committed to encouraging the recruitment of special constables and have set a target of 30,000 by the end of 1996. A national advertising campaign to encourage applications was launched at the end of October. As part of the partnership against crime campaign, police forces will be offering applicants the chance to join the specials as a neighbourhood constable, a special who works only in one particular area. I hope that this will broaden the appeal of the specials to a wider range of volunteers.

  Crime
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on current trends in the figures for recorded crime.

  Mr. Maclean
  For the 12 months to June 1994, the number of crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales decreased by 5.5 per cent. compared to the previous 12 months.

  This is the largest fall over 12 months for 40 years. This will, I hope, reassure the public that recent rises in recorded crime can not only be slowed but actually reversed.

  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the trends in violent crime.

  Mr. Maclean
  Between 1981 and 1993, violent crime recorded by the police increased at a rate of 6 per cent. per year, compared with an increase in all recorded crime of 5 per cent. per year. In the 12 months to June 1994,
  289
  violent crime accounted for 6 per cent. of all crimes recorded by the police.

  The British crime survey provides an insight into people's experience of crime, whether or not it was reported to the police. The survey suggests that for those offences that can be compared with the police figures, violent crime increased at a rate of less than 3 per cent. per year between 1981 and 1993.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement explaining the reasons for the reduction in recorded crime.

  Mr. Maclean
  We need to be cautious: recorded crime can be affected by a number of factors. But we are most encouraged by the recent falls in recorded crime.

  Police, Wales
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce a decision about the future organisation of the police service in Wales.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend is currently seeking views from all the interested parties. He will reach a decision in the light of those views, and in the light of an assessment of the professional policing issues involved from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the pay and conditions of prison officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I received two letters in October form the Prison Officers' Association, which raised matters concerning the pay and conditions of prison officers in England and Wales. Responsibility for this year's pay negotiations and for related conditions of service lies with the Prison Service.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the effects of the standard spending assessment on fire services in South Yorkshire fire authority.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend met a delegation from South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority on 24 August when concern was expressed about the authority's financial position. In September, two members wrote on the authority's behalf about the calculation of the fire standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are planned to provide adequate transitional funding in preparation for the establishment of any new combined fire authorities established as a result of the review of local government.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  In England it is proposed that the new combined fire authorities should operate within the same, or as nearly as possible the same, boundaries as existing fire authorities. It is therefore the Government's expectation that the transition to the new arrangements can be made without the need for any of the authorities involved to incur significant additional costs.

  Racially Motivated Attacks
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what view he has formed of the effectiveness of current laws to deal with racially motivated attacks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  All violent attacks are already criminal offences. Racially motivated attacks are particularly abhorrent and that is why the courts can and do take racial motivation into account as an aggravating factor when passing sentence.

  We strengthened the process to deal with racially motivated attacks in the Criminal Justice Act 1994 and believe that our laws are now adequate. We must now concentrate on making sure that they are used consistently and effectively across the country to deal with these odious crimes.

  Prison Discipline
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to improve the disciplinary regime in prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The prison disciplinary system, incentives and privileges are all matters which I am currently considering and expect to reach conclusions shortly.

  Political Parties
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce proposals for the registration of political parties.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We have no plans to do so.

  Drugs
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will be monitoring current levels of funding for the West Glamorgan drugs initiative in 1995–96.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The three-year period of funding for the drugs prevention team in West Glamorgan will be completed in March 1995.

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

  Mr. Howard
  The information to 1 April 1993 is as follows:

  Advisory Committee on Suspension and Revocation of Authorities for Wireless Personnel

  Advisory Committee on Radio Interference

  Advisory Council on the Penal System

  Central Committee on Common Police Services

  Chief Constables Committees for District Police Training Centres

  Committee on Training for Justices' Clerks' Assistants

  Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship

  Conference on Local Government Electoral Law

  Criminal Law Revision Committee

  Electoral Advisory Conference

  Fire Service College Board

  Frequency Advisory Committee

  Joint Committee for Refugees for Vietnam

  291

  Licensing Planning Committees

  Local Authority Committee for District Police Training Centres

  London Building Acts Tribunal of Appeal

  Mobile Radio Committee

  New Town Licences Premises Committees

  Police Disciplinary (Senior Officers) Tribunal

  Police National Computer Policy Committee

  Police Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences

  Queen's Police Gold Medal Essay Competition Committee

  Race Relations Research Advisory Committee

  Regional Probation Staff Development Consultative Committee

  Standing Advisory Committee on Cinematograph (Safety)

  Regulations

  Standing Conference on Crime Prevention

  Standing Committee on Probation Manpower Needs

  Television Advisory Committee

  Wireless Telegraph Appeals Tribunal

  Working Party on Magistrates Courts

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

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office was responsible for 282 non-departmental public bodies in 1979, and for 280 on 1 April 1993, the latest year for which a published figure is available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much money is planned to be distributed to local authorities through section 11 funding in 1995–96; how much of this is estimated will be available for new bids; and how much is committed to on-going projects.

  (2) what is the overall level of section 11 funding for each of the last five years; and how much of the section 11 budget has been transferred to the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Expenditure under section 11 in each of the past five financial years was as follows:

  Year

  £

  1989–90

  114.8

  1990–91

  135.5

  1991–92

  113

  1992–93

  129.7

  1993–94

  131.2

  The single regeneration budget came into operation on 1 April 1994. The following sums were transferred from section 11.

  Year

  £

  1994–95

  60.5

  1995–96

  53

  1996–97

  53

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced on 22 November, Official Report, column 64 that the Government are making available an additional sum of £15 million in each of the next two financial years for new section 11 projects starting in 1995–96. This has doubled the amount which was earlier expected to be available for new projects, and is additional to previous
  292
  Home Office provision under section 11 of £43.8 million for 1995–96. Precise figures for new funding, and the division of funding between local authorities and other eligible recipients such as further education colleges and grant maintained schools, will depend upon actual expenditure in the current financial year and the outcome of the current applications round for which the closing date has been extended to 30 December.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the responses he received to his consultation on the proposed review body to deal with alleged miscarriages of justice and indicate which of them favoured leaving investigations entirely in the hands of the police.

  Mr. Maclean
  Fifty individuals and organisations responded to the Government's discussion paper "Criminal Appeals and the Establishment of a Criminal Cases Review Authority". Of the 23 responses which considered the alternative approaches to investigation canvassed in paragraphs 54 to 64 of the paper, 10 favoured inquiries by police forces overseen by the review body; four favoured the secondment of police officers and other investigators to the review body; seven favoured a mixture of these two approaches; and two proposed the exclusion of police officers from any investigation by the review body. Neither the discussion paper nor any respondent to it suggested that investigations should be left entirely in the hands of police forces. The Government have concluded that the review body in investigating cases put to it should have power to commission inquiries by police officers, where appropriate from an outside force, who would work in accordance with the review body's specific requirements and would report to it.

  Cults
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures are taken to monitor the activities of cults in the United Kingdom;

  (2) if his Department has considered agreeing a code of conduct with religious groups, cults and so on with the aim of mitigating their worst excesses.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Government do not monitor the activities of new religious movements. It is for the police to investigate any allegations of illegal activities on the part of such organisations.

  The Government believe that it would not be feasible to agree and enforce a code of conduct for religious movements.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council 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 Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he intends to send this year.

  Mr. Howard
  This year Home Office Ministers intend to send 440 Christmas cards. The cost of purchasing and posting these cards will be £217.14, inclusive of VAT, and £79.20 respectively. It is not possible to estimate accurately the cost in staff time of sending out these
  293
  Christmas cards; but it would be minimal. I have today placed examples of the Home Office Christmas cards in the Library.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the responsibilities of his Department in relation to the investigation into the Pan Am 103 crash over Lockerbie.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department has an interest in any general issues arising from the Lockerbie bombing in view of my overall responsibility for counter-terrorist policy in Great Britain. The Metropolitan police, the forensic explosives laboratory of the Defence Research Agency and many other police forces and agencies have provided assistance to the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary during the course of the investigation.

  Computer Pornography
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about how the outcome of the review of the future of the obscene publications branch will affect investigations into computer pornography.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Commissioner's management restructuring exercise has been looking at the whole of the Metropolitan police, including headquarters functions and specialist units, such as the obscene publications branch. Its aim is to make the best possible use of resources. Action against pornography remains a high priority. There will be no change in the responsibilities of the obscene publications branch for the investigation of computer pornography.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to introduce the five-year shotgun and firearms certificate.

  Mr. Maclean
  An order was laid before the House on 13 October to extend the life of firearm and shot gun certificates from three to five years. We intend that all certificates granted from 1 January 1995 will be valid for five years.

  Rape
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the lowest age of a defendant who has been charged with rape; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Statistics on the age of defendants when they are charged by the police are not recorded centrally. Up to the end of 1993, the latest year for which figures are available, the lowest age of a person prosecuted and proceeded against for rape was 13.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to coroners on the collection and recording of evidence in fatal road traffic accidents.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Coroners are independent judicial officers who carry out their inquiries in 294
  accordance with procedures laid down in the coroners rules 1984. These include provisions relating to the treatment of witnesses, exhibits and documentary evidence. The collection of evidence for the purpose of an inquest following a fatal road traffic accident is a matter for the individual judgment of the coroner according to the particular circumstances of each case. My right hon. and learned Friend has issued no specific guidance on the matter.

  Anthony O'Kere
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current case of Anthony O'Kere; and when a final decision may be reached.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A decision will be made shortly and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Political Refugees
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many political refugees from China are now settled in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The available information is that, in the period 1 January 1979 to 31 October 1994, around 160 Chinese nationals, including associated dependants, were recognised as refugees and granted asylum in the United Kingdom. Chinese nationals granted asylum may apply for settlement after four years. Information on the number of Chinese nationals granted asylum and who were accepted for settlement in 1992 and 1993 is published in table 6.1 of the Command Papers "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1992" CM2368 and "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1993" CM2637. Copies of both these publications are available in the Library. Information prior to 1992 is not readily available.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report the numbers of political refugees settled in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The available information on those given leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a recognised refugee is that in the period 1979 to end-June 1994 around 44,000 persons, including associated dependants, were given such leave. These comprise some 20,400 asylum applicants who were recognised as refugees and granted asylum in the United Kingdom, and 23,600 south-east Asian refugees accepted for settlement, mainly on arrival.

  Persons granted asylum here may apply for permanent settlement after four years. Information on the number of persons granted asylum and who were accepted for settlement in the years 1979–1993, along with south-east Asian refugees, is published in table 8 of the Home Office statistical bulletin issue 22/90 "Refugee Statistics United Kingdom 1989" and Table 10.1 of Home Office statistical bulletin Issue 17/94 "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1993". Copies of both these publications are available in the Library.

  International Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in tackling international drug trafficking.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government remain fully committed to the international fight against illicit drug trafficking, as part of their comprehensive anti-drugs strategy, comprising action on supply and demand reduction. Action is being taken forward vigorously by the Government on a number of fronts, aimed at improving the effectiveness of international co-operation against the drug traffickers:United Kingdom enforcement agencies maintain extensive operational links with overseas counterparts, reinforced by 37 drug liaison officers in 22 countries, who work closely with local law enforcement agencies.
  The United Kingdom is playing a prominent part in the development of the European Police Office, Europol, based on a United Kingdom initiative to establish a European drugs intelligence unit. The first stage of Europol, the European drugs unit, formally opened in February 1994. It exchanges and analyses criminal intelligence on drug trafficking and associated money laundering activities affecting European Union member states.
  The United Kingdom staff at the Europol drugs unit report to the National Criminal Intelligence Service—NCIS—which provides an intelligence co-ordinating role for police and Customs in this country and a national focal point for exchange of information and intelligence about serious crime, including drug trafficking, and major criminals of international interest.
  We actively support the leadership role of the United Nations international drug control programme—UNDPC—supporting a range of multilateral anti-drugs projects worldwide. We also give support bilaterally, through for example the provision of training and equipment to improve the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies in appropriate countries. In the last three years, the United Kingdom has provided over £29 million in drug-related assistance overseas.
  The United Kingdom has continued to encourage countries that have not done so to ratify the 1988 United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and to implement its provisions fully in domestic legislation. The 1988 convention established a solid basis for international co-operation in a number of important areas, such as seizure and confiscation of drug traffickers' assets, mutual legal assistance, extradition, controlled deliveries, precursor control and maritime intervention. Provisions enabling the United Kingdom to ratify the 1988 convention, in June 1991, were included in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990.
  The United Kingdom fully implemented, last year, European Community legislation controlling trade in the precursor and essential chemicals required to manufacture illicit drugs, based on the recommendations of the chemical action task force.
  We have continued to work within the European Union, the Council of Europe and the United Nations and with other major donors to promote good practice and to ensure more effective action against drugs, particularly in relation to countries of central and eastern Europe.
  The United Kingdom recognises the important role of the International Criminal Police Organisation—Interpol—and the World Customs Organisation—WCO, formerly the Customs Co-operation Council—and supports its activities in a practical way, providing expert practitioners from HM Customs and police to participate in its initiatives. The United Kingdom has been particularly instrumental in the promotion of the WCO's
  296
  initiative on customs/business co-operation against drugs trafficking and has implemented its own national programme of memoranda of understanding with trade associations and members.

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the guidelines issued by his Department to regulate relationships with lobbying companies.

  Mr. Howard
  There is no specific guidance to staff on relationships with lobbying companies. Staff are, however, bound by the general principles governing the conduct of Crown servants, which require them not to misuse information which they acquire in the course of their duties; not to make use of their official position to further their private interests or those of others; and not to receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party, which might be seen to compromise their personal judgement or integrity.

  "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" provides general guidance for Ministers.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list and date those occasions over the last two years, when Ministers or officials in his Department have met lobbying companies, prior to a decision being made on the subject of the meeting with the lobbying company.

  Mr. Howard
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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.

  Mr. Howard
  It is not the general practice of the Department to publish the salaries of individual civil servants. The salaries of the civil servants running the organisations in the Home Office which subsequently became executive agencies fell within the following ranges:

  United Kingdom Passport Agency: £33,970 – £44,996

  Prison Service: £62,504 – £73,216

  Forensic Science Service: £45,000 – £52,100

  Fire Service College: £36,178 – £47,921

  There were no emoluments additional to the salary.

  Merseyside Police Budget
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the list of Members who have made representations concerning reductions in the Merseyside police budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The budget for the Merseyside police is a matter for the Merseyside police authority.
  297
  Correspondence on the issue of central Government support for the Merseyside police has been received from the hon. Members for:

  Bootle (Mr. Benton)

  Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle)

  Riverside (Mr. Parry)

  Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)

  Garston (Mr. Loyden)

  Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt ME)

  Wirral, South (Mr. Porter)

  Crosby (Mr. Thornton)

  Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth)

  St Helens, North (Mr. Evans)

  St Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham)

  Southport (Mr. Banks)

  Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara)

  Funding levels for police forces in 1995–96 will be issued shortly after the Budget statement.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning reductions in the budget for the Merseyside police.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 23 November 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on 26 October at column 642.

  Hunting
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police were deployed to protect the Essex Foxhounds at Good Easter on 19 November; and what was the estimated cost.

  Mr. Maclean
  The policing of hunts is a matter for the chief officer. I understand that police officers were not deployed to protect the hunt but that 125 uniformed officers were deployed to keep the peace. The costs involved are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are planned to combat the theft of mobile telephones and facilitate the detection of those knowingly selling stolen telephone equipment.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 23 November 1994]: The Department of Trade and Industry, with the support of the Home Office, has been discussing with representatives of the telecommunications industry how the industry itself can make mobile phones less attractive to thieves. Measures currently under consideration include tighter controls on the issue and use of electronic serial numbers and the introduction of property marking and registration schemes.

  The detection of those selling stolen goods is an operational policing matter. A number of forces have established specialist squads to tackle the problem of mobile phone theft.

  Crime Victims
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to inform the victims of violent crime who were previously informed of the temporary release of their attackers of their permanent release.
  298
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 November 1994]: We have published for consultation draft revised national standards for the supervision of offenders in the community. The draft revised standard for the supervision of prisoners before and after release from custody states that in cases involving serious sexual or violent offences the relevant probation service should arrange for the victim to be contacted within two months of sentence and offered the opportunity of being kept informed of sentence developments. Where this opportunity is taken up, the draft revised standard envisages that the service will contact the victim when permanent release is imminent. We shall consider comments on the draft , standards before finalising them.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Quangos
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which quangos his Department has abolished since 1979.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Since 1979, the following executive non-departmental public bodies have been abolished within the field of the President of the Board of Trade's current responsibilities:

  Furniture Development Council

  Metrication Board

  Price Commission

  National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit

  Regional Gas Consumers' Councils

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many quangos his Department was responsible for(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which a number is available.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The number of executive non-departmental public bodies within my departments current responsibilities were:

  (a) 35 in 1979

  (b) 23 in 1994

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what weaknesses he has identified in the operation of the law on insider dealing; and what further legislation he considers necessary.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  New legislation on insider dealing came into force on 1 March 1994. The Government will keep its effectiveness under review but have no plans to propose any changes.

  Regional Office, Plymouth
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the regional office of his Department in Plymouth to commence operating; and if a suitable site has been found for the development of the office.

  Mr. Eggar
  The options for siting the new office are being considered. Meanwhile, 30 staff, including the newly appointed director, are already providing a service to Devon and Cornwall from temporary offices in Phoenix house, Notte street in the centre of Plymouth.

  Trade Figures
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will supply figures for trade between the United Kingdom and Moldova for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Information on United Kingdom trade with Moldova since January 1993 is published in "Business Monitor MM20, Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", which is available in the Library of the House. Information is not available for earlier periods because Moldova was not separately identified from the rest of the former Soviet Union.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on United Kingdom-Libyan trade during the past five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The British Government neither promote nor discourage trade with Libya. Figures for United Kingdom trade with Libya over the past five years are given in the table below.

  UK trade with Libya—1989–1993

  £ thousand

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Imports

  104,545

  151,605

  121,219

  162,899

  156,542

  Exports

  239,191

  244,849

  255,718

  228,273

  274,051

  Source:

  United Kingdom Overseas Trade (Business Monitor MA20).

  EC Industry Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Industry Council held on 8 November.

  Mr. Eggar
  I attended the Industry Council on 8 November.

  The most important issue before the Council was steel. Commissioner Bangemann reported that minimum capacity cuts of 19 million tonnes identified in the Braun plan had not been achieved and that most of the measures introduced to support the restructuring process would therefore come to an end. I stressed Her Majesty's Government's view that further restructuring depends critically on stricter control of state aids.

  The Council debated a Commission report on monitoring of the conditions attaching to the aids which were agreed for Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and German companies last December under article 95 of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty. The Council supported me in asking the Commission to monitor the situation even more closely.

  The Council was asked to agree a revised package of support for the former East German steel company EkoStahl, which was now being sold by the German privatisation agency to the Belgian company, Cockerill Sambre, following the collapse of the deal with the original purchaser, Riva. I argued that although I would honour the agreement made by the council last December, the revised proposal appeared to be more generous in several respects. I said that I could not support the revised proposal unless I could be convinced of its equivalence to the December 1993 agreement. Discussions are continuing.

  Other issues on the agenda were industrial competitiveness, where the Council agreed a resolution in response to the Commission's recent communication on
  300
  the subject; the Commission's annual report on competition policy; and the Commission briefly presented two communications on the pharmaceutical and mechanical engineering industries respectively.

  No votes were taken at the Council.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of occasions over the last five years that his Department has refused an export licence for military and defence orders.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  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 arrange for the hon. Member to receive a personal copy.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the proportion of the United Kingdom total exports to Indonesia made up of defence-related products and services, on the latest available figures.

  Mr. Needham
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it has been the consistent policy of successive United Kingdom Governments not to disclose details of defence trade with individual countries.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department is taking to reduce the obstacles in the European single market in respect of manufactured goods.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom continues to take a leading role in the internal market council, both with new measures to address barriers and practical efforts to ensure the smooth and effective functioning of the single market. We are assisting the Commission in its efforts to improve its complaints procedures and are encouraging practical means of achieving closer co-operation between national enforcement officials in the Community. My Department has established a single market compliance unit, which helps companies to tackle individual single market problems. We have also initiated studies focusing on specific single market issues of concern to United Kingdom businesses.

  Overseas Trade
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which country is the United Kingdom's main trading partner; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1993, the United Kingdom's main trading partner was Germany, with visible imports and exports together worth £36 billion, accounting for 14 per cent. of total United Kingdom trade. The next largest partner was the USA, with United Kingdom trade worth £32 billion.

  West London Enterprise Agency
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase grants from public funds to the West London enterprise agency; and if he will make a statement.
  301
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 23 November 1994]: The Department of Trade and Industry does not provide grants from public funds to local enterprise agencies. I have therefore no plans to increase grants from public funds to the West London enterprise agency, or to any other local enterprise agency.

  The Department of Trade and Industry provides funding to training and enterprise councils for support services for small and medium-sized businesses. From 1996, these services will normally be delivered through business links.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the budget from his Department to Gibraltar for the year 1994; and if he will give a breakdown of these financial expenses.

  Mr. Baldry
  Total operating costs and capital expenditure of our post in Gibraltar for the financial year 1993–94 were £674,969. In addition, we provided the Government of Gibraltar with project-related assistance of £512,258.

  Embassy Expenditure
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the total expenditure on embassy budgets and (b) the levels of embassy staff for the years 1992–93 and 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The cost of running diplomatic missions overseas, including notional rents for owned properties, was:

  1992–93

  £365 million

  1993–94

  £398 million

  Total United Kingdom-based staff employed in diplomatic missions overseas and paid for by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were:

  1992–93

  2,600

  1993–94

  2,500

  302
  Total locally engaged staff employed in diplomatic missions overseas were:

  1992–93

  7,000

  1993–94

  7,100

  Indonesia
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Government of Indonesia about human rights abuse.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We raise human rights issues as part of our regular dialogue with the Indonesians, and did so most recently on 17 November.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received in the last year from human rights organisations or individuals concerning the situation in Indonesia and East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We receive many representations from non-governmental organisations and individual correspondents. Details could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the definition of official business used for the daily travel allowance for Members of the European Parliament referred in his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) 19 October,Official Report, column 237.

  Mr. Baldry
  To qualify for the daily travel allowance a Member of the European Parliament should be attending a meeting of Parliament or its organs—plenaries, committees, and delegations. The Member signs a list at the start of each meeting to record his or her attendance.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the highest and lowest claims for travel allowances from United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available to us. Members of the European Parliament claim their own allowances from the European Parliament's own administration.

  Malta
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Government of Malta with regard to the case of Mr. and Mrs. Sample and her son James Portelli.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our High Commission sought a welfare report from, and brought a court order to, the attention of the Maltese authorities in 1991, attended court hearings in 1992, and on several occasions urged Malta to sign one of the child abduction conventions.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in(a) Ministers' private offices and official residences including No. 1 Carlton gardens and Chevening and (b) United Kingdom embassies and official residences abroad.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Disaggregated information of this nature is not available. The costs are covered by the entertainment expenditure of the FCO, including its post abroad, and the ODA, and their agencies. For the financial year ended April 1994, this was £7,493,073.

  Rwanda and Burundi
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to propose methods by which the United Nations ability for preventative action can be strengthened in(a) Rwanda and (b) Burundi; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In Rwanda, the United Kingdom contributed to the restoration of stability by deploying a logistical battalion with UNAMIR. The Security Council is now considering a number of options for improving security conditions in the refugee camps and creating a secure environment within Rwanda, to encourage refugees to return home.

  Within the region, the United Kingdom supports the proposal by the Organisation of African Unity and UNHCR for a conference to address refugee issues, including those in Burundi.

  More generally, the United Kingdom fully supports enhancing the preventive diplomacy capability of the UN, and of regional organisations. Our African peacekeeping initiative aims to achieve better co-ordination between the UN and the OAU to provide early warning of conflicts. Where preventive efforts break down, our initiative sets out practical steps for the more rapid and effective deployment of peacekeeping forces.

  Sadiq Al Mandi
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to make representations to the Sudanese authorities to ensure fair and just treatment for Sadiq Al Mandi.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  HM embassy in Khartoum made representations to the Sudanese authorities during Sadiq Al Mandi's detention for three weeks earlier this year. Sadiq Al Mandi was released on 3 July.

  Diplomatic Service
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the total expenditure on the diplomatic service for the years 1992–93 and 1993–94; if he will express this as a percentage of total spending on defence, diplomacy and aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Total expenditure on the diplomatic service in 1992–93 was £714.6 million or 3 per cent. of total spending on defence, diplomacy and aid. In 1993–94, it was £774.5 million or 3 per cent. of total spending on defence, diplomacy and aid.

  East Timor
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when British Ministers or officials last visited East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  September 1994.

  European Union
  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 the European Union, sent to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, to which he refers in his answer of 3 November 1994 Official Report, column 1385.

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes, the text of the letter was as follows:

  You asked:
  "What arrangements exists to fill the positions of Fisheries Commissioner and Interior Judicial Affairs Commissioner in the event that the Norwegian and Swedish electorates reject joining the European Union?"
  We expect that the Commission President would reallocate responsibility for these issues among the remaining Commissioners. It is his prerogative to do so.

  Rwanda
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the establishment of an international judicial process to prosecute individuals suspected of genocide and other crimes against humanity in Rwanda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Security Council resolution 955 of 8 November 1994 established an international criminal tribunal for Rwanda. We co-sponsored this resolution.

  Africa
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries in Africa have been the subject of arms export licence refusals on the ground of internal oppression or regional insecurity.

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest period for which figures have been compiled is the calendar year 1993.

  No applications for export licences were refused to countries in Africa on the grounds of internal oppression or regional insecurity in that period.

  UN Rapid Deployment Force
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the creation and maintenance of a United Nations rapid deployment
  305
  force to be used in preventive and peacekeeping missions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Some UN member states have proposed the creation of a rapid deployment force dedicated to UN peacekeeping. Given the costs of maintaining, training and equipping such a force, and the difficulty of matching its capabilities to the widely varying requirements of different missions, those ideas have not found widespread support. The UN Secretary-General has, however, established a UN standby force planning team tasked with creating a database of the resources which member states can make available to the United Nations at short notice. The Secretary-General's objective in launching this initiative is to enhance the capability of the United Nations to launch peacekeeping operations and deploy forces rapidly. Many member states, including the United Kingdom, have already supplied the necessary information to the UN Secretary-General and we and the French Government are actively encouraging other states to support this UN initiative.

  EU Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many times votes in the EU Council have been published under the provisions of article 7(5) of Council decision 93/662/EC on allowing greater publicity for Council meetings;

  (2) how many times explanations of votes in EU Council meetings have been published in accordance with article 5 of Council decision 93/662/EC on allowing greater publicity for Council meetings.

  Mr. Baldry
  The press releases which are issued after each Council meeting are placed in the Library. Since the publication of the Council decision referred to by the hon. Member, these have normally contained details of votes and explanations of votes.

  Armenia
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to open an embassy in Armenia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are at present no plans to open an embassy in Armenia. The pattern of overseas representation is kept under review. HM ambassador in Moscow is accredited to Armenia and his staff make regular visits there.

  Moldova
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to open an embassy in Moldova or change the current method of United Kingdom representation in that country.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The British ambassador to Moscow is also accredited to Moldova. We have no plans at present to change this arrangement nor to open an embassy in Moldova.

  Libya
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom-Libyan relations at the latest date.
  306
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are still issues of major concern which prevent an improvement in bilateral relations.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom citizens are employed in Libya according to latest statistics; and what was the figures five years ago.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no figures available of British nationals employed in Libya. However, between 1990 and 1992, we estimate that there were 5,000 United Kingdom citizens in Libya.

  Next Step Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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 step agency established by his Department before the agency was established.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The civil servant who did the work comparable to that of the director of the Natural Resources Institute before it was established as an agency was a home civil servant grade 4. The present national salary scale for that grade is £45,278 to £54,815. The civil servant who did the work of the director of Wilton Park before it was established as an agency was a diplomatic service grade 4—equivalent to home civil servant grade 5. The present national salary scale for that grade is £36,739 to £54,815. Neither officer was entitled to London weighting.

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the guidelines issued by his Department to regulate relationships with lobbying companies.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The conduct of Ministers in my Department is governed by "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", the guidance for all Departments promulgated by the Cabinet Office. Conditions of service for the staff of my Department incorporate the general principles of conduct that require civil servants not to misuse the information which they acquire in the course of their duties; not to make use of their official position to further their private interests or those of others; and not to receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party, which might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list and date those occasions over the last two years when Ministers or officials in his Department have met lobbying companies, prior to a decision being made on the subject of the meeting with the lobbying company.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No central record is kept of such contacts. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to hold a public inquiry into the
  307
  Lockerbie bombing incident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no such plans.

  Levels of Service
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he will ensure that the services of(a) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (b) the Overseas Development Administration, (c) the BBC World Service and (d) the British Council remain at appropriate levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Expenditure plans for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Diplomatic Wing, and the Overseas Development Administration are reviewed annually as part of the public expenditure survey. The outcome is announced in the Financial Statement and Budget Report and in more detail in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's departmental report. Planned grants in aid to the BBC World Service, which is funded on a triennial basis, and the British Council are reviewed at the same time.

  Germany
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present state of Anglo-German relations; and what steps he is taking to improve them.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our last summit meeting in April showed that British/German relations are very good. It underlined the close co-operation and contacts between our two Governments across the board and our common approach to many important issues affecting Europe and the rest of the world.

  During the German presidency of the European Union, we have continued to work closely on a wide range of subjects, including growth and employment in the Union, the extension of security and prosperity to the east, and efforts to combat organised crime.

  Now that Chancellor Kohl's new Government are in place, we look forward to working with them bilaterally and in the European Union to ensure a good outcome to the Essen European Council and beyond.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministers' Conduct
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the position of Her Majesty's Government on inviting senior civil servants, such as the Cabinet Secretary, to sit with the Patronage Secretary to examine Ministers about their conduct.

  The Prime Minister
  From time to time, my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and the Cabinet Secretary are asked to advise me on matters relating to the registration of Members' interests and "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". This may necessitate establishing the facts with the Ministers concerned.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Government Departments are involved following up the 308
  Pan Am 103 crash over Lockerbie; and if he will identify their respective responsibilities.

  The Prime Minister
  The Crown Office is the lead department on matters relating to the prosecution of those suspected of the Lockerbie bombing. The Foreign and Commonwealth office is the lead Department for international aspects. These Departments consult others on issues for which they are responsible, as they arise.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.

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

  Halsbury Statutes
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to review the Halsbury statutes of 1717 with a view to their repeal; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I am not aware of any statutes passed in 1717 which are both still in force and in need of repeal.

  Ministers' Pensions
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers in Her Majesty's Government between 1986 and 1994 have had pension contributions paid by outside interests while they held ministerial office.

  The Prime Minister
  Pension arrangements are a personal matter for individual Ministers. However, they are expected to follow the guidance in paragraphs 128–134 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".

  Salary Increases
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government will ask the Confederation of British Industry to request that salary increases for chief executives and chairmen of companies should not exceed the rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on 22 November,Official Report, column 465.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Members' Salaries
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what will be the differential between the salaries of Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament in 1995; and what it was in 1965.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1965 the salary of a Cabinet Minister was £8,500, and that of a Member of Parliament £3,250, a ratio of 2.6:1; from January 1995 the comparable
  309
  figureprovided for by the draft Ministerial Salaries Order 1994 would be £42,834 for a Cabinet Minister against a Member's salary of £33,189 under the resolution of 3 November 1993, giving a ratio of 1.3:1.

  Ministerial and Other Salaries Order
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement about the salaries covered by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order.

  Mr. Newton
  The salaries of Ministers and other paid office holders were last increased from 1 January 1994 under the terms of the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1993. At that time it was decided that henceforth the level of ministerial salaries should normally be increased by the same proportion as those of hon. Members, and that

  Ministers salaries

  Current salary

  2nd stage of 1994 settlement wef 1 January 1995

  Total inc. 2 per cent. 1995 settlement wef 1 January 1995

  Commons Ministers etc.

  Prime Minister

  54,438

  55,900

  57,018

  Cabinet Minister

  40,895

  41,994

  42,834

  Minister of State

  28,936

  29,713

  30,307

  Parliamentary Under Secretary

  21,961

  22,551

  23,002

  Attorney General

  43,456

  44,624

  45,516

  Solicitor General

  35,632

  36,589

  37,321

  Government Chief Whip

  34,037

  34,951

  35,650

  Government Deputy Chief Whip

  28,936

  29,713

  30,307

  Government Whips

  18,620

  19,120

  19,502

  Assistant Government Whips

  18,620

  19,120

  19,502

  Leader of the Opposition

  37,495

  38,502

  39,272

  Opposition Chief Whip

  28,936

  29,713

  30,307

  Assistant Opposition Whip

  18,620

  19,120

  19,502

  Speaker

  42,909

  44,062

  44,943

  Chairman of Ways and Means

  28,936

  29,713

  30,307

  First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means

  25,431

  26,114

  26,636

  Second Deputy Chairman Ways and Means

  25,431

  26,114

  26,636

  Lords Ministers etc.

  Cabinet Minister

  52,260

  53,999

  55,329

  Minister of State

  46,333

  47,751

  48,835

  Parliamentary Under Secretary

  38,894

  40,124

  41,065

  Lord Advocate

  52,340

  54,079

  55,409

  Government Chief Whip

  46,333

  47,751

  48,835

  Government Deputy Chief Whip

  38,894

  40,124

  41,065

  Government Whips

  35,099

  36,239

  37,111

  Leader of the Opposition

  38,894

  40,124

  41,065

  Opposition Chief Whip

  35,099

  36,239

  37,111

  Chairman of Committees

  46,333

  47,751

  48,835

  Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees

  42,354

  43,772

  44,856

  Minister in neither house

  Solicitor General (Scotland)

  45,539

  46,762

  47,697

  Parliamentary salaries

  Member of Parliament

  31,687

  32,538

  33,189

  Reduced parliamentary salary

  23,854

  24,495

  24,985

  The Speaker is entitled to draw the salary shown in this table, under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order, but has opted to take a lower salary equal to that of a Cabinet Minister in the House of Commons.

  The Lord Chancellor's salary is set separately by Section 3 of the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991.
  310
  Ministers in the other place would receive the same increases, in cash terms, as their counterparts in this House.

  I announced this arrangement to the House during the debate on Members' salaries in November 1993, Official Report, 3 November 1993, column 457. Ministers in this House will receive the 2.7 per cent. staged payment from last year's award, plus a 2 per cent. increase due in respect of the 1995 settlement. Ministers in the other place will receive the corresponding cash increases.

  The draft Ministerial and Other Salaries Order to implement these changes from 1 January 1995 was laid in the House on Monday 21 November. The details are set out in the tables.

  In accordance with the resolution of 3 November 1993, the same increases will be applied to the reduced parliamentary salary paid to Commons Ministers and paid office holders, which will increase from the current rate of £23,854 to £24,985 on 1 January 1995.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Quangos
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many quangos his Department was responsible for(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which a number is available.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In 1979 there were 118 such bodies; in 1993, the latest year for which there are published figures, there were 85.

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which quangos his Department has abolished since 1979.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The following list shows which quangos have been abolished from 1979 to 1993, the latest year for which there are final figures:

  1979

  1. Advisory Council for Agriculture and Horticulture in England and Wales

  2. Farm Settlements Advisory Committee for Selection of Tenants

  3. Plant Variety Rights Advisory Panels (12)

  4. Poultry Diseases Panel

  5. Torry Research Station Advisory Committee

  1980

  1. Advisory Committee on the Banana Trade

  2. Experimental Centres Advisory Committees in England and Wales (reduced from 22 to 21)

  3. Regional Panels (reduced from 7 to 5)

  4. Tate & Lyle Customer Safeguards Committee

  1981

  1. Agricultural Wages Committees (reduced from 25 to 24)

  2. White Fish Authority (abolished October 1981 and replaced by SFIA)

  3. Agricultural Construction Industry Liaison Group

  4. Milk and Dairies Tribunal (reduced from 7 to 5)

  1982

  1. Thames Barrier Advisory Team

  2. Flood Protection Research Committee

  3. Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation (replaced by Food From Britain March 1983)

  4. Experimental Centres Advisory Committees England and Wales (reduced from 21 to 20)

  1983

  1. Committee on Artificial Insemination of Cattle

  2. Land Settlement Association Ltd

  3. 'Food- Additives and Contaminants Committee' and 'Food Standards Committee' amalgamated to form 'Food Advisory Committee'

  4. Fisheries R & D Board

  5. Kew Scientific Advisory Panel

  6. Scientific Panel for Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs

  7. Wakehurst Place Consultative Panel

  1984

  1. Joint Consultative Organisation for R & D in Agriculture and Food (abolished May 1984 replaced by Priorities Board for R & D in Agriculture and Food)

  1985

  None

  1986

  1. Eggs Authority (31.12.86.)

  312
  1987

  1. Agricultural Chemicals Approval Scheme, Scientific Advisory Committee

  1988

  1. National Seeds Development Organisation Ltd (privatised)

  2. Agriculture Economics Technical Committee

  3. Committee of Investigation for England and Wales under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958

  4. Committee of Investigation for Great Britain under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958

  1989

  1. Experimental Centres Advisory Committees in England and Wales (reduced from 20 to 18)

  2. Advisory Committee on Pesticides (reduced from 6 to 1)

  1990

  1. Experimental Centre Advisory Committees in England and Wales (reduced from 18 to 14)

  2. Reading Cattle Breeding Centre Advisory Committee

  3. Apple and Pear Development Council

  1991

  1. Agricultural Wages Committees (reduced from 24 to 23)

  2. Experimental 'Husbandry Farms' Advisory Committees in England and Wales (reduced from 11 to 10)

  3. Regional Flood Defence Committees (reduced from 10 to 9)

  1992

  1. Agricultural Statistics Consultative Committee

  2. Experimental 'Husbandry Farms' Advisory Committees in England and Wales

  3. Experimental 'Horticultural Stations' Advisory Committees in England and Wales

  1993

  1. Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees (reduced from 24 to 17)

  2. Agricultural Wages Committees (reduced from 23 to 17)

  3. Area VII White Fish Industry Advisory Committee

  4. Steering Group on Chemical Aspects of Food Surveillance

  Animal Transportation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the personnel licensed to export livestock from(a) Sheerness and (b) Grimsby have previous convictions for offences relating to the welfare of livestock.

  Mrs. Browning
  There is no requirement for such personnel to be licensed. We are aware that some involved recently in the export of animals may have past convictions for welfare offences, but prohibition from engaging in the trade is not a penalty provided for by statute.

  Before any consignment leaves Great Britain, the Ministry carries out checks to determine that the facilities for the export of the livestock are sufficient to ensure that the welfare of the animals can be properly safeguarded throughout the journey.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times the certification procedures relating to(a) the live export and (b) the live transport of livestock have been breached in the last year.

  Mrs. Browning
  The detection of breaches, and the initiation of prosecution action where appropriate, is the responsibility of local authorities. No central figures are kept on the number of breaches.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his plans for the development of B quotas for milk.

  Mr. Jack
  There is no proposal from the Commission for a two-tier quota system for milk. Denmark has been promoting the idea, but it has found little support from other member states. The Government's view is that the costs of administering and controlling such a system would be very high and that unsubsidised exports of dairy products made from B quota milk would displace existing subsidised exports, thus exacerbating the Community's dairy surplus. Moreover, the creation of a B quota would, under the system envisaged by the Danes, require a 4 per cent. cut in current milk quotas. Since the United Kingdom does not have enough quota as it is, any reduction in current quota levels would be unacceptable.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the proposals by the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards on considering tightening up controls on the labelling of food.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Local Authority Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards has provided comments in response to our recent consultative proposals for consolidating the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 and its amendment. These will be taken into account in the revised proposals which will be circulated for further comment in the new year.

  Dry Stone Walls
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants are available to hill farmers in England to maintain dry stone walls; and what were the total amounts paid for each year since 1984.

  Mr. Jack
  Capital grants are available under the farm and conservation grant scheme to all eligible farm businesses for the provision, replacement and improvement of traditional wall and banks. The table below shows the grant paid on these items predominantly for dry stone walling, under the F and CGS and its predecessor the agriculture improvement scheme since 1986 in both less favoured areas and lowland areas—non-LFAs. Information prior to the financial year 1986–87 is not readily available.

  Grant paid on traditional walls under AIS and F and CGS

  Year

  Grant paid in LFAs £000s

  Grant paid in Non-LFAs £000s

  Total grant paid £000s

  1986–87

  307

  25

  332

  1987–88

  928

  48

  976

  1988–89

  1,075

  60

  1,135

  1989–90

  1,119

  103

  1,222

  1990–91

  1,092

  170

  1,262

  1991–92

  1,183

  321

  1,504

  1992–93

  1,417

  431

  1,848

  1993–94

  1,474

  530

  2,004

  Total

  8,595

  1,688

  10,283

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of hill farmers in north-east Lancashire whose incomes are less than £10,000 per annum.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on farm incomes is collected by the farm business survey, the results of which are published annually in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom".

  The latest complete results are for 1992–93 and these indicate that about 47 per cent. of "full-time" cattle and sheep farms in England which are wholly or mainly in the less-favoured areas had a net farm income of less than £10,000. The survey covers some 2,300 farms in England and is designed to provide estimates of farm income for each of the main farm types in England as a whole. The sample is not intended to provide estimates for individual counties and therefore information for farms in north-east Lancashire is not available.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants he is making available for the upgrading of slaughterhouses to standards required by the EC.

  Mrs. Browning
  We are not making any grants available for this purpose.

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list and date those occasions over the last two years when Ministers or officials in his Department have met lobbying companies, prior to a decision being made on the subject of the meeting with the lobbying company.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The next steps agencies established by my Department were headed by the following grades of civil servant before they attained agency status:

  ADAS (agency in 1992)

  Grade 2

  Central Science Laboratory (agency in 1992)

  Grade 3

  Central Veterinary Laboratory (agency in 1990)

  Grade 3

  Pesticides Safety Directorate (agency in 1993)

  Grade 4

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate (agency in 1990)

  Grade 4

  Salary ranges for civil servants of grades 2, 3 and 4 are tabled annually in the Civil Service Year Book, copies of which are routinely placed in the Library of the House.

  Rabies
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of human rabies have been identified as the result of animal attacks in(a) France, (b) Germany and (c) Benelux during each of the last five years for which records are available.

  Mrs. Browning
  Two cases were reported in France, one in 1991 and the other in 1992. Both were acquired outside France. The only other case in the last five years was in eastern Germany in 1990. We do not know the details of this case.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of rabies in foxes have been reported in Belgium in 1994 to date; and what was the total for 1993.

  Mrs. Browning
  Up to 30 June 1994, 10 cases of rabies have been reported in foxes in Belgium. There were no cases reported in 1993.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has sought regarding the number of cases of rabies identified in the past 10 years in(a) Austria, (b) the Czech Republic, (c) Slovakia, (d) Hungary, (e) Poland, (f) Germany and (g) France.

  Mrs. Browning
  Detailed information about the number of rabies cases occurring in Europe, including Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Germany and France, is available quarterly from the WHO collaborating centre for rabies surveillance and research from its headquarters in the Federal Republic of Germany. I have not sought any additional information.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the fox population of Belgium was vaccinated against rabies in the years 1992–93; and what proportion has been vaccinated to date in 1994.

  Mrs. Browning
  Since 1992 vaccinated baits have been spread in Belgium at the following rates:

  Spring 1992: 9,000 sq. km

  Autumn 1992: 8,453 sq. km.

  Spring 1993: 8,610 sq. km.

  Autumn 1993: 5,510 sq. km.

  Spring 1994: 2,553 sq. km.

  It is not possible to say how many of these baits were picked up by foxes

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest information for the number of cases of rabies identified in foxes in northern France(a) in 1994 to date, (b) in 1993 and (c) in 1992.

  Mrs. Browning
  Fox rabies was reported in northern France as follows:

  1992: 1,000 cases

  1993: 198 cases

  1994 to date 55 cases

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated cost, in its first year, of the meat hygiene service; what proportion of that figure will be extracted from the meat industry; and what will be the budgetary treatment of any surplus or deficit in its trading account.

  Mrs. Browning
  The running costs of the meat hygiene service in 1995–96 are currently estimated at approximately £46 million, excluding certain one-off 316
  items relating to the establishment of the agency and to the transfer of staff from local authorities.

  Invitations to tender have been issued to potential contract staff and suppliers. The terms and conditions of employees transferring to the agency are currently being confirmed with local authorities. These exercises will produce more detailed costings, which will be made available both to the industry as part of the on-going process of consultation and to other interested parties.

  It is anticipated that the agency will set charges to recover the majority of normal running costs from the fresh meat industry within the provisions of the relevant charging legislation. Set-up costs will, however, be funded by MAFF.

  Legislation does not allow charges above the real cost. It is not currently anticipated that a substantial deficit will arise on the provision of services by the agency.

  Badgers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the 460 tests for M. bovis on badgers killed in her Department's removal operations referred to in his answer of 20 October,Official Report, column 335.

  Mrs. Browning
  So far the outcome of the 460 results which were pending in October is that 207 badgers were negative and 68 were positive for M. bovis; 185 results are still pending.

  Sheep Annual Premiums
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when sheep annual premiums were finalised; on what date payments were authorised to be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Commission regulations 1640/94 of 6 July 1994 and 1765/94 of 18 July 1994 authorised member states to make first and second advance payments under the 1994 sheep annual premium scheme based on an estimated amount of premium. The rates to apply in the United Kingdom were announced by the Ministry on 29 July 1994 and payments of both advances together began in England in the week beginning 19 September 1994. Final payments under the 1994 scheme will not be made until next spring after the final rate is announced by the Commission.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of total farm incomes is represented by(a) hill livestock compensatory allowance payments and (b) sheep annual premiums; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The total value of receipts of hill livestock compensatory allowances, sheep annual premium and farm incomes in the United Kingdom are available in tables 6.7 and 6.1 of "Agriculture in the United Kingdom, 1993", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 23 November; and if he will make a statement.
  317
  Mr. Jack
  I attended a meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 23 November, with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office.

  The Council discussed the arrangements to apply when Spain and Portugal are integrated into the common fisheries policy on 1 January 1996. I reiterated my determination to resist any proposals which would impose new bureaucratic restrictions on British fishermen and to protect the Irish box. A wide range of views was expressed. The Presidency decided that it was not possible to reach a decision at this meeting of the Council and is reflecting on how to take matters forward but with the firm intention of reaching a decision at the December Council meeting.

  The Council approved a number of measures concerning the organisation of the fisheries market, guide prices and tariff quotas. These items will be adopted formally in due course.

  A proposal establishing rules for monitoring trade in certain Norwegian fishery products was adopted.

  The Council considered the recent decision of the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation on the Greenland halibut TAC. This resulted in no new proposal.

  The Council noted the Commission's report on the state of its negotiations with Russia for the purchase of 8,000 tonnes of cod, action which was agreed as part of the enlargement negotiations earlier this year.

  The Council remitted for further work a Commission proposal on permits for EU vessels fishing in third country waters.

  No votes were taken at this Council.

  Rodents
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he intends to take over the increase in mice and rats in domestic properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: The draft report of the national rodent survey, which will give an indication of the current levels of mice and rat infestation, is being finalised by MAFF, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, together with its commercial co-sponsors. It is hoped to publish the full report in the new year and an announcement will be made then.

HEALTH

  Senile Dementia and Alzheimer's
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people over 60 years were recorded in the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years as having Alzheimer's disease;

  (2) how many people over 60 years in the United Kingdom were recorded for each of the last 10 years as suffering from senile dementia.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is estimated that some 5 per cent. of the population aged 65 and over suffer from dementia. Of these it is estimated that over half suffer from Alzheimer's disease. There is no evidence to suggest that the incidence 318
  of Alzheimer's disease has changed significantly over the last 10 years.

  Obstetric Cholestasis
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the exact source of the information given in her answer of 8 July 1994,Official Report, column 366, that (a) obstetric cholestasis affects one in 1,000 pregnancies and (b) in her letter of 23 August 1994 to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that parental mortality in mothers affected by obstetric cholestasis is five times higher than normal;

  (2) if she will make it her policy to encourage epidemiological studies to ascertain the incidence of stillbirth due to obstetric cholestasis;

  (3) what information she has on the cause of the stillbirths referred to in her answer of 22 June 1994, Official Report, column 198; and what action she is taking to improve that information.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is available in the following articles;Reyes H. the Spectrum of Liver and Gastrointestinal Disease seen in Cholestatis of Pregnancy Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1992 21 905–11, Schorr-Lesnick B. et al Liver Diseases Unique to Pregnancy Am Journal Gastroenterol 1991; 86: 659–62 and de Swiet M. ed Medical Disorders in Obstetric Practice Oxford: Blackwell Scientific 1984.

  Copies of the articles will be placed in the Library. The figure of one in 1,000 pregnancies is an estimate based on the published sources above and was intended to indicate the order of magnitude of the condition.

  Health authorities already participate in epidemiological surveys to establish the causes of stillbirths and infant deaths and in the "Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy"— CESDI—which was established in 1992. This is the mechanism that is in place for identifying avoidable factors that give rise to stillbirths and deaths in infancy. CESDI's second annual report for 1993, which is due to be published shortly, includes examination of the small proportion of stillbirths which are associated with delivery. Its future work programme is being widened to include other stillbirths.

  Although the cause of most stillbirths are unknown, a large proportion are due to fetal conditions such as asphyxia at birth, congenital anomalies and prematurity, while others are the result of maternal conditions such as hypertension and haemorrhage.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general and (b) senior managers were employed by NHS trusts in each year since 1991–92, by region.

  Mr. Malone
  The information available for September 1993 is shown in the table.

  General and Senior Managers in NHS Trusts by Region—30 September 1993. Whole-time equivalents

  Northern

  300

  Yorkshire

  1,190

  Trent

  610

  East Anglian

  510

  North West Thames

  620

  319

  General and Senior Managers in NHS Trusts by Region—30 September 1993. Whole-time equivalents

  North East Thames

  1,090

  South East Thames

  800

  South West Thames

  410

  Wessex

  610

  Oxford

  390

  South Western

  860

  West Midlands

  650

  Mersey

  770

  North Western

  400

  England Total

  9,210

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Notes:

  (1) Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  (2) Total may not equal sum of components due to rounding.

  (3) It is not possible to identify general managers and senior managers separately.

  (4) The England total given for managers differs from that published in October in table E of the Statistical Bulletin, which incorrectly included some 280 staff from trusts in Wales.

  (5) The England total in September 1993 is not directly comparable with numbers published for 1991 and 1992. A change in data collection procedures in September 1993 resulted in the recategorisation of many staff who would have been coded as `others' in the 1991 and 1992 censuses.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice is given to hospital trusts—by her Department—when advertising for non-executive trust board members; and what requirement there is to state any political affiliation when applying for board membership.

  Mr. Malone
  None. Information about the political affiliation of candidates plays no part in the appointments process.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ban gagging clauses in settlements reached between NHS trusts and their employees following the termination of employment.

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service executive issued guidance on termination settlements to chief executives of NHS trusts—TEL 94–3—on 16 May 1994 which made it plain that any confidentiality clause in an employment contract should not be framed in such a way to suggest that a termination would escape proper public scrutiny. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total expenditure on consultancies by each trust hospital in the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Expenditure by national health service trusts solely on consultancy services is not available centrally. Information is collected on"external contract staffing and consultancy services".

  This expenditure relates to services purchased from other trusts, health authorities and the private sector and includes, for example, linen supplies, transport and computing services as well as consultancy services.

  The expenditure on external contract staffing and consultancy services by NHS trusts in England for the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93 will be placed in
  320
  the Library. Figures for 1993–94 will be available in December. There were no trusts prior to 1991–92.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those chief executives of NHS trusts who have resigned or have been dismissed; and what were the reasons for resignation or dismissal.

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available centrally.

  Community Care, Kent
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement regarding the amount of money made available for community care in Kent prior to, and since, the recent changes; and what is her estimate of the availability of resources for the care of the elderly in Kent for 1995–96 and the three preceding years.

  Mr. Bowis
  Kent personal social services standard spending assessments, which include resources for community care, plus the special transitional grant for community care introduced in 1993–94 are shown in the table for each of the last five years:

  £million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  95.154

  117.790

  126.655

  156.772

  177.834

  It is for local authorities to decide how to allocate their resources in the light of local priorities, with the exception of the special transitional grant, which must be spent on community care services.

  Funding for 1995–96 will be announced shortly.

  NHS Private Facilities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for health how many patients have been treated in NHS hospitals, private facilities in each of the last five years, by region.

  Mr. Sackville
  The numbers of finished consultant episodes and out-patient attendances for private patients in national health service hospitals in England by region are shown in the tables.

  Finished Consultant Episodes, Ordinary Admissions and Day Cases

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  England

  79,243

  83,478

  81,366

  87,906

  Northern

  3,034

  3,998

  3,349

  3,0.56

  Yorkshire

  4,542

  4,321

  4,842

  5,174

  Trent

  5,182

  4,116

  2,797

  2,961

  E Anglia

  4,997

  5,563

  4,504

  4,284

  NW Thames

  7,357

  8,952

  10,345

  8,891

  NE Thames

  8,113

  7,918

  7,402

  9,715

  SE Thames

  6,597

  7,055

  6,648

  8,220

  SW Thames

  4,468

  4,937

  5,081

  5,832

  Wessex

  2,135

  2,215

  2,643

  2,602

  Oxford

  6,466

  7,505

  6,928

  6,916

  S Western

  3,380

  4,864

  5,044

  5,644

  W Midlands

  6,269

  6,141

  6,081

  6,524

  Mersey

  3,975

  2,594

  2,370

  2,245

  N Western

  6,123

  6,401

  6,445

  7,256

  SHAs

  6,605

  6,898

  6,887

  8,536

  1992–93 figures are not yet available.

  Source:

  SD2A, Hospital Episode Statistics.
  321

  Outpatient Total Attendances

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  England

  156,574

  154,327

  147,869

  145,366

  139,560

  Northern

  6,493

  6,058

  5,451

  4,911

  5,028

  Yorkshire

  4,117

  3,808

  3,785

  1,874

  2,151

  Trent

  4,803

  4,989

  3,856

  6,369

  12,810

  E Anglia

  4,730

  6,736

  3,556

  6,010

  2,789

  NW Thames

  30,248

  29,904

  30,936

  23,159

  21,857

  NE Thames

  36,993

  38,047

  30,381

  30,449

  25,793

  SE Thames

  9,348

  9,379

  9,045

  7,084

  5,870

  SW Thames

  4,092

  4,227

  3,598

  2,814

  2,767

  Wessex

  7,248

  5,331

  4,971

  6,723

  5,673

  Oxford

  8,123

  8,217

  6,773

  8,864

  9,245

  S Western

  3,204

  2,668

  3,625

  3,712

  3,365

  W Midlands

  6,835

  7,215

  8,174

  11,213

  10,522

  Mersey

  8,128

  4,438

  5,174

  4,248

  3,180

  N Western

  7,474

  8,259

  12,580

  10,671

  6,023

  SHAs

  14,738

  15,051

  15,964

  17,265

  22,487

  Source:

  KHO9 returns

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what legislation wheelchairs are provided to disabled people.

  Mr. Bowis
  The national health service provides wheelchairs in exercise of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's powers under section 5(2)(a) of, and schedule 2 to the National Health Service Act 1977.

  Mixed Sex Wards
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are issued by her Department concerning mixed sex hospital wards; and what representations she has received.

  Mr. Sackville
  None, but the patient's charter expects patients to be treated with dignity and respect for their cultural and religious beliefs. There will also be a new national standard addressing mixed sex wards in the revised and expanded patient's charter to be published in the new year. The Department has received several

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Regional Health Authority

  Retained savings £million

  Percent of budgets set percent

  Retained savings £million

  Percent of budgets set percent.

  Northern

  0.7

  1.6

  2.3

  3.6

  Yorkshire

  1.1

  2.1

  3.3

  3.2

  Trent

  1.5

  4.0

  1.9

  2.3

  East Anglian

  0.6

  4.5

  0.6

  2.5

  N W Thames

  0.7

  2.6

  2.0

  3.3

  N E Thames

  1.0

  6.1

  1.6

  5.8

  S E Thames

  0.7

  3.6

  1.2

  2.9

  S W Thames

  1.6

  6.1

  1.1

  2.1

  Wessex

  0.7

  3.1

  1.8

  3.4

  Oxford

  1.1

  3.6

  3.2

  4.8

  S Western

  0.6

  2.4

  1.5

  2.8

  W Midlands

  2.6

  7.3

  4.9

  5.9

  Mersey

  1.1

  4.2

  2.8

  4.7

  N Western

  0.7

  3.0

  0.4

  0.9

  England

  14.5

  3.7

  28.3

  3.5

  Note:

  Retained savings may not sum to England totals due to rounding.
  322
  representations about mixed sex wards both from hon. Members and from members of the public.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to discourage mixed sex wards in acute patient care.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for individual hospitals to decide in the light of local conditions whether, and if so in what circumstances, mixed sex wards should be used. The revised and expanded patient's charter to be published in the new year will include a new national standard on mixed sex wards.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide an estimate for the value of fundholding allocations retained by general practitioner fundholders at the year end in each of the last four years, by region.

  Mr. Malone
  The available data for the first two years of fundholding are shown in the table. Final audited accounts for 1993–94 are not yet available. Savings may be retained for up to four years for use for the benefit of patients of the practice.

  Patient Complaints
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patient complaints have been received in each of the last five years by region.

  Hospital Complaints

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Northern

  1,546

  1,750

  2,083

  2,627

  2,758

  Yorkshire

  2,015

  2,233

  2,384

  2,779

  3,939

  Trent

  2,398

  2,970

  2,772

  3,772

  4,303

  East Anglian

  1,105

  1,207

  1,504

  1,877

  2,536

  North West Thames

  2,626

  3,348

  3,534

  4,505

  4,694

  North East Thames

  4,121

  4,351

  4,207

  6,055

  8,505

  South East Thames

  3,076

  2,257

  2,515

  5,472

  5,243

  South West Thames

  2,953

  3,213

  2,849

  4,065

  4,726

  Wessex

  1,846

  2,109

  2,063

  3,026

  3,276

  Oxford

  1,371

  1,477

  1,822

  1,728

  3,182

  South Western

  1,617

  2,064

  2,248

  2,532

  4,877

  West Midlands

  3,241

  3,894

  3,859

  5,105

  'N/A

  Mersey

  1,803

  1,654

  1,507

  2,307

  3,661

  North Western

  3,032

  3,054

  3,234

  4,475

  5,381

  Special Health Authorities

  546

  600

  769

  805

  7'73

  Source:

  K040 returns.

  1 No return was submitted.

  The increase in complaints recorded can be attributed to the increase in patient awareness and confidence due to the patients charter.

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average response time for emergency ambulance calls in London in the year 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  According to figures provided by the London ambulance service, the average response time in 1993–94 was between 14 and 15 minutes.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received as to the effectiveness of the cell analysis test for breast cancer devised by Dr. Ian Ellis of Nottingham city hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are aware of the promising research work being undertaken by Dr. Ellis of Nottingham city hospital to determine effective strategies for the treatment of breast cancer based on cytology.

  Minutes

  Calls

  Percentage of Total

  Cumulative Total

  Cumulative Percentage

  Response Times 1993–94

  14

  40,877

  8.3

  307,940

  62

  15

  31,154

  6.3

  339,094

  69

  16

  26,810

  5.4

  365,904

  74

  324
  Mr. Malone
  The latest information available about numbers of hospital patient complaints by region is shown in the table. Information about complaints against family health service practitioners is not available centrally in the form requested.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the absenteeism rate for employees of the London ambulance service in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  According to figures supplied by the London ambulance service, absenteeism rates for all staff in the years requested were:

  1991: 9.2 per cent.

  1992: 10.1 per cent.

  1993: 9.4 per cent

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of ambulances arriving after 14 minutes from being called in the London area, in the year from 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  According to figures supplied by the London ambulance service, of a total 494,900 calls in 1993–94, 186,960 ambulances arrived after 14 minutes. Of those, 112,065 arrived between 14 and 19 minutes.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the number and percentage of emergency ambulance calls in the London area that took(a) 14 minutes, (b) 15 minutes, (c) 16 minutes, (d) 17 minutes, (e) 18 minutes, (f) 19 minutes, (g) 20 minutes, (h) 21 minutes, (i) 22 minutes,(j) 23 minutes,(k) 24 minutes,(l) 25 minutes, (m) 26 minutes, (n) 27 minutes, (o) 28 minutes, (p) 29 minutes and (q) 30 minutes, in the year 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994 and in the current year.

  Mr. Sackville
  According to figures supplied by the London ambulance service, the information is as shown in the tables.
  325

  Minutes

  Calls

  Percentage of Total

  Cumulative Total

  Cumulative Percentage

  Response Times 1993–94 cont.

  17

  21,769

  4.4

  387,673

  78

  18

  17,934

  3.6

  405,607

  82

  19

  14,398

  2.9

  420,005

  85

  20

  12,139

  2.5

  432,144

  87

  21

  9,740

  2.0

  441,884

  89

  22

  7,771

  1.6

  449,655

  91

  23

  6,410

  1.3

  456,065

  92

  24

  5,654

  1.1

  461,719

  93

  25

  4,614

  0.9

  466,333

  94

  26+

  28,567

  5.8

  494,900

  100

  Response times 1 April 1994–31 October 1994

  14

  27,655

  8.9

  203,594

  65

  15

  18,521

  5.9

  222,115

  71

  16

  15,753

  5.0

  237,868

  76

  17

  12,818

  4.1

  250,686

  80

  18

  10,523

  3.4

  261,209

  84

  19

  8,526

  2.7

  269,735

  86

  20

  7,102

  2.3

  276,837

  89

  21

  5,497

  1.8

  282,334

  90

  22

  4,476

  1.4

  286,810

  92

  23

  3,633

  1.2

  290,443

  93

  24

  3,064

  1.0

  293,507

  94

  25

  2,544

  0.8

  296,051

  95

  26

  1,725

  0.6

  297,776

  95

  27

  1,656

  0.5

  299,432

  96

  28

  1,355

  0.4

  300,787

  96

  29

  1,185

  0.4

  301,972

  97

  30

  1,078

  0.3

  303,050

  97

  31+

  9,172

  2.9

  312,222

  100

  Calls responded to within 14 minutes have increased by 13 per cent. per month this year compared with last year.

  City Hospital, Birmingham
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether her Department is monitoring the changed arrangement for out-of-hours cover in oral surgery at the City hospital, Birmingham; and whether she has been informed by the trust as to the reasons that out-of-hours cover was withdrawn by South Birmingham acute unit.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for local management. The hon. Member may wish to contact Dr. M. D. Skillicorn, chairman of North Birmingham health authority, for details.

  Lung Diseases
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the Government's total spending on medical research is directed at research into diseases of the lung.

  Mr. Sackville
  The main agency through the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council–MRC–which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available, MRC expenditure on research wholly or partly related to respiratory diseases was £11.2 million, 4.53 per cent. of total expenditure of £247 million. In addition, the Department itself funds a range of research projects of relevance to respiratory diseases. A proportion of Government spending also goes on research into cancer of the lung.

  AIDS
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities have filed reports under the AIDS (Control) Act 1987 for the last financial year; and whether and where these reports are available for public examination.

  Mr. Sackville
  The AIDS (Control) Act 1987 requires reports to be made to each regional health authority by the district health authority for each district in the region and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the regional health authority. The Act also requires reports to be published by the authority by which they are made.

  Information on the numbers of DHAs which have submitted their reports is not therefore available centrally.

  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will issue guidance to health and local authorities on prompt payment for the provision of HIV/AIDS related services to voluntary sector organisations with which they have contracted.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service executive issued a requirement to health authorities on 28 October 1994 to comply with the Confederation of British Industry prompt payment code. Additionally, health authorities were required to set out their payment policies and publish details of their payment performance in their annual reports and publicise their arrangements for handling complaints about failure to pay on time. A copy of FDL(94)67 is available in the Library.

  Issuing guidance to local authorities on prompt payment is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  327
  We have no plans to issue guidance specifically about payment for HIV/AIDS-related services.

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the range within which earnings of(a) general practitioner fundholders and (b) non-fundholding general practitioners fall, by region together with the numbers of general practitioners at each point.

  Mr. Malone
  Information about the geographical distribution of general practitioners' earnings or the earnings of GP fundholders compared with non-fundholders is not available.

  Paracetamol
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were treated in hospitals for overdoses of paracetamol in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not available in the form requested. The "Hospital Episode Statistics" include paracetamol poisonings as part of the classification "Aromatic Analgesics not elsewhere classified (diagnostic code International Classification of Diseases 965.4)". The number of finished consultant episodes in this category for the years since 1990 are shown in the table.

  Finished Consultant Episodes, Diagnostic Code ICD 965.4

  Year

  Number of Episodes(Thousands)

  1989–90

  28.0

  1990–91

  30.3

  1991–92

  28.4

  Statistics for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are not yet available.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year since 1979 the resources that accrued from each individual mental handicap and mental illness hospital; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not available centrally on income generated by individual hospitals within or outside the national health service.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to restrict the number of paracetamol tablets sold to the general public; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are already controls over the number of paracetamol tablets which may be sold outside a registered pharmacy. Packs containing more than 30 effervescent tablets, more than 25 tablets that are not effervescent and more than 10 sachets of powder of granules may be sold only from registered pharmacies. The Medicines Control Agency is keeping under review the need for any further restriction of the availability of paracetamol to the general public.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people died as a direct result of paracetamol overdoses in the last year.

  Mr. Sackville
  Data for 1993 and 1994 are not yet available.
  328
  In England and Wales in 1992, the number of cases of poisoning by aromatic analgesics not elsewhere classified (ICD1965.4) was 220.

  Note:
  In England and Wales most cases coded to ICD 965.4 are due to paracetamol overdose. Exact figures for paracetamol deaths are not readily available.
  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  Cold-related Illnesses
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many death certificates in 1993 had(a) hypothermia, (b) pneumonia, (c) other cold-related illnesses as one of the contributory causes of death; and what were the figures for each of the four previous years in each case.

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

  Deaths in England and Wales where hypothermia 1(ICD 991.6) was mentioned as a contributory cause, 1989–1993

  Number

  1989

  372

  1990

  368

  1991

  534

  1992

  362

  1993

  472

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for health how many deaths were recorded for(a) hypothermia and (b) cold-related illness for the years 1987 to 1993 for (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) Scotland, (iii) England, (iv) Wales and (v) Northern Ireland.

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

  Number of deaths from hypothermia in England. Wales, Northern Ireland (ICD 991.6)1 and Scotland (ICDs E901.0, E901.8, E901.9 and secondary codes 788.3, 780.0, 780.8, 780.9)1 1987–1992

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  England

  249

  181

  156

  143

  236

  142

  Scotland

  34

  39

  39

  45

  25

  29

  Northern Ireland

  7

  8

  6

  9

  11

  8

  Wales

  19

  12

  10

  8

  13

  7

  United Kingdom

  309

  240

  210

  205

  285

  186

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths were recorded for(a) hypothermia and (b) cold-related illness for each month of 1992, 1993 and 1994 for (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) Scotland, (iii) England, (iv) Wales and (v) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table.
  329

  Number of deaths from hypothermia by month in England, Wales, Northern Ireland (ICD 991.6)1 and Scotland (ICDs E910.0, E910.8,E910.9 and secondary cause codes 778.3, 780.0, 780.8 and 780.9)1 in 1992.

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  January

  28

  3

  —

  —

  31

  February

  27

  10

  3

  1

  41

  March

  9

  3

  —

  —

  12

  April

  12

  4

  1

  1

  18

  May

  3

  1

  —

  4

  8

  June

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  July

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  August

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  September

  4

  —

  —

  1

  5

  October

  12

  2

  2

  —

  16

  November

  15

  2

  —

  —

  17

  December

  30

  3

  1

  —

  34

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she 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 her Department before the agency was established.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Medicines Control Agency and NHS Estates directorate were led by grade 3 civil servants, the Medical Devices Directorate by a grade 4, and the NHS superannuation branch by a grade 6. None of these civil servants received any emolument other than those payable under standard civil service terms and conditions.

  Chief executives of next steps agencies are directly accountable to Ministers. Their posts carry different responsibilities from those of their civil service predecessors and cannot be regarded as directly comparable.

  GPs' and Dentists' Lists
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been struck off(a) GPs' lists and (b) dentists' lists in the parliamentary constituency of Lewisham, Deptford in each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Malone
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list and date those occasions in the past two years when Ministers or officials in her Department have met lobbying companies, prior to a decision being made on the subject of the meeting with the lobbying company.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the guidelines issued by her Department to regulate relationships with lobbying companies.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no guidelines which refer to lobbying companies.

  Guidance to Ministers on the conduct of their affairs is contained in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", issued by the Cabinet Office.

  Staff rules incorporate general principles of conduct that require civil servants not to misuse information which
  330
  they acquire in the course of their duties; not to make use of their official position to further their private interests or those of others; and not to receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party, which might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity.

  Drug Prescriptions
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what complaints she has received from patients prescribed cheaper drugs by their general practitioners, following her Department's guidelines.

  Mr. Malone
  No such guidelines have been issued.

  Dental Fillings
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the comparative costs of restoring teeth with(a) amalgam and (b) white fillings;

  (2) what percentage of dentists in the national health service have the necessary skills to restore teeth with fillings other than amalgam;

  (3) what percentage of dentists in the nation health service restore teeth with fillings other than amalgam.

  Mr. Malone
  Skills taught during training of dentists include the selection of appropriate materials for fillings. In 1993–94 there were 10,691,884 courses of treatment where dental amalgam was used as the filling material and 6,028,756 courses involving glass ionomer-composite. This excludes courses of treatment where it is not possible to distinguish the type of material used. No data are available centrally on the number of dentists who use only fillings other than amalgam. The range of fees for dentists for fillings using dental amalgam starts at £5.30. The range of fees for a tooth coloured restoration starts at £9.95.

  Transportation of Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to strengthen the guidelines covering the transportation of(a) corpses, (b) other parts of the body and (c) specimens between hospitals, pathology laboratories and mortuaries with respect to (i) strength of container, (ii) types of vehicle, (iii) strapping or fixing of container, (iv) instructions to driver, (v) type of company or public corporation owning vehicle, (vi) use of preservative fluid and (vii) other considerations; and if she will make a statement.
  331
  Mr. Sackville
  In arranging for the transportation of bodies and pathological specimens between facilities, health service personnel need to be conscious of the sensitivities involved. They will also need to take account of the nature and degree of any infection risk, and the requirements which will consequently apply.

  In 1991 the Health and Safety Executive's health services advisory committee issued updated guidance, commended to the health service by the national health service executive, on
  "Safe Working and the Prevention of Infection in Clinical Laboratories"
  and
  "Safe Working and the Prevention of Infection in the Mortuary and Post Mortem Room".

  The guidance includes references to the transportation of specimens, including large specimens such as limbs. I have no plans to further strengthen the guidelines at present. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Further national and international guidelines relate to the transport of goods which are classified as dangerous, including pathology specimens which may pose a risk of infection.

  Private Beds
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount of income the national health service received from private pay beds for each financial year since 1979 and for the latest year for which information is available; and how much each national health service trust has received since its establishment by way of income from private pay beds.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on overall private patient income for the national health service in England is given in the table. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 7 February at column 43 for information on private patient income for individual NHS trusts. The figures for 1992–93 are confirmed.

  NHS (England) private patient income

  Year

  £000

  1978–79

  30,830

  1979–80

  36,127

  1980–81

  46,642

  1981–82

  54,404

  1982–83

  51,850

  1983–84

  55,844

  1984–85

  55,953

  1985–86

  61,325

  1986–87

  59,437

  1987–88

  67,514

  1988–89

  77,659

  1989–90

  92,590

  1990–91

  108,732

  1991–92

  140,834

  1992–93

  157,314

  Source:

  NHS Summarised Accounts of Health Authorities and NHS Trusts (England).

  Note:

  The figures in the table include money received from NHS patients for accommodation in single rooms and small wards (section 63 NHS Act 1977), private in-patients (Section 65)and private out-patients (section 66).

  Information for 1993–94 will not be available until December 1994.

  Septrin
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate she has made about the possible side effects attributable to the use of septrin;

  (2) what plans she has to prohibit the use of septrin.

  Mr. Sackville
  Septrin—co-trimoxazole—is an effective medicine for the treatment of severe bacterial infections. Since its introduction, the side-effects associated with its use have been closely monitored by the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Control Agency. The side effects are well documented and are included in the product data sheet which is produced by the manufacturer and authorised by the licensing authority, and the "British National Formulary", which the Department of Health sends free of charge to doctors, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The Department has no plans to prohibit the use of septrin. It is our view that this drug has a place in medical practice when prescribed with appropriate care, and it is for doctors to use their training, knowledge and experience to weigh carefully the likely benefits of a drug against the anticipated risks. As for all medicines, its safety will be kept under review.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is earned by(a) staff nurses and (b) ward sisters (i) exclusive of and (ii) inclusive of allowances; and if she will provide a breakdown by nursing grade.

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table.

  Pay of nursing staff in the pay scale grades D to G at the maximum of the scale as of 1 April 1994

  Grade

  Basic £

  Estimated average earning £

  Clinical grade D (basic staff nurse)

  12,950

  15,240

  Clinical grade E (staff nurse advanced skills)

  15,000

  17,700

  Clinical grade F (basic ward sister)

  17,600

  20,230

  Clinical grade G (sister with continuing responsibility for a ward)

  19,600

  21,380

  (1) The estimated average earnings takes account of all allowances, including additional payments for unsocial hours and overtime. London payments are not included.

  (2) Nursing staff working in inner London earn up to an additional £2,605 per year.

  Disability Payments
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has further considered the possibility of local authorities being permitted to make direct payments to disabled people in lieu of care services; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I intend to take, in conjunction with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, a new power to enable social services authorities and social work departments to make direct cash payments to disabled people in lieu of community care services. Direct payments are a logical extension of the citizen's charter. They will give disabled
  333
  people greater independence and choice and involve them and their carers more fully in their own care.

  This development will give disabled people greater independence and control over their lives. It fully complements the other important measures which my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People is announcing. But, as a new departure, direct payments carry some risks. So in the short term we intend to limit those able to receive such payments to a relatively small number group, probably those disabled people who are able and willing to manage their care. The intended power will also be permissive - authorities themselves will need to decide whether to take advantage of it, based on their judgment of whether it will help them make better use of their resources. Direct payments will be an alternative to community care services, where authorities assess a need for them. There will be no overlap with social security benefits.

  There are many complex issues to be resolved. We will be working with the key interests to make sure that the details are right. It would be unwise to introduce legislation before we are satisfied that we have done so. We hope to move to a Bill as soon as practicable.

SCOTLAND

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by region, the revenue generated by on-the-bone beef exports.

  Mr. Hector Monro
  This information is not held centrally.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money Scottish Enterprise spent on replacing its computer and related equipment this year; how much money was raised by the disposal of the previous equipment; when it was purchased; and what it cost.

  Mr. Stewart
  The acquisition and disposal of computer and related equipment by Scottish Enterprise is an operational matter for that body. I have asked the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to write to the hon. Member.

  Health board

  1989–90£000s

  1990–91£000s

  1991–92£000s

  1992–93£000s

  1993–94£000s

  Argyll and Clyde

  69

  57

  49

  43

  36

  Ayr and Arran

  144

  174

  234

  142

  115

  Borders

  22

  32

  42

  52

  32

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3

  5

  6

  6

  8

  Fife

  1

  1

  4

  —

  1

  Forth Valley

  82

  22

  37

  33

  55

  Grampian

  304

  328

  473

  563

  567

  Greater Glasgow

  34

  43

  12

  19

  485

  Highland

  28

  37

  54

  60

  117

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lothian

  212

  255

  548

  608

  802

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Diet
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of the proposed conference at Kirkliston on the Scottish diet.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This conference, at Ingliston on 7 November, was organised by the Rowett Research Institute and the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland. I understand that the net cost was some £19,300.

  NHS Private Patient Facilities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients have been treated in NHS hospitals' private facilities in each of the last five years, by region.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Health Board of treatment

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Argyll and Clyde

  104

  99

  128

  87

  86

  Ayrshire and Arran

  253

  336

  440

  187

  74

  Borders

  31

  28

  28

  49

  32

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Fife

  1

  6

  7

  3

  5

  Forth Valley

  142

  82

  34

  36

  37

  Grampian

  261

  462

  485

  421

  362

  Greater Glasgow

  39

  28

  12

  43

  22

  Highland

  88

  83

  105

  120

  91

  Lanarkshire

  —

  7

  —

  1

  1

  Lothian

  115

  148

  172

  141

  145

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  150

  172

  155

  199

  128

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  1,185

  1,451

  1,566

  1,288

  983

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much income has been generated by NHS hospitals' private patient facilities in each of the last five years, by region.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information by health board area is set out in the table. The figures have been taken from health board annual accounts and, from 1992–93, a combination of health board and NHS trust annual accounts. The figures for 1993–94 are provisional. The figure for Greater Glasgow in that year includes overseas patients, and can therefore not be compared directly with those for earlier years.
  335

  Health board

  1989–90 £000s

  1990–91 £000s

  1991–92 £000s

  1992–93 £000s

  1993–94 £000s

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  130

  162

  184

  193

  244

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1,029

  1,116

  1,643

  1,719

  2,463

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the surcharges or deficits recorded by each individual NHS trust in each year since their inception.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the turnover of each NHS trust in each year since its inception.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  Wave

  NHS trust

  Turnover 1992–93 £000

  Turnover 1993–94 £000

  First

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  113,056

  114,811

  South Ayrshire Hospitals

  43,958

  45,309

  Second

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Community Healthcare

  55,158

  Caithness and Sutherland

  14,072

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  108,288

  Grampian Healthcare

  131,912

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals

  50,408

  Moray Health Services

  22,720

  North Ayrshire and Arran

  69,719

  Raigmore Hospital

  46,756

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  44,363

  Royal Scottish National Hospital and Community

  20,352

  Southern General Hospital

  78,335

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  38,646

  Victoria Infirmary

  55,620

  West Lothian

  63,419

  Yorkhill

  52,725

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which NHS trusts failed to(a) break even, (b) keep within the external financing limit and (c) record a 6 per cent. return on capital; and by what percentage and sum in each year since their inception.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  (a) None

  (b) Victoria Infirmary NHS trust overran the external financing limit by 1–4 per cent.—£21,000—in 1993–94.

  (c) As detailed in table.

  NHS trust

  1993–94 Percentage

  1993–94 Sum

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  0.4 per cent. below

  -£483,000

  Victoria Infirmary

  0.1 per cent. below

  -£461,000

  336

  NHS trust

  1993–94 Percentage

  1993–94 Sum

  Yorkhill

  0.3 per cent. below

  -£123,000

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received from farmers who have bought holdings unaware that the previous holding owner's herd was considered BSE-infected.

  Sir Hector Monro
  One farmer has made representations to my Department about the BSE status of a holding which he had purchased.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have contacted the BSE hotline since it began.

  Sir Hector Monro
  During the period between 1 August and 12 November this year, 16,769 requests for information have been dealt with by the national BSE hotline.

  In dealing with the inquiries, 276,342 herd numbers have been checked.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received regarding decision 94/474.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Forty-seven representations have been received by my Department regarding EC decision 94/474 concerning protection measures relating to BSE.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of marts operating in Scotland and the number of marts that provide systems whereby information on whether an animal comes from a BSE infected holding is available.

  Sir Hector Monro
  There are currently 33 auction markets in Scotland. The Department has no information about which of these markets provide information to purchases about the health status of an animal's farm of origin.

  Emergency Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of emergency hospital admissions by region for each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Health board of treatment

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Argyll and Clyde

  28,987

  29,572

  30,899

  32,122

  33,560

  Ayrshire and Arran

  21,708

  22,211

  23,825

  25,908

  28,529

  337

  Health Board of treatment

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Borders

  7,024

  7,532

  7,763

  8,121

  8,570

  Dumfries and Galloway

  9,289

  10,187

  10,762

  10,722

  11,386

  Fife

  17,782

  18,011

  18,887

  19,454

  19,666

  Forth Valley

  15,675

  17,714

  18,016

  18,917

  20,039

  Grampian

  35,439

  38,252

  39,072

  39,005

  40,109

  Greater Glasgow

  74,045

  77,510

  78,659

  82,473

  95,254

  Highland

  14,734

  14,705

  15,676

  16,826

  17,178

  Lanarkshire

  35,763

  36,547

  38,270

  39,001

  40,924

  Lothian

  56,781

  57,966

  59,868

  62,262

  63,637

  Orkney

  976

  1,088

  1,151

  1,144

  1,208

  Shetland

  1,290

  1,333

  1,216

  1,230

  1,377

  Tayside

  33,587

  34,339

  35,061

  35,146

  36,896

  Western Isles

  1,956

  1,923

  2,038

  2,124

  2,407

  Scotland

  355,036

  368,890

  381,163

  394,455

  420,740

  Forestry
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the Forestry Commission identifies the exact boundaries of the tracts of land it disposes of each year.

  Sir Hector Monro
  When the Forestry Commission sells an area of land it checks the boundaries on the ground against the original title deed map and a master map of its land holdings. The exact boundaries of the land are then plotted on the current Ordnance Survey map which becomes the title deed map for the sale.

  Mallaig Harbour
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make an announcement about the Mallaig harbour development.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I hope to be in a position to make an announcement within the next few weeks on Mallaig harbour authority's application for grant assistance under the Fisheries Act 1955 towards the cost of the proposed development at the harbour.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he monitors whether dentists providing NHS services are progressively moving into private practice; and what evidence he has on this matter.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  General dental practitioners are independent contractors who are free to decide whether to offer NHS treatment to each individual patient. No information is available on dentists' private practices. The Government monitor information provided regularly by all health boards on the availability of NHS dental services. No health board has reported that it has been unable to arrange access to NHS dental services for people who wish to use them in its area.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect he expects sessional pay to have on dental waiting lists.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Sessional remuneration for general dental practitioners was one of the options for change outlined in the Government's consultation paper "Improving NHS Dentistry". Ministers are now considering all the responses received before 338
  deciding the way forward. No decisions have have yet been taken.

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

  Mr. Lang
  A list of bodies which have been abolished since 1979 is not held centrally by my Department and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, there is a list of bodies which, between 1 April 1985 and 1 April 1993, have been abolished, amalgamated with other bodies, are no longer sponsored by my Department or have ceased to be non-departmental public bodies for other reasons—for example, cessation of Government funding. This is as follows:

  Advisory Committee on Statistical Information

  Appeal Panel for Entry to Pharmaceutical Lists in Scotland

  Colleges of Education—Governing bodies (5)

  Committee of Investigation for Scotland

  Consultative Committee on the Curriculum

  Countryside Commission for Scotland

  Dumping at Sea Representation Panel

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art—Board of Governors

  Dundee Institute of Technology—Board of Governors

  East of Scotland College of Agriculture—Board of Governors Edinburgh College of Art—Board of Governors

  Electricity Consultative Councils (2)

  Fire Service Examinations Board (Scotland)

  Glasgow College of Technology—Board of Governors

  Glasgow School of Art—Board of Governors

  Highlands and Islands Development Board

  Highlands and Islands Development Consultative Council

  Hill Farming Research Organisation

  Lay Observer for Scotland

  Leith Nautical College

  Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh—Board of Governors

  National Committee for the In-Service Training of Teachers

  National Health Service Tribunal for Scotland

  National Panel of Specialists

  Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland

  Newbattle Abbey College—Board of Governors

  North of Scotland College of Agriculture—Board of Governors

  Orkney Islands Shipping Company Ltd

  Paisley College of Technology—Board of Governors

  Queen's College—Board of Governors

  Queen Margaret College—Board of Governors

  Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology—Board of Governors

  Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama— Board of Governors

  Scottish Advisory Committee on Top Grade Scientific Posts

  Scottish Agricultural Development Panel

  Scottish Agricultural Statistics Consultative Committee

  Scottish Agricultural Research and Development Advisory Council

  Scottish College of Textiles—Board of Governors

  Scottish Committee for Staff Development in Education

  Scottish Council for Post Graduate Medical Education

  Scottish Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  Scottish Council for Research in Education

  Scottish Development Agency

  Scottish Health Eduction Co-ordinating Committee

  Scottish Institute of Agricultural Engineering

  Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman

  Scottish National Camps Association Ltd—Council of Management

  Scottish National War Memorial—Board of Trustees

  Scottish Special Housing Association—Council of Management

  339

  Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council

  The Scottish Agricultural College

  Visiting Committees to Detention Centres and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) (5)

  West of Scotland Agricultural College—Board of Governors

  Working Party on Management Training for Leisure and Recreation

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

  Mr. Lang
  In 1979 my Department sponsored 244 non-departmental public bodies. In 1993 there were 160.

  Prison Privatisation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the present list of Her Majesty's prisons in Scotland which are now under consideration for privatisation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no Scottish prisons currently under consideration for privatisation.

  Patient Complaints
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table detailing the number of patient complaints in each of the last five years, by region.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available for the full period requested. Information about complaints since January 1993 is now published in a series of quarterly NHS complaints bulletins, copies of which are held in the Library of the House.

  Cattle
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers(a) in total and (b) in each region have entered the voluntary passport system for cattle.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The use of animal passports is entirely voluntary and the Department has no information on the number of farmers who have decided to use them.

  Valuation and Rating Act
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what use he has made of powers under section 6 (8B) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  None.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what use has been made of his powers under section 6 (8A) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956; and if he will make a statement

  Mr. Stewart
  Section 6(8A) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 was inserted by the Local Government Finance Act 1988, schedule 12, paragraph 4. The powers have been exercised only once, in the making of the Valuation for Rating (Decapitalisation Rate) (Scotland) Regulations 1990, SI 1990 No. 505.

  Finance Statistics
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the rate of(a) gross domestic product per capita,
  340
  (b) disposable income per capita and (c) average earnings in Scotland in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is given in the table.

  Gross domestic product per head (£)

  Personal disposal income(1) per head (£)

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time head employees(2)(3)(£)

  1974

  1,267

  1,017

  39.5

  1975

  1,628

  1,278

  52.6

  1976

  1,927

  1,499

  62.7

  1977

  2,190

  1,673

  68.6

  1978

  2,452

  1,896

  77.0

  1979

  2,802

  2,252

  87.5

  1980

  3,212

  2,650

  107.4

  1981

  3,542

  3,004

  122.0

  1982

  3,894

  3,252

  133.5

  1983

  4,266

  3,519

  145.2

  1983

  —

  —

  144.3

  1984

  4,455

  3,845

  155.7

  1985

  4,920

  4,086

  165.8

  1986

  5,331

  4,463

  176.6

  1987

  5,813

  4,823

  187.9

  1988

  6,419

  5,187

  204.5

  1989

  7,054

  5,659

  221.4

  1990

  7,752

  6,351

  244.0

  1991

  8,123

  6,904

  265.3

  1992

  (P)8,616

  (P)7,617

  286.7

  1993

  —

  —

  296.8

  1994

  —

  —

  300.8

  (P) Provisional.

  Source:

  Central Statistical Office Employment Department.

  Notes:

  1 Personal disposable income is defined as the income of the personal sector (households, individuals living in hostels and other institutions, unincorporated businesses such as farms, the funds of pension and life assurance schemes, private trusts and all non-profit making bodies such as universities and charities) less taxes on income, social security contributions, community charge and current transfers from personal income. It is not a measure of the spending power of households.

  2 At April each year. Average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees whose pay was not affected by absence.

  3 1974 to first row for 1983 compiled on basis of men aged 21 and over and women aged 18 and over. Second row for 1983 onwards compiled on basis of employees on adult rates.

  Exporters
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of Scottish-based active exporters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  This answer necessarily has to be best estimate, as it cannot be definitive. The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) has around 1,800 manufacturing companies on its database, about 1,000 of which could be termed active and significant exporters. There are no data available in relation to active service sector exporters.

  Exports pertaining to small and medium sized companies had shown an 18 per cent. increase in 1993 and are now worth over £1.4 billion. Some 110,000 jobs are thought to be dependent on exporting and the SCDI's latest estimates point towards Scotland's spectacular 1993 performance being sustained.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of total farm incomes is represented by(a) hill livestock compensatory allowance payments and (b) sheep annual premiums; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  In 1993 the percentages of total income from farming represented by hill livestock compensatory allowances and sheep annual premium were 17 per cent. and 33 per cent. respectively.

  For 1992–93 the equivalent percentages for livestock farms in the less-favoured area are set out in the table:

  Percentage of net farm income represented by:

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances Per cent.

  Sheep annual premium Per cent.

  LFA Specialist sheep

  48

  150

  LFA Specialist beef

  50

  29

  LFA Mixed cattle and sheep

  55

  97

  Source:

  Scottish farm accounts scheme.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what acreage has been put into regeneration of the natural habitat in hill farming; and if he will evaluate the effect this will have on hill farm incomes.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The area of hill farming land which farmers may have put into regeneration is not known to my Department, nor is any effect that this might have on their incomes.

  Thousands

  Employees in employment

  June

  Total1

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Self-employed

  Unemployed2

  1979

  2,102

  —

  —

  146

  138

  1980

  2,082

  —

  —

  141

  166

  1981

  2,002

  —

  —

  136

  244

  1982

  1,950

  —

  —

  150

  274

  1983

  1,899

  —

  —

  164

  300

  1984

  1,901

  —

  —

  168

  308

  1985

  1,900

  —

  —

  174

  322

  1986

  1,879

  —

  —

  176

  332

  1987

  1,879

  —

  —

  182

  326

  1988

  1,921

  —

  —

  198

  278

  1989

  1,957

  —

  —

  221

  233

  1990

  1,986

  —

  —

  208

  200

  1991

  1,997

  1,490

  507

  223

  222

  1992

  2,008

  1,488

  521

  215

  237

  1993

  1,984

  1,448

  536

  216

  245

  1994

  1,962

  1,416

  546

  222

  —

  Source:

  Employment Department.

  Notes:

  1 Part-time/full-time data for all employees are not available prior to June 1991.

  2 The unemployed figures given are seasonally adjusted.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each individual corporation, company, group, organisation and other entity he has consulted for the purposes of determining evidence for the purposes of

  Unified Business Rate
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date Her Majesty's Government first decided that there should be a Scottish unified business rate; and to whom this policy was first announced.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government's unified business rates policy was first announced by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) in a speech to the Scottish Young Business Group in Glasgow on 8 May 1989. Powers were subsequently taken in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to enable my right hon. Friend to prescribe non-domestic rate poundages for each Scottish local authority from 1990–91 onwards with the intention of reducing poundages progressively to the level of the national non-domestic rate in England.

  Labour Statistics
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many adults were in(a) full-time employment, (b) part-time employment, (c) self-employment and (d) unemployment in each year since 1979; and if he will provide a breakdown by parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Information for Scotland is given in the table.

  At parliamentary constituency level, self-employed estimates are not available. The numbers unemployed are available but not in a form which will allow comparison over time on a consistent basis. Employees in employment estimates, split into full-time and part-time, are available from the censuses of employment carried out in 1981, 1984, 1987, 1989 and 1991. This information, along with the unemployment information, is on the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information.

  re-valuation of non-domestic rates to be effective from 1 April 1995.

  Mr. Stewart
  The valuation for rating of individual subjects is the responsibility of the assessor for each valuation area. It is therefore assessors, not the Secretary
  343
  of State, who gather evidence for the purposes of revaluation.

  Our consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and relevant ratepayer companies in relation to the formula valuation of certain lands and heritages under section 6 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 have been informed by evidence on movement in values generally provided by assessors.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the reasons for the delay in the payment of sheep annual premiums to farmers; and if he will consider paying compensation in cases where there has been unnecessary delay and inconvenience;

  (2) what recent representations he has received on the delay in making sheep annual premiums to farmers; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department is in the process of changing over to a new computer system designed to cope with the increased complexity of the agricultural subsidy schemes following reform of the common agricultural policy. The changeover has not gone as smoothly as I would have wished, causing delays in the issue of payments under the 1994 sheep annual premium scheme. The Department is doing its utmost to overcome the problems and get the payments out as soon as possible. Next year, the processing of SAP claims should be quicker.

  I fully recognise the importance of these advance SAP payments to producers and very much regret the delay. However, there is no obligation under the EC regulations governing the scheme to make advance payments of premium so the question of compensation does not arise.

  I have received representations about the delay in making payments from the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and from the National Farmers Union of Scotland. In addition, officials of the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department have received representations from some SAP claimants.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many sheep annual premiums have been made to date; and what is the total value of such payments;

  (2) when he expects the sheep annual premium for this year to be (a) finalised and (b) made to farmers; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  By 18 November, my Department had issued advance payments on 9,335 claims, totalling over £25 million under the 1994 scheme.

  Commission regulations 1640/94 and 1765/94 authorised member states to make first and second advance payments under the 1994 scheme based on an estimated amount of premium. Payments of both advances together began in Scotland in the week beginning 24 October 1994. Final payments under the 1994 scheme will not be made until next spring after the final rate is announced by the Commission.

  Environmental Code of Practice
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the economic impact of the national voluntary environmental code of practice on businesses; if he will list the businesses which have 344
  agreed to follow the national environmental code of practice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  There are various voluntary codes—promoted by, for example, individual industries, the international chambers of commerce, and the Confederation of British Industry—through which a commitment to environmental management may be demonstrated.

  The Government welcome such voluntary initiatives but do not keep centralised information on them.

  Inward Investment
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each inward invested project attracted to Scotland since 1990 how much the planned investment was worth and the number of jobs guaranteed.

  Mr. Stewart
  Many inward investors do not publicly announce details of their investment projects and releasing details of these projects would constitute a breach of confidence. The following table, however, gives details of the total number of inward investment and the total number of planned jobs recorded by Locate in Scotland in recent years:

  Year

  Number of projects

  Planned investment (£ million)

  Planned jobs (new and safeguarded)

  1990–91

  63

  394.1

  10,244

  1991–92

  59

  380.9

  6,002

  1992–93

  65

  352.0

  8,059

  1993–94

  95

  587.6

  11,072

  Total

  282

  1,714.6

  35,377

  The figures for planned investment and planned jobs are those provided by the companies concerned at the time of the investment decision and take no account of subsequent developments. Company plans are of course subject to change and some projects may fail to meet job forecasts, while others may exceed them. Evidence over a period of years suggests that, on average, around two-thirds of planned direct jobs are achieved. Many additional jobs are of course also created indirectly in supplier companies.

  Productivity
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of productivity within the Scottish economy using value added per employee; and if he will analyse the figures by industry.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is available only for the manufacturing sector and is set out in the table. Figures are provided for 1991, which is the latest year for which information is available.

  SIC 1980 Class

  Industry group

  Gross value added per employee (£)

  2–4

  Manufacturing industries

  23,947

  21

  Extraction and preparation of metalliferous ores

  —

  22

  Metal manufacturing

  15,915

  23

  Extraction of minerals nes

  43,514

  345

  SIC 1980 Class

  Industry group

  Gross value added per employee (£)

  24

  Manufacture of non-metallic mineral products

  27,508

  25/26

  Chemical and man-made fibre industries

  40,785

  31

  Manufacture of metal goods nes

  18,776

  32

  Mechanical engineering

  24,760

  33

  Manufacture of office machinery and data processing equipment

  42,128

  34

  Electrical and electronic engineering

  22,216

  35

  Manufacture of motor vehicles and parts

  22,573

  36

  Manufacture of other transport equipment

  24,517

  37

  Instrument engineering

  24,981

  41/42

  Food, drink and tobacco manufacturing industries

  25,332

  43

  Textile industry

  13,980

  44

  Manufacture of leather and leather goods

  23,146

  45

  Footwear and clothing industries

  13,499

  46

  Timber and wooden furniture industries

  16,705

  47

  Manufacture of paper and paper products; printing and publishing

  26,433

  48

  Processing of rubber and plastics

  22,940

  49

  Other manufacturing industries

  16,374

  Source:

  Annual Census of Production.

  Temporary Sheriffs
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the contribution temporary sheriffs make to the administration of justice in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The use of temporary sheriffs when permanent sheriffs are unavailable for court work serves to avoid increases in court waiting periods and inconvenience to court users which would result from cancelled sittings. Their use also makes an important contribution to dealing efficiently with temporary increases in court business. A balance must however be maintained between the respective contributions of permanent and temporary sheriffs and I have accordingly decided, following consultation with the sheriffs principal, to increase by three the number of permanent appointments. Applications for these posts will be invited shortly. The successful candidates will be appointed as floating sheriffs to serve in a number of courts.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for introducing 346
  a tendering system and locational supplements as parts of the woodlands grant scheme.

  Sir Hector Monro
  We will introduce a pilot system for inviting people to tender for the establishment of woodlands in the national forest. We will also introduce 40,785 a flat-rate locational supplement of £600 per hectare for appropriate woodland establishment schemes in priority areas within the central Scotland woodlands area, community forest areas in England which have had their business plans approved, Sherwood and Aman Gwendraeth in South Wales. These schemes will run for a pilot period of three years, starting with 1995–96. Full details will be announced in time for planting to take place in 1995–96.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Government's policy on the disposal of Forestry Commission woodlands, its target for the area of woodlands to be sold and its target for the amount of woodland sold for which public access should be protected by way of access agreements.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 23 November 1994]: The Government's policy on the disposal of Forestry Commission woodlands is set out at appendix VI of the commission's annual report for the year ended March 1990, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House. When we announced this policy in 1989, we asked the Commission to dispose of 100,000 hectares of forestry land and properties in the period up to the end of the century. As noted in our public expenditure plans, the Commission intends to sell 15,000 hectares in each of the next three years. Every effort will be made to secure an access agreement for all woodlands which are sold.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by county all Forestry Commission woodlands sold since 1 January 1993, indicating those for which an access agreement was in place.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 23 November 1994]: A list, by county, of the Forestry Commission woodlands sold in 1993 is held in the Library of the House. A list of those woodlands sold in 1994 will be placed in the Library early next year. Of the woodlands sold by 30 September 1994, those listed below were subject to access agreements.

  County

  Name of property

  Derbyshire

  Birch Wood

  Britton Wood

  Kings Lot and Longway Bank

  North Yorkshire

  Gateforth East

  Moreby Wood

  Sutton Wood

  Clwyd

  Nant y Ffridd (part)

  Nant y Ffridd (part)

  Dyfed

  Allt y Gwydre

  Court Wood

  Factory Wood

  Taldrum Wood

  Tan y Lan

  Ty'r Dopa

  Gwent

  Graig Syddi

  Powys

  Castlering

  Granner Wood

  Hilltop

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide an estimate for the value of fundholding allocations retained by general practitioner fundholders at the year end in each of the last four years by region.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested relates to GP fundholder savings which are retained not by the fundholder at year end but by the health board on the fundholder's behalf to be used for the benefit of patients. These figures are available only for those years for which audited health board accounts have been completed. The audited accounts for 1993–94 have not yet been finalised but it is estimated that savings will be about 4 per cent.

  Health board

  1991–92 £000

  1992–93 £000

  Argyll and Clyde

  56

  Nil

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  —

  Borders

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  Fife

  —

  —

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  Grampian

  103

  95

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  13

  Highland

  —

  —

  Lanarksire

  —

  —

  Lothian

  29

  39

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland and

  —

  —

  Tayside

  Nil

  12

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  Scotland

  188

  159

  1 Figures represent gross amounts in all cases.

  Contaminated Land
  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", which was announced on 11 March 1994, and the recent consultation exercise on the revision of Scotland's nuisance legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [pursuant to his reply 23 November 1994 c. 196–97.]: I have today published a paper which sets out my proposals for dealing with contaminated land and liabilities and concludes the review which I announced on 24 March last year. I will arrange for copies to be deposited in the Libraries of the House. I am grateful to the 91 individuals in the organisations who submitted their views in response to the consultation document.

  The Government remain committed to the "suitable for use" approach to the control of existing contamination, relating any need for remedial work to the presence of any unacceptable risks to health or the environment and to the actual or intended use of the site. This approach gained wide support from our respondents. It provides a platform for tackling real hazards where they exist in an orderly and controlled manner, without imposing unnecessary financial and regulatory burdens and without discouraging enterprise.

  Subject to parliamentary approval, I intend to use the creation of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency,
  348
  working in conjunction with the enterprise bodies, to develop guidance on remediation. I will expect the agency to take an overall monitoring and reporting role in respect of Scottish land contamination. Our "Development of Contaminated Land", is now set in the context provided by the United Kingdom sustainable development strategy, allowing us to establish a balance between green-field and brown-field development.

  My proposals are intended both to provide an appropriate and sensible approach to tackling the legacy of past contamination which will not jeopardise public health or the environment, and to take advantage of the opportunity that remediation work offers for regeneration.

  Our consultation paper also said that, in the light of the emerging conclusions of the review, the Government would re-assess the justification for the present unique statutory exemptions for abandoned mines. In view of the concerns that have been expressed about water pollution from abandoned mines, the Government will now propose legislative amendments to remove the existing statutory defence and exemptions for mines abandoned after the end of 1999 so that SEPA, as successor to the RPAs, will have the same powers, in respect of those mines, as for other discharges.

  The Government will also propose a duty of mine operators to give SEPA six months' notice of any proposed abandonment. This will provide an additional safeguard to ensure that when mines are abandoned this is done in a responsible manner with full regard to the effects on the water environment.

TREASURY

  National Audit Office
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the proportion of total public expenditure which came under the remit of the National Audit Office for each year since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  Public expenditure is usually measured in terms of general Government expenditure, comprising both central and local governemnt. The remit of the National Audit Office—in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Audit Office—includes all central Government expenditure including grants to local authorities but excluding notional items such as capital consumption. The figures for these items in each year since 1979 are as follows—the percentage of public expenditure within NAO's remit represents the total of central Government expenditure as a proportion of general Government expenditure:

  Year

  GGE £ millions

  Central Government Expenditure(excluding notionals) £ millions

  NAO remit (per cent. of GGE)

  1978–79

  72,431

  62,688

  86.55

  1979–80

  89,992

  77,361

  85.96

  1980–81

  108,637

  94,666

  87.14

  1981–82

  120,516

  104,033

  86.32

  1982–83

  132,672

  118,004

  88.94

  1983–84

  140,436

  126,393

  90.00

  1984–85

  150,789

  135,069

  89.57

  349

  Year

  GGE £ millions

  Central Government Expenditure(excluding notionals) £ millions

  NAO remit (per cent. of GGE)

  1985–86

  158,474

  144,672

  91.29

  1986–87

  164,848

  150,464

  91.27

  1987–88

  173,233

  155,366

  89.69

  1988–89

  179,798

  161,208

  89.66

  1989–90

  200,832

  175,127

  87.20

  1990–91

  218,139

  202,592

  92.87

  1991–92

  236,268

  223,949

  94.79

  1992–93

  260,237

  245,635

  94.39

  1993–94

  277,550

  264,365

  95.25

  Central Government Accounts
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of the central Government accounts, covering public spending and receipts, audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General for each year since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  The Comptroller and Auditor General is the auditor of all central Government accounts. The value of central Government receipts and payments for each year since 1978–79 covered by NAO's audits is as follows:

  Year

  Receipts(£ million)

  Payments(£ million)

  Total(£ million)

  1978–79

  56,841

  64,797

  121,638

  1979–80

  70,498

  77,361

  147,859

  1980–81

  82,583

  94,666

  177,249

  1981–82

  97,522

  104,033

  201,555

  1982–83

  104,913

  118,004

  222,917

  1983–84

  113,019

  126,393

  239,412

  1984–85

  123,266

  135,069

  258,335

  1985–86

  134,003

  144,672

  278,675

  1986–87

  139,980

  150,464

  290,444

  1987–88

  154,910

  155,366

  310,276

  1988–89

  168,386

  161,208

  329,594

  1989–90

  180,620

  175,127

  355,747

  1990–91

  204,188

  202,592

  406,780

  1991–92

  214,208

  223,949

  438,157

  1992–93

  210,343

  245,635

  455,978

  1993–94

  217,029

  264,365

  481,394

  Customs and Excise Staff
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to increase the number of Customs and Excise staff based at Tilbury;

  (2) what plans he has to cut the number of Customs and Excise staff employed at Tilbury.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to cut the number of Customs and Excise staff employed at Teesside port;

  (2) what plans he has to increase the number of Customs and Excise staff based on Teesside.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Decisions on the deployment of Customs' staff at particular places are essentially a matter for Customs and Excise based on operation requirements. It would be wrong to give details of Customs' cover for obvious security reasons.

  Taxation, Scotland
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total raised in Scotland from forms of taxation, other than income tax and VAT,(a) in 1990, (b) in 1991, (c) in 1992, (d) in 1993 and (e) in the first six months of 1994.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The total raised from VAT in Scotland was as follows:

  Year

  Amount (£ million)

  1990–91

  2,520

  1991–92

  2,850

  1992–93

  3,110

  1993–94

  3,250

  Taxation, Wales
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total raised in Wales from forms of taxation, other than income tax and VAT,(a) in 1990, (b) in 1991, (c) in 1992, (d) in 1993 and (e) in the first six months of 1994.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The total raised from VAT in Wales is estimated as follows:

  Year

  Amount (£ million)

  1990–91

  1,380

  1991–92

  1,630

  1992–93

  1,740

  1993–94

  1,820

  Cigarettes and Alcohol
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions, in each region of the United Kingdom since 1 January 1993, have been made by HM Custom and Excise for re-selling cigarettes and alcohol, which were purchased for self-consumption and had been bought, duty-paid, in other parts of the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To 31 October 1994 Customs and Excise prosecuted 307 individuals for the importation and illegal resale of alcohol and tobacco from other EU countries—178 in London and the south-east, 46 in the south and the south-west, 35 in the midlands and 48 in the north.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. Nelson
  Treasury Ministers expect to send around 1,000 official Christmas cards this year at a purchase price of approximately £300. Postage costs cannot be estimated at this stage, and information relating to staff costs is not
  351
  available. A sample copy of the Treasury Christmas card is being placed in the Members' Library.

  EC Budget Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Budget Council held on 16 November.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Budget Council on 16 November. The Council considered the European Parliament's proposed changes to the draft budget which the Council established in July,Official Report, 17 October 1994, columns 1–4; and established a second reading draft budget for 1995.

  Financial perspective expenditure ceilings

  Preliminary draft budget2

  Parliament draft budget

  Council second reading draft budget

  Commitment appropriations

  mecu

  £ million1

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  1. Common Agricultural Policy

  36,994

  29,219

  36,994

  29,219

  36,449

  28,487

  36,994

  28,913

  2. Structural operations

  25,264

  19,745

  25,264

  19,745

  25,264

  19,745

  25,264

  19,745

  3. Internal policies

  4,652

  3,636

  4,610

  3,603

  4,523

  3,544

  4,321

  3,535

  4. External action

  4,605

  3,599

  4,555

  3,560

  4,572

  3,573

  4,393

  3,433

  5. Administration expenditure

  3,852

  3,011

  3,827

  2,991

  3,823

  2,988

  3,811

  2,979

  6. Reserves

  1,146

  896

  1,146

  896

  1,146

  896

  1,146

  896

  Total commitments

  76,513

  59,799

  76,396

  59,708

  75,775

  59,222

  75,930

  59,343

  Total payment appropriations

  72,924

  56,994

  72,417

  56,597

  71,318

  55,739

  72,000

  56,272

  1 Throughout this reply the rate of £1=1.2795 ecu has been used (the rate notified in the Official Journal as prevailing on the last working day of last month (31 October).

  2 Including letter of amendment No. 1 to the PDB for 1995.

  The European Parliament will consider the draft budget for 1994 at its plenary session in December. The 1995 Community Budget is expected to be adopted by the Parliament on 15 December, to take effect from 1 January.

  The Council took no formal votes, the presidency concluding that there was the necessary majority to establish the second reading draft budget for 1995.

  The Budget Council also discussed the revision of the financial perspective to take account of enlargement.

  Ecofin
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Ecofin meeting on 7 November.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 17 November,Official Report, column 2.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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 Departments before the agency was established.

  Mr. Nelson
  The salaries of the officials concerned were as follows:

  £

  Central Statistical Office:

  76,060

  (for 1990–91)

  Paymaster General's Office:

  41,831

  (for 1993–94)

  352
  The Council's second reading draft budget totals 75,930 million ecu—£59,343 million—in commitment appropriations and 72,000 million ecu—£56,272 million—in payment appropriations. The second reading draft budget is 583 million ecu—£456 million—in commitments and 924 million ecu—£722 million—in payments below the financial perspective ceilings and is within the existing own resources ceiling of 1.20 per cent. The following table compares the outcome of the Budget Council with the proposals in the Commission's preliminary draft budget and with the proposals in the European Parliament's draft budget, with reference to the financial perspective ceilings:

  £

  Royal Mint:

  45,350

  (for 1989–90)

  Valuation Office:

  55,290

  (in 1991)

  EC Expenditure
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 21 November,Official Report, column 15, what account he took of the additional resources coming from new EC members.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The figures for the effect of the Edinburgh financing settlement on the United Kingdom net contribution—£75 million in 1995–96, rising to £250 million in the 1999—are based on a Community of Twelve.

  The financial consequences of enlargement are a separate matter. It will not be possible to determine them finally until all the prospective member states have completed their referendums and parliamentary processes, and we know exactly which ones will be joining, and until the consequential revision of the financial perspective is agreed.

  However, on the assumption that all four prospective new members join the Community, we expect that enlargement will result in a small reduction in the United Kingdom's net contribution compared with what it would otherwise have been in the absence of enlargement.

  The own resources ceiling after enlargement will remain at the levels now proposed: that is, 1.21 per cent. of Community GNP in 1995, 1.22 per cent. in 1996, 1.24 per cent. in 1997, 1.26 per cent. in 1998 and 1.27 per cent. in 1999.
  353
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the net cost to each member state of the European Union of the increase in the size of the Community budget for each of the years 1995–96 to 1999–2000.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I regret that the information is not available in the detail requested. The following analysis gives some broad indications of likely developments.

  Revenue

  All member states will contribute more to the higher budget. The extra contributions will be broadly in line with their relative GNP, apart from the effect of the United Kingdom abatement. Thus Germany will contribute about 30 per cent. of the extra cost, France over 20 per cent., and Italy between 15 and 20 per cent. The United Kingdom will contribute about 16 per cent. before abatement. Other, smaller member states will pay a smaller share.

  As now, the United Kingdom abatement will reduce our net contribution by 66 per cent. of the difference between our contribution to, and receipts from, the allocated budget—that is, excluding external expenditure, on which we get no rebate.

  Change in the own resources structure

  By 1999, member states' gross contributions to the Community will more closely reflect their actual GNP shares rather than their shares of a notional harmonised VAT base. GNP is widely acknowledged to be a fairer measure of a member state's ability to contribute than VAT.

  The impact of this change in the structure of the revenue side of the budget, taken in isolation, is expected to benefit mainly Spain, Germany and France, with Portugal, Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg being small gainers. Italy will pay heavily—reflecting the benefit it has received in the past from having a VAT base which is a smaller proportion of its GNP base than any other member state; Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands will also pay more. There will be no change in the United Kingdom's net contribution, taking one year with another, because any changes to our gross contributions which arise will be wholly offset by the abatement in the following year.

  Expenditure

  It is not possible to estimate with any certainty how each member state would benefit from the additional resources available. The following gives some pointers:

  (a) Agriculture. The Edinburgh European Council decisions make no difference to the distribution of CAP receipts between member states, although the recent reform of the CAP will change the balance to some extent; and the Community now has a new GATT commitment to reduce the value of export subsidies and the volume of subsidised exports.

  (b) Cohesion Fund. The Cohesion Fund (worth 2.6 billion ecu in 1999–1992 prices) will benefit Spain, Greece, Portugal and the Irish Republic. The allocations decided by the European Council are: Spain 52–58 per cent., Greece 16–20 per cent., Portugal 16–20 per cent., Ireland 7–10 per cent. This is likely to lead to receipts of about 1.4 billion ecu for Spain, 0.5 billion ecu for Portugal, 0.5 billion ecu for Greece and 0.2 billion ecu for Ireland.

  (c) Structural Funds. The largest relative beneficiaries will be those member states composed entirely or mainly of "Objective 1" regions (regions where development is lagging behind): Spain, Greece, Portugal and the Irish Republic. Increased grants are also available to the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland has long been, and Merseyside and the Highlands and Islands have
  354
  now become objective 1 regions, though all were, strictly speaking, too rich in terms of per capita GNP to qualify.

  (d) Other internal policies. These include research and development, trans-European networks and a range of other policies. Member states' receipts will depend upon specific decisions taken in specialist Councils and in the annual Budget Councils.

  (e) External actions. These will, by definition, not result in receipts for member states, though much of the business which results from this expenditure will benefit firms in the Community, including those from the United Kingdom.

  (f) Administration. The principal beneficiaries are likely to be Belgium and Luxembourg where most of the Community's administrative activities are concentrated. France will also benefit from the decision that the European Parliament should remain in Strasbourg. (The United Kingdom acts as host to the JET research programme at Culham in Oxfordshire and has been chosen to provide the site (Canary Wharf, London) of the new Medicines Evaluation Agency.)

  Overall assessment

  In recent years, the United Kingdom has usually been the second largest net contributor to the EC Budget, both in total per capita, after Germany.

  By 1999, we expect that France will have passed us on both counts. The Netherlands is also expected to be a larger per capita net contributor. Italy's net contributions to the Community will increase significantly, though she will still pay less than us. Germany will remain by far the largest net contributor, and will pay much more than us towards the Edinburgh deal.

  Of the new member states, Austria and Sweden are expected to be larger net contributors than us per head of population, as is Norway, if it joins. Finland will be broadly in budgetary balance.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the net cost incurred by each of the EC member states as a result of the 1988 financing review in each of the subsequent financial years.

  Mr. Heatcoat-Amory
  This information is not readily available and estimates could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Rates Revaluation
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions the Scottish Assessors Association or its representatives has met its counterparts in the Inland Revenue with respect to the impending rates revaluation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  In dealing with the impending rates revaluation, both the Valuation Office agency and the Scottish Assessors Association have followed long-standing practice on harmonisation.

  Since the last revaluation in 1990 there have been 13 meetings of the Steering Committee on Harmonisation (Practice and Procedure) England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the last seven of which have concentrated on the impending revaluation. The most recent was held on 27 October 1994.

  In addition, there has been on-going contract at working level covering particular classes of property and harmonisation issues, precise details of which are not readily available.

  "A Tax on Disability"
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study his Department has made of "A
  355
  Tax on Disability" published by the Disablement Income Group, a copy of which has been sent to him; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heatcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 22 November 1994]: The report has been read by Treasury Ministers and officials and its recommendations have been noted. The Government have put in place a substantial package of assistance to help meet the cost of VAT on fuel and power. It will help over 15 million people including the overwhelming majority of disabled people. The value of the package builds to £.1.3 billion a year.

  Charging Policies
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the charging policy of his Department and the agencies for which he is responsible in respect of inquiries under the code of practice on access to government.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 22 November 1994]: The Office of Public Service and Sciences has produced guidance on charging which recognises the diversity of costs and operational structure across the range of bodies implementing the code. In line with this guidance, the Departments and agencies for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible have developed schemes of charges for information under the code of practice on access to Government information.

  The Treasury
  For simple requests the first hour's work is free. Requests taking between one and three hours to prepare are charged at £15 per hour or part of an hour. For complex requests taking more than three hours, the charge is based on the actual cost of the extra work.

  HM Customs and Excise
  The Department has adopted the same arrangements as the Treasury.

  Inland Revenue
  A charge of £15 is made for handling requests except where the cost of staff time and other direct costs of meeting the request are estimated at £50 or more. In those cases, the charge is equal to the estimated cost.

  Valuation Office
  The office has the same arrangements as the Inland Revenue.

  Central Statistical Office
  Answering requests for statistics and analysis is the CSO's raison d'etre and charges for meeting these requests are made in line with the charging guidelines published in the CSO's agency framework documents. The CSO's policy is not to charge for meeting requests for some other information, for example, on the CSO's policies and activities.

  Registry of Friendly Societies
  The Department carries out a public record function relating to the registration of mutual societies. A standard fee is charged for the inspection on any particular day of documents relating to a single society or branch and copies can be supplied at £1.50 for up to five pages. No charge is made for general information about performance of the Department but if requests are made which result in additional work, a similar level of charge is payable as for the inspection of documents. More complex requests are costed individually.

  Royal Mint
  The agency's policy is to treat each application on its merits. Account is taken of the complexity of the request in deciding whether it would be appropriate to levy a charge which would be based on the Office of Public Service and Science guidelines.

  Department for National Savings
  The Department's current policy is to provide information free of charge but its policy is being reviewed in the light of experience of the past eight months of the code's operation.

  National Investment and Loans Office
  It is the policy of the office to follow the guidelines on charging set out by the Office of Public Service and Sciences.

DEFENCE

  Borletti
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department was aware of the limited performance of the Borletti L85 fuse, the MOD contract for which was placed with Borletti on 20 March 1991.

  Mr. Freeman
  The limits on use of the L85 fuse have been known since its introduction into services in 1980.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reason was given by his Department for the placing of a £2,088,000 order for L85 fuses with Borletti on 20 March 1991.

  Mr. Freeman
  The order for artillery shell fuses was placed after a competition between Borletti, which offered the L85 fuse, and Royal Ordnance plc, which offered the L106 fuse. Orders were placed for both fuses, with the mix between them being determined by factors such as the operational conditions under which the fuse was to be used and priced.

  RNAD Coulport
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions are imposed on the operation of radar and radio equipment by vessels on Loch Long in the vicinity of RNAD Coulport.

  Mr. Soames
  The area in Loch Long around RNAD Coulport contains a protected area and a restricted area. Non-military vessels are only permitted to enter the restricted area. No mandatory restrictions are applied to non-military vessels, but it has been the practice to ask vessels proceeding up or down Loch Long to cease operating radar equipment while within the restricted area. We are unaware of any instance where masters have been reluctant to comply.

  Contaminated Military Sites
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the paper presented by John Stuart, head of his Department's environment unit, to a defence industry conference in Munich at the end of October, on contaminated military sites.

  Mr. Soames
  The 1994 environmental restoration opportunities conference was held in Munich in October in conjunction with a meeting of the NATO committee responsible for a pilot study on the environmental aspects of reusing former military lands. The conference enabled representatives of Government and industry from many NATO and other central and eastern European countries to exchange information and views on the challenges facing them in dealing with contaminated land, and Mr. Stuart was one of many speakers. As we have previously made clear, we are reviewing our procedures for dealing with land contamination on the defence estate, and this process is helped by sharing experience with other countries.

  Mortar Fuses
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Junghans is being considered as a supplier for a mortar fuse order.
  357
  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has no plans for a direct purchase of mortar bomb fuses from Junghans. Different options for the fuse of the high explosive element of the 51 mm mortar bomb order, placed with Royal Ordnance plc in July, are being considered. Under the terms of the contract, whichever fuse is chosen is a matter for the company's technical commercial judgment.

  Loch Long
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-military vessels, and of what nationalities, have been boarded by United Kingdom military personnel in Loch Long in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Soames
  Boardings of non-military vessels in Loch Long are conducted not by military personnel but by the Clyde marine unit of the Ministry of Defence Police. Records of the nationality of vessels boarded are not kept. The number of boardings in each year since 1990 is:

  1990: 6

  1991: 4

  1992: 2

  1993: 2

  1994: 6

  Borletti, Junghans and Raupass
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to reclaim moneys from the companies Borletti, Junghans and Raupass.

  Mr. Freeman
  Civil proceedings have commenced against Gordon Foxley, certain members of his family circle and the companies involved in the payment of secret commissions.

  Light Armour Weapons
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the orders, and their value, which have been placed by his Department for light armour weapons since 1985.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since 1985, my Department has placed two orders for weapons used against light armoured vehicles, one with Hunting Engineering Ltd. in 1986 for the light anti-armour weapon for the 1980s and one with Raufoss in 1987 for the M72 light anti-armour weapon. The values of these orders were £237 million and £2.4 million respectively. In addition, two orders have more recently been placed for rifle-launched grenades that have an armour piercing capability. The value of these orders, placed with Luchaire, is commercially confidential.

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he ordered an attrition batch of Sea Harriers; with what inertial navigation system they will be fitted on delivery to the Royal Navy; if he will list Sea Harrier losses over the past five years, showing for each how far electronic and electrical systems and sub-systems were recoverable for reuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  An initial batch of 10 new aircraft was ordered in March 1990. A further order, bringing the total to 18, was placed in January 1994. An additional five conversions were ordered separately in July 1994 to 358
  complete the attrition reserve. On delivery, some aircraft will be fitted initially with the current standard inertial navigation equipment known as NAVHARS—navigation, heading and attitude system—taken from Navy spares stocks. The possibility of fitting later deliveries with a replacement navigation system incorporating more modern technology, including a global positioning system, is currently being examined.

  The Sea Harrier losses over the past five years are as follows:

  Sea Harrier FRS Mk1

  4 October 1989 (HMS ARK ROYAL)

  1 December 1989 (HMS INVINCIBLE)

  8 May 1990 (HMS INVICNIBLE)

  10 May 1991 (Wales)

  28 May 1992 (HMS INVINCIBLE)

  16 April 1994 (Bosnia-Herzegovina)

  Sea Harrier F/A2

  5 January 1994 (Chivenor)

  Electronic and electrical systems and sub-systems are not re-used after the inevitable impact damage which occurs when an aircraft is lost.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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.

  Mr. Freeman
  The salary of the civil servants whose duties most closely compare with those of the present chief executives of my Department's agencies are as follows:

  Agency

  Year

  Remuneration £

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  1992–93

  53,000

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment

  1990–91

  48,600

  Defence Accounts Agency

  1990–91

  46,946

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  1992–93

  53,481

  Defence Animal Centre

  1993–94

  46,059

  Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency

  1994–95

  55,958

  Defence Operational Analysis Centre

  1992–93

  46,122

  Defence Postal and Courier Service

  1992–93

  62,090

  Defence Research Agency

  1990–91

  59,020

  359

  Agency

  Year

  Remuneration £

  Disposal Sales Agency

  1994–5

  42,930

  Duke of Yorks Royal Military School

  1991–92

  43,000

  Hydrograph'ic Office

  1989–90

  43,851

  Logistic Information System Agency

  1994–95

  55,958

  Meteorological Office

  1989–90

  53,100

  Military Survey

  1990–91

  46,084

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation

  1991–92

  47,578

  Queen Victoria School

  1991–92

  33,578

  RAF Maintenance Group

  1990–91

  51,957

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment

  1994–95

  55,045

  RAF Training Group

  1993–94

  56,710

  Service Children School (North–West Europe)

  1990–91

  37,900

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the date those occasions over the last two years when Ministers or officials in his Department have met lobbying companies, prior to a decision being made on the subject of the meeting with the lobbying company.

  Royal Naval Services

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  1 April

  Officers

  Other Ranks

  Officers

  Other Ranks

  Officers

  Other Ranks

  1979

  10,029

  62,471

  17,153

  139,028

  14,580

  71,730

  1984

  9,831

  61,450

  17,220

  144,319

  15,139

  77,950

  1989

  10,156

  54,483

  17,310

  138,257

  15,374

  76,069

  1990

  10,162

  53,052

  17,433

  135,379

  15,274

  74,411

  1991

  10,126

  51,929

  17,509

  130,130

  15,215

  73,156

  1992

  10,097

  52,022

  17,240

  128,123

  15,058

  70,904

  1993

  9,802

  49,555

  16,129

  118,454

  14,472

  66,437

  1994

  9,182

  46,597

  14,840

  108,188

  13,465

  62,216

  The figures include trained personnel and those undergoing training and personnel in the nursing services. They have been extracted from "Tri-Service Personnel Statistics 1—Strengths, Intake and Outflow of United Kingdom Regular Forces", copies of which are placed in the Library of the House.

  Lockheed C130J
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates of the meetings between officials in his Department and Market Access International to discuss the Lockheed C 130J.

  Mr. Freeman
  A representative from Market Access International was present at, but did not play an active part in, a presentation given by Lockheed last October which was attended by officials from my Department. Otherwise, there have, to the best of my knowledge, been no meetings between MOD officials and Market Access International personnel to discuss the Hercules rolling replacement programme.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specialist advice on international finance, export credits and business development is available to his Department's Defence Export Services Organisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Defence Export Services Organisation receives advice on international finance and export credits from its international finance adviser, who
  360
  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally arid could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the guidelines issued by his Department to regulate relationships with lobbying companies.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department is well aware of the need to take into account the full range of appropriate considerations, including regularity and propriety, when taking decisions and when dealing with external contractors or lobbyists.

  Conditions of service for the staff of my Department incorporate the general principles of conduct that require civil servants not to misuse information which they acquire in the course of their duties, not to make use of their official position to further their private interests or those of others and not to receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party, which might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity.

  Staffing
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of officers and ranks in the(a) Army, (b) Royal Air Force and (c) Royal Navy for 1979, 1984 and each year since 1989.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is provided in the table below:

  maintains close links with the Export Credits Guarantee Department. DESO's business development branch is the initial point of contact and advice for small and medium– sized companies new to the defence export field.

  Defence Contractors
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence contractors are on the list of contractors requiring special attention; and how many of such contractors were(a) newly placed on the list and (b) left the list in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are currently 10 contractors on the list of contractors requiring special attention. The additional information required could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Anglo-German Co-operation
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Anglo-German defence co-operation.
  361
  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 22 November 1994,Official Report, column 134.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  New Palace Yard
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what consultation he undertook with right hon. and hon. Members prior to the purchase of the new parking and traffic management signs in New Palace Yard which replaced the previous plastic cones; and what was the cost of this project.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The proposal by the Parliamentary Works Directorate to improve the signs in New Palace Yard was endorsed by the Committee on 18 May 1994. The cost of the signs was £8,090 including VAT.

  Norman Shaw North
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what representations he has received from hon. Members with offices in the Norman Shaw building or their staff(a) in respect of recent works in the Norman Shaw building to (i) the main lifts, (ii) the rear lift. (iii) the card-controlled rear access door, (iv) the card-controlled gate access from the Embankment, (v) the refurbishment of the car park and (vi) the allocation of parking spaces to non-essential personnel with residences within the Palace and (b) in respect of the numbers and qualifications of security personnel.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Two hon. Members have made representations concerning matters referred to in(a). No other representations have been received.

  Parliamentary Offices
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what will be the effect of the problems associated with construction at Westminster station on the timetable for the construction of new parliamentary offices.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The Accommodation and Works Committee has established close links with the senior management of London Underground. It receives monthly reports from a joint steering group set up to oversee the interface between the new station and parliamentary building projects, and will be meeting the chief executive shortly to review progress.

  The most recent report from the steering group shows that London Underground has agreed a revised programme with its contractor to achieve the February 1997 date when the site is to be ready for construction to start on the parliamentary project.

  State Opening
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what was the total cost to Parliament of the State Opening of Parliament on 16 November.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The total cost of the State Opening of Parliament on 16 November has not yet been finalised 362
  but some £40,000 has been set aside by the two Houses for this purpose.

  Upper Waiting Hall Exhibitions
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the new parliamentary building to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 12 December to Friday 16 December.

WALES

  Drugs
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the level of funding for drugs initiatives in West Glamorgan in 1995–96 provided by(a) the Welsh Office and (b) the Home Office.

  Mr. Richards
  The funding of local initiatives to combat drug misuse in Wales are the responsibilities of the local agencies involved. Following the recommendations of the efficiency scrutiny of health promotion in Wales, central Welsh Office resources of some £2.3 million were added to the allocations of Welsh district health authorities from 1 April 1994.

  Home Office funding is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many people are employed in his drugs and alcohol unit;

  (2) what is the budget for this drugs and alcohol unit for 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend announced on the 19 October that he was setting up a drugs and alcohol unit. Action is in hand to identify and recruit staff to it. The unit will have access to a budget of £333,000 in 1994–95. Provision for 1995–96 has not yet been finalised.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives are being pursued to educate young people about the effects of substance abuse and drug taking; what is the current budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave him on 26 October 1994,Official Report, columns 658–60.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sums of money divested from the Welsh Office budget in the current year down to the local health authorities aimed specifically at the prevention of drug abuse.

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Office has provided local health authorities with a total of more than £2,300,000 aimed at combating drug misuse.

  Farmers Unions (Meetings)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many consultative meetings were arranged during the
  363
  last 12 months with the National Farmers Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We consult regularly with the National Farmers Union on issues that arise from time to time.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many consultative meetings were arranged during the last 12 months with the Farmers Union of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We consult regularly with the Farmers Union of Wales over issues that arise from time to time.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which NHS trusts failed to(a) break even, (b) keep within the external financing limit and (c) record a 6 per cent. return on capital; and by what percentage and sum in each year since their inception.

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Break even

  In 1993–94 Clwydian NHS trust made a revenue deficit of £84,000.

  (b) Keep within external financing limit

  In 1993–94 Swansea NHS trust and Powys NHS trust exceeded their external financing limit by £10,000 and £252,000 respectively.

  (c) Rate of Return

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust achieved a 4.7 per cent. rate of return in 1992–93 and a 6.9 per cent. rate of return in 1993–94. Clwydian NHS trust achieved a 5.6 per cent. rate of return in 1993–94.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the surpluses or deficits recorded by each individual NHS trust in each year since their inception.

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  NHS Trust

  (£000) Surplus

  (£000) Deficit

  1992–93

  Pembrokeshire

  116

  —

  1993–94

  Bridgend and District

  100

  —

  Carmarthen and District

  342

  —

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  160

  —

  Clwydian Community Care

  —

  84

  Glan Clwyd

  288

  —

  Glan Hafren

  560

  —

  Gwent Community Health

  393

  —

  Llandough

  335

  —

  Llanelli/Dinefwr

  316

  —

  Pembrokeshire

  Broke even

  —

  Powys Health Care

  476

  —

  South East Wales Ambulance

  48

  —

  Swansea

  146

  —

  Wrexham Maelor

  588

  —

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general and senior managers were employed by NHS trusts in each year since 1991–92 by region.

  Mr. Richards
  The whole-time equivalent number of general and senior managers in post in NHS trusts at 30 September was as follows. In the table, trusts are 364
  shown against the district health authority area in which they are situated. The first trust in Wales was established on 1 April 1992. From April 1993 there were 14 trusts and from April 1994, 24 trusts. The aggregate figures given are not, therefore, comparable over time as different numbers of trusts may be included within each area for different years.

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Clwyd1

  —

  107

  119

  East Dyfed

  —

  54

  80

  Gwent

  —

  89

  129

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  37

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  29

  107

  Pembrokeshire

  21

  21

  17

  Powys

  —

  37

  37

  South Glamorgan2

  —

  99

  108

  West Glamorgan

  —

  15

  39

  Wales

  21

  451

  673

  1 Includes figures for North Wales Ambulance Trust, established 1 April 1994, which covers both Clwyd and Gwynedd areas.

  2 Includes figures for South and East Wales Ambulance Trust, established I April 1993, which covers South Glamorgan, Gwent and Powys.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the turnover of each NHS trust in each year since its inception.

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  NHS trust

  £ million

  1992–93

  Pembrokeshire

  40.1

  1993–94

  Bridgend and District

  60.8

  Carmarthen and District

  37.0

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  22.7

  Clwydian Community Care

  60.1

  Glan Clwyd

  55.4

  Glan Hafren

  91.1

  Gwent Community Health

  56.2

  Llandough

  45.8

  Llanelli/Dinefwr

  27.3

  Pembrokeshire

  41.5

  Powys Health Care

  41.8

  South East Wales Ambulance

  16.1

  Swansea

  52.3

  Wrexham Maelor

  49.1

  Schools (Teachers)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the pupil-teacher ratios for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94 for public sector (i) nursery schools, (ii) primary schools, (iii) secondary schools, (iv) non-maintained schools, (v) special schools and (vi) all schools; and whether these figures include unqualified teachers.
  365
  Mr. Richards
  The following table gives figures for LEA-maintained schools:

  1992–93

  11993–94

  Nursery

  20.3

  20.6

  Primary

  22.1

  22.3

  Secondary

  15.7

  15.9

  Special

  6.2

  6.4

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  Schools Census data.

  There are no public sector non-maintained schools. The ratios for grant-maintained schools are 1992–93: 15.2; 1993–94: 16.8. The corresponding figures for all maintained schools are 18.6 and 18.8. Independent schools are not included in these figures.

  Pupil-teacher ratios are calculated using full-time equivalent qualified teachers only.

  Hospitals (Private Patients)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much income has been generated by NHS hospitals' private patient facilities in each of the last five years, by region.

  Mr Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 10 February 1994,Official Report, column 433. Final figures for 1993–94 are not available.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are being taken to increase the number of

  1Nursing and Midwifery Staff in post at 30 September (whole-time equivalent).

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Pembrokeshire

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  2WHCSA

  Wales

  1990

  Qualified nurses3

  2,359

  1,433

  2,782

  1,389

  3,382

  525

  660

  3,010

  2,437

  10

  17,987

  Unqualified nurses4

  815

  610

  1,232

  523

  1,395

  152

  399

  1,299

  606

  —

  7,031

  Nurses on local pay scales5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  Qualified nurses3

  2,427

  1,425

  2,734

  1,365

  3,396

  532

  685

  2,965

  2,464

  16

  18,009

  Unqualified nurses4

  843

  593

  1,190

  555

  1,381

  154

  400

  1,232

  616

  56

  7,020

  Nurses on local pay scales5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  1992

  Qualified nurses3

  2,470

  1,446

  2,682

  1,391

  3,407

  495

  656

  3,079

  2,452

  17

  18,095

  Unqualified nurses4

  878

  606

  1,182

  577

  1,494

  148

  388

  1,299

  729

  56

  7,357

  Nurses on local pay scales5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  104

  —

  —

  —

  —

  104

  1993

  Qualified nurses3

  2,413

  1,444

  2,624

  1,445

  3,337

  408

  618

  3,105

  2,496

  19

  17,909

  Unqualified nurses4

  866

  617

  1,122

  581

  1,471

  136

  392

  1,253

  726

  58

  7,222

  Nurses on local pay scales5

  48

  —

  —

  23

  —

  216

  —

  1

  —

  —

  288

  366
  teachers qualified to teach through the medium of the Welsh language; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  We have put in place an incentive supplement scheme to increase the supply of secondary teachers trained to teach through the medium of Welsh; 121 students have been recruited to secondary Welsh medium initial teacher training courses this year—an increase of 17 per cent. over the equivalent figure for 1993—and overall recruitment to Welsh medium courses has increased by 8 per cent.

  Funding is also available to local education authorities in Wales, though the grants for education support and training programme, to increase the number of teachers able to teach other subjects through the medium of Welsh. This funding provides courses to enable teachers to transfer from English medium to Welsh medium teaching.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations have been received over the last 12 months on the funding of the teaching of Welsh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  A number of representations have been made to the Welsh Office over the last 12 months. The Department is making available grant aid of over L6 million for Welsh in this financial year.

  Nurses
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many qualified nursing staff there were by speciality for each region in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Richards
  Information on the number of all nursing and midwifery staff employed directly by the national health service in Wales is given in the following table. Reliable figures by specialty are not available centrally. It is not possible to provide separate information on qualified nurses for those on local pay scales.
  367

  1Nursing and Midwifery Staff in post at 30 September (whole-time equivalent).

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Pembroke shire

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  2WHCSA

  Wales

  1994

  Qualified nurses3

  2,432

  1,424

  2,483

  1,401

  3,297

  2

  —

  3,175

  2,572

  20

  16,805

  Unqualified nurses4

  871

  599

  1,025

  571

  1,493

  —

  2

  1,237

  762

  53

  6,613

  Nurses on local pay scales5

  47

  —

  —

  32

  —

  723

  994

  6

  —

  —

  1,801

  Notes:

  1 Staff employed by NHS trusts are shown against the health authority area in which they are situated.

  2 Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  3 Grade C and above.

  4 Excludes pre-registration learners.

  5 Qualified and unqualified.

  Source:

  NHS payroll system and associated information systems.

  Police
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations his Department has made to the Home Office on the subject of police force manning levels in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  These are matters for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide an estimate for the value of fundholding allocations retained by general practitioner fundholders at the year end in each of the last four years, by region.

  Mr. Richards
  The information, for the last three years for which final accounts are available, is as follows:

  1990–91

  1991–92

  (£000) 1992–93

  Nil

  40

  465

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the management allowances payments made to general paractitioner fundholding practices and practices preparing to be fundholders(a) by wave and (b) in total for each (i) family health service authority and (ii) region in the last year for which figures are available.

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  11993–94

  In-patient cases:

  Clwyd

  388

  419

  394

  365

  370

  East Dyfed

  637

  348

  195

  154

  106

  Gwent

  48

  106

  109

  99

  140

  Gwynedd

  229

  244

  272

  171

  110

  Mid Glamorgan

  297

  173

  230

  146

  144

  Pembrokeshire

  135

  159

  79

  44

  64

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  111

  118

  118

  119

  97

  West Glamorgan

  149

  193

  161

  159

  173

  Wales

  1,994

  1,760

  1,558

  1,257

  1,204

  Out-patient attendances:

  Clwyd

  2,267

  3,167

  2,511

  2,343

  2,187

  East Dyfed

  2,441

  1,839

  1,779

  1,809

  1.254

  Gwent

  70

  78

  65

  90

  130

  Gwynedd

  290

  367

  235

  289

  266

  Mid Glamorgan

  672

  692

  881

  491

  239

  Pembrokeshire

  1,534

  1,489

  1,673

  1,225

  1,259

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  368
  Mr. Richards: Practice fund management allowance payments are not recorded by wave.

  The following payments were made in 1992–93, die latest year for which details are available:

  FHSA

  £000

  Clwyd

  439

  Dyfed

  150

  Gwynedd

  17

  Mid Glam

  181

  Powys

  103

  South Glam

  86

  West Glam

  370

  Wales

  1,632

  Source:

  FHSA annual acccounts 1992–93.

  Hospitals (Private Patients)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients have been treated in NHS hospitals' private facilities in each of the last five years, by region.

  Mr. Richards
  The information available, which relates to private patient attendances at NHS hospitals, is given in the following table. The number of cases or attendances does not relate to the number of people who have received treatment as individuals may be treated more than once a year.
  369

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  11993–94

  South Glamorgan

  1,058

  1,163

  1,008

  733

  752

  West Glamorgan

  624

  917

  863

  963

  1,029

  Wales

  8,956

  9,712

  9,015

  7,948

  7,116

  Day cases attendances:

  Clwyd

  513

  129

  103

  103

  145

  East Dyfcd

  452

  151

  92

  114

  135

  Owent

  47

  105

  116

  126

  106

  Gwynedd

  182

  117

  258

  126

  132

  Mid Glamorgan

  139

  126

  168

  151

  174

  Pembrokeshire

  149

  85

  60

  46

  81

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  5

  8

  4

  1

  2

  West Glamorgan

  364

  504

  346

  357

  251

  Wales

  1,851

  1,225

  1,147

  1,024

  1,026

  Regular day patient-attendances:

  Clwyd

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Dyfed

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  1 Provisional

  Training
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many training weeks(a) were promised and (b) were undertaken for (i) employment training, (ii) youth training and (iii) other programmes for each TEC in Wales, for each year since their inception.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply m the Library of the House.

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

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not held centrally.

  Measles Immunisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with chairmen of the(a) Welsh health authorities and (b) family health service authorities with respect to the reimbursement of the cost of the measles immunisation campaign.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have seen no reason to consult chairmen of Welsh health authorities on this issue. I have already provided an extra £713,000 towards the cost of mis campaign, and authorities have been requested to provide my Department, by 20 December, with details of any additional costs involved. I shall then consider whether to make further money available.

  Integrated Transport
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will consider pilot schemes to establish the 370
  feasibility of integrated transport programmes for north-east Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is primarily a matter for Clwyd county council.

  River Dee Crossing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the amount of transport supplementary grant he will pay to Clwyd county council for the construction of the new River Dee crossing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Clwyd county council estimates that the scheme will cost £61 million. Transport grant is being provided to meet 50 per cent. of eligible expenditure, with the balance made available to Clwyd county council in the form of supplementary credit approvals.

  Crewe-Holyhead Line
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he had with British Rail on the proposed upgrading of the Crewe to Holyhead railway line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I met Mr. Robert Horton, chairman of Railtrack, recently and we discussed the plans to upgrade the line as far as Bangor over the next two years to allow 90 mph running.

  Buses, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has with the traffic commissioners to ensure that bus companies in Clwyd that operate services in and around King Edward street, Shotton, Deeside are aware of the requirements of road safety, the need for small buses in narrow streets and for
  371
  consultations between the public and those who provide bus services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Traffic commissioners have a statutory responsibility for ensuring the safe and reliable operation of local bus services. Responsibility for deciding when local services need to be restricted in terms of vehicle size or their routes lies initially with the local highway authority which may, in the interests of road safety or to relieve severe traffic congestion, ask the traffic commissioner to determine a traffic regulation condition.

  1Number of immediate admissions Thousands

  Area of treatment

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Thousands 1992–93

  Clywd

  29.2

  30.2

  39.3

  37.2

  36.7

  East Dyfed

  15.8

  16.3

  18.1

  21 .8

  25.2

  Gwent

  33.4

  34.9

  36.2

  38.4

  39.1

  Gwynedd

  22.7

  18.9

  18.7

  21.4

  16.7

  Mid Glamorgan

  41.0

  43.8

  45.2

  50.4

  52.3

  Powys

  3.3

  3.9

  3.8

  4.4

  4.6

  South Glamorgan

  35.9

  40.4

  44.1

  48.4

  47.9

  West Glamorgan

  29.5

  32.5

  26.1

  35.5

  32.4

  Pembrokeshire

  10.1

  11.0

  10.2

  9.7

  10.2

  Wales2

  221.0

  231.2

  241.6

  265.2

  270.1

  1 Including accident and emergency.

  2 Since 1991–92, includes admissions for which the area of treatment is not known.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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.

  Mr. Redwood
  The head of Cadw, before it became an agency in 1990, was paid £42,181. There were no additional emoluments.

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list and date those occasions over the last two years when Ministers or officials in his Department have met lobbying companies, prior to a decision being made on the subject of the meeting with the lobbying company.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the guidelines issued by his Department to regulate relationships with lobbying companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  Conditions of service for the staff of my Department incorporate the general principles of conduct that require civil servants not to misuse information which they acquire in the course of their duties; not to make use of their official position to further their private interests or those of others; and not to receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party, which might be seen to compromise their personal judgement or integrity.

  Transportation of Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of South
  372
  I understand that the traffic commissioner for the north-western traffic area has not received any request for the determination of a traffic regulation condition in or around King Edward street in Shotton. I therefore see no need to consult him about these issues.

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

  Mr. Richards
  Latest estimates by district health authority area, are given in the following table:

  Glamorgan health authority and the chairman of the Wrexham Maelor hospital trust with respect to the defective packaging and containment of the body transported to the University hospital of Wales from Wrexham; if he will set up an inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is currently a matter for the Wrexham Maelor NHS trust. The trust has already announced that a formal inquiry into the circumstances of this case has begun. Representatives of South Glamorgan health authority and the University hospital of Wales will be invited to participate. The trust has apologised to the family and made it clear that it will conduct the inquiry and handle its conclusions with the family's welfare uppermost in its mind. I am asking to see the report of the inquiry to consider whether there are any policy implications.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when sheep annual premiums were finalised; on what date payments were authorised to be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The rate of premium for both the first and second advance of payment for 1994 was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, No. L172 on 7 July 1994 as Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1640/94. Payments are authorised on an individual basis as and when they are processed.

  Farmers in Wales received their advance payments much earlier this year and the great majority of claims were paid by the end of September.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sheep annual premiums have been made to date; and what is the total value of such payments.
  373
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As at 18 November, 15,283 claimants in Wales have been paid a total of £73.704,491 as advance premium under the 1994 scheme.

  Hill Farming
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what acreage has been put into regeneration of the natural habitat in hill farming; and if he will evaluate the affect this will have on hill farm incomes.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The environmentally sensitive areas scheme includes provisions for annual payments to farmers for the regeneration of heather moorland and other upland habitats. Some 22,000 acres of land are being managed under those tiers of the scheme in Wales. Other schemes also provide assistance to hill farmers for habitat enhancement but it is not possible to quantify the area of land benefiting from those schemes. It is not possible to isolate the effect which any of these measures will have on hill farm incomes.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of total farm incomes is represented by(a) hill livestock compensatory allowance payments and
  374
  (b) sheep annual premiums; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information for 1992–93 is as follows:

  Type of subsidy

  Percentage of net farm income Hill and upland (LFA) livestock farms

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances

  35.8

  Sheep annual premium

  89.7

  Estimates of farm incomes for 1993–94 and forecasts for 1994–95, together with details of subsidies, are due to be published as part of the autumn hill review on 29 November.

  Cadw
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish the Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments agency annual report for 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The report which was laid in draft before the House on 1 November has been published today.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

European Union: Steel Subsidies
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the outcome of the plan to cut excess steel capacity within the European Union and to eliminate state subsidies in this sector.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Commission reported at the Industry Council on 8th November that the minimum cuts of 19 million tonnes, which had been identified in the Braun plan, had not been achieved and that most of the measures, which had been introduced to support the restructuring process, would therefore come to an end.
My honourable friend the Minister for Energy and Industry stressed the view of Her Majesty's Government that further restructuring of the European industry is vitally dependent on the stricter control of state aids.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's last comment, does he agree that the real issue here is not so much surplus capacity but subsidised capacity in countries such as Germany, Italy and Spain? In those circumstances, would not it be right to try to find a solution during a period of economic upturn rather than to wait for the next recession to try again, because two attempts to do so in those circumstances have failed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I go part of the way with the noble Lord. The problem is caused by subsidies, but it is also caused by overcapacity. Of course, the one exacerbates the other. We intend to do all that we can to ensure that the European Community reaches a common agreement on the reduction of subsidies. British Steel is only one of two major European companies to have made a profit in the past year. We believe that it is unfair that it should be prejudiced because its competitors are being subsidised.
Lord Varley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the then Minister for Industry, Mr. Tim Sainsbury, gave evidence earlier in the year to Sub-committee B of your Lordships' European Communities Committee after attending the European Council at which he failed to veto new subsidies to the Italian and Spanish industries, he said that he would ask Department of Trade and Industry officials, together with our embassies abroad, to monitor the situation in those countries? Will the Minister tell us what those monitorings have produced? If the same situation arises again, will the Minister give the House an assurance that they will take a more robust attitude in future?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the UK had little support from other member states for the line that it was taking.
358
We believe that we were right, but others did not support us over that. If we had continued to refuse to approve the derogation for the six cases in question the result would have been a continuation of the status quo, which was the giving of illegal subsidies. The present position is that the subsidies which are being given are legal until such time as we can get them removed.
Lord Peston: My Lords, of course we were right because—does not the Minister agree?—this goes to the heart of the nature of the European Union. If one cannot deal with these subsidies and unfair competition, and if people insist on continuing with the excess capacity in this way, what is the point of any member state agreeing to play by the normal rules? This is the most discouraging thing imaginable, especially for those of us who regard ourselves as strong supporters of the European Union. It is not a matter over which to criticise Her Majesty's Government; they are probably doing the best that they can. However, it must still be recognised—I hope that the Minister agrees—what a blow this example is to the hope of achieving progress within the Union.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's concern over this, which I share. We were enormously frustrated by the fact that we have an unsubsidised industry but have to compete with those which are subsidised. The noble Lord will also remember from the days when his party was in power that the strains of achieving an economic industry are great. Our competitors within the European Community are having to suffer those strains in order to reach what we want them achieve.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Varley, my noble friend said that subsidies are presently legal. Is it not more the fact that legal subsidies are being used for illegal purposes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no, previously the subsidies were illegal. We tried to have the subsidies removed. What the Community has agreed is that there should be some subsidies to those companies within Europe, which makes them legal. Had we not approved that, they would have continued the illegal subsidies which may have gone a great deal further than the six companies which have been referred to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, was not the essence of the problem touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, a moment ago: that under EC law the Court of Justice has insufficient jurisdiction to deal with the problem of state subsidies?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whether it has insufficient jurisdiction or not is a matter for the court to decide. I do not believe that there is any particular reason for saying that the court has inadequate jurisdiction. What will have to be decided is whether the countries concerned are breaking European law. If it is a legal subsidy, that is not a breaking of the law.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister clarify his answer to me, because I do not understand. I thought that subsidies were legal if they led to restructuring. If

359
the restructuring is not occurring, and it is wilfully not occurring—it is not that it is hard, they just are not going to do it—does not that make the subsidies illegal? I thought that that was the point. Is the Minister saying that that is not right?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that I am saying that that is not the point. I had better give the noble Lord strict chapter and verse as to what is legal and what is illegal rather than give an off-the-cuff answer from the Dispatch Box. The point that I was trying to make was that the subsidies were illegal until we tried to get the Community to dispense with them. We could not get it to agree to that, so we agreed that there should be a derogation for the countries concerned with regard to the six companies, which would make all the others illegal.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that our partners in Europe are only legal when they think that it suits them to be legal, but, when it does not, there are other steps that they are entitled to take?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend has a crafty way of turning answers into a way that suits him. I did not say that. I said that the European Community agrees derogations—our country has derogations—and when they are agreed to by our partners, then they are legal.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, what is the position of the European Commission in respect of this matter? The Commission is specifically charged with enforcing the treaty. Did it come out in favour of the arguments put forward by Her Majesty's Government, did it sit on the fence and do nothing or did it support everyone else?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Commission made various proposals. The first was that additional finance should be made available to relieve the consequences of closures. The second was that internal guidelines on production and sales were to be made. The third was that it would deal with proposed mergers more expeditiously and the fourth was that there would be measures to restrict imports from the former Soviet Union and the Czech and Slovac Republics. The majority of those proposals were agreed. The first, which dealt with closures, did not receive unanimous approval and, therefore, those proposals, as a whole, came to an end. That is why we agreed to the derogation.

BBC Charter and Agreement
3.10 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the new BBC Charter and Agreement will require the approval of both Houses of Parliament; and if not, why not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the BBC's Royal Charter requires the
360
approval of neither House of Parliament, since it is granted under the Royal Prerogative. However, the Agreement is subject to the approval of the House of Commons, under Standing Order 55, since part of that document deals with arrangements for communications overseas. Both the Charter and the Agreement will be laid before Parliament before they are brought into force and the Government intend that both Houses should have the opportunity to debate them.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is it right that as the Royal Prerogative is centuries old and situations change it needs to be examined? We are an adept and flexible House and can change. Is it also right that, although we are free to debate the Charter and the Agreement, we are not in any way free to amend them? If that is right, why?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the BBC is not a creation of statute. Its Royal Charter is granted under the Royal Prerogative and is not subject to parliamentary approval. Obviously, when the Charter and the Agreement are debated, the Government will have to take seriously any comments made by Members of this House or another place.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, the present Charter cross-references to the instructions that can be made as regards a licence agreement and so forth by the Minister of State concerned. Will those documents, with the form of statutory instruments, be debatable and "votable" in both Houses of Parliament?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that the Agreement and the Charter are "votable" on by your Lordships' House. Any statutory provisions that come before your Lordships' House as affirmative or negative instruments would be "votable". I understand that the approval of the House of Commons only is required under Standing Order 55 which states:
"In all contracts extending over a period of years, and creating a public charge, actual or prospective, entered into by the Government for the conveyance of mails by sea, or for the purpose of communications beyond sea, there shall be inserted the condition that the contract shall not be binding until it has been approved of by a resolution of the House of Commons. Proceedings in pursuance of this order, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of time for opposed business".
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, an important issue of principle is involved. Is the Minister aware that it is strange that, as regards the future of the BBC—a matter on which for many years this House has exercised a greater influence than has another place—this House does not have equal rights with the other place in terms of the final approval of the licensing agreement?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the matter relates to Standing Order 55 as it applies to the overseas arm of the BBC. The current Royal Charter and Agreement were dealt with in exactly the same way in 1981 when they came before both Houses of Parliament for debate. With the agreement of the usual channels, the

361
Government intend that your Lordships will debate the White Paper and the Charter and Agreement when they are laid before Parliament.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, did my noble friend say that, while the consent of the House of Commons is required to the Agreement, the consent of this House is not required? If that is so, what is the explanation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the consent of another place is required under Standing Order 55. I understand that there is no such standing order in your Lordships' House.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the BBC provides good television programmes for sale abroad where they compete with CNN and Sky Television. That is outwith the kind of arrangements which years ago one considered to be the activities of the BBC. Does this House or the House of Commons have no say on the financial aspect, which was not considered in 1926 and subsequently?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the BBC submits accounts to Parliament and Parliament sets the licence fee. The BBC's activities can be scrutinised by a Select Committee and can be the subject of debate. The Government agree with the National Heritage Select Committee of another place that the BBC should continue to be established by Royal Charter. This underlines the fact that while the BBC is accountable to Parliament, it is largely independent.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that your Lordships' House is in one important respect much more representative than the Members of another place? Among your Lordships are those who have reached the top in the professions, industry, commerce and the Armed Forces. We also have as Members Bishops and Law Lords, none of whom can be found in another place. Therefore, has not the time come for this House to have the power that the other place has with its less-representative membership?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am happy to agree with my noble friend. I am aware of the experience and wisdom of your Lordships' House. I believe also that another place is representative of the country. The part of the Royal Charter that is subject to Standing Order 55 relates to transmissions overseas. The Government intend that both Houses will have an opportunity to make their views known. Although no formal approval of this House will be required, it will have an opportunity to debate the issue before the documents come into force.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I shall not comment on the representativeness of this House because that may change. We too would welcome the opportunity to debate the White Paper and we look forward to doing so. The White Paper deals with the likelihood of the privatisation of the transmission services of the BBC. Is the Minister aware that a recent professional analysis showed that that privatised service would cost the BBC
362
an additional £30 million a year? Will he assure the House that the Government will not act purely on grounds of ideology?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have appointed consultants to consider the options as regards the future of the BBC's transmission services, taking account of the BBC's plans to develop digital television broadcasting. The consultants will report their conclusions by the end of this year.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, in speaking of the representative nature of your Lordships' House the noble Lord forgot to mention a former deputy chairman of the BBC and I therefore declare an interest. Is the Minister aware that I too welcome the opportunity to debate and vote on the White Paper, which I hope will be approved overwhelmingly by all sides of your Lordships' House? Is the Minister further aware of my concern about the appointment of more consultants? I may upset some of my fellow accountants in saying that we all know the cost of appointing more consultants to do for the Government jobs that they should be capable of doing themselves.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I am aware that he was a distinguished member of the governors of the BBC. It is important that consultants are appointed to look into plans to develop digital television broadcasting. It is an extremely complex area and will take a huge amount of investment. We must look at the matter carefully and if expertise is available to the Government in order to help them to make up their mind we should take note of that expertise.

Nuclear Safety in Russia
3.20 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking in the light of reports from the International Atomic Agency and from Gosatomnadzor which suggest that the state of Russian civil and military nuclear establishments makes probable a nuclear accident in Europe on a much larger scale than Chernobyl.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not aware that the International Atomic Agency has published any reports about the possibility of accidents which might be worse than Chernobyl. Responsibility for the safety of nuclear installations in Russia lies with the operators of the installations and with the Russian Government. It is for them to take appropriate action on any reports which are made by the Russian safety authority.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, if necessary, I shall acquaint him with exactly what the International Atomic Agency said? From that he will see that the agency shares the anxiety which has been expressed in Russia that the situation there is getting out of hand.

363
Is the Minister aware that Mr. Eggar, the Minister responsible for energy in another place, has been quoted as saying that he understands the seriousness of the situation and he does not want another Chernobyl? It is all very well to understand the situation and not to want something to happen. But the real question is: what is he doing about it? The situation is urgent. Will the noble Earl tell us that the Government are not content to allow the situation to develop until it is too late but that they are taking an interest in a matter which is of concern to anyone in Europe, and possibly outside it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, for saying that he will acquaint me with what the International Atomic Agency has said. I believe that he would do that by reading a newspaper and divulging to me what the newspaper said. I have been able to do that for myself.
Of course we are concerned. The noble Lord asks whether the Government will take an interest. I assure him that they do take an interest. However, this matter is the responsibility of Russia. A Western/Russian study into the safety of Chernobyl-type reactors in which 11 countries took part reported in June 1994. The study indicated that, while risks remain, safety improvements that have been carried out make it unlikely that there could be a repeat of Chernobyl. We are making substantial contributions via Europe and elsewhere to Russia to help it to overcome its difficulties.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend enlighten me as to what, who or where is Gosatomnadzor?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the word is a Russian word and I believe that it refers to the agency which looks after safety matters in Russia.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, will the noble Earl inform the House what funds have been made available by the West to do something about addressing the problems evident in the former Soviet Union's nuclear industry? Will he give us an estimate as to what percentage of that figure has actually been received?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the main effort to help Russia is being channelled through the European Union's technical assistance programme. The United Kingdom paid about 16 per cent. of the budget. Four hundred million ecu were committed for all Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, of which 173 million ecu were committed to Russia. The United Kingdom contributed 11.5 million ecu to the nuclear safety account and 700 million ecu were committed to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union through the international community, of which 227 million goes to Russia.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is nothing more exasperating than having to pay the bills caused by the negligence of somebody else? But, in some cases, one has to consider not who was responsible but who will suffer. We shall
364
all suffer a catastrophe if that disaster does occur in the Soviet Union. Help is required from this Government and other governments of other countries in Europe.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can quite understand the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, being concerned about that. But you cannot just walk into another country and put everything right. That is the responsibility of that other country. We are seeing a legacy of vast civil and military nuclear programmes, poor safety standards and a lack of concern for the environment. The only way in which improvements can be made is through international co-operation, in which, as I have tried to explain, the United Kingdom has played a significant part.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, while no one will differ from the noble Earl's view that the responsibility is that of Russia, are not the consequences felt here? Are not some of the farmers in the Welsh hills still feeling the consequences of Chernobyl? Will the noble Earl please push the Government and all governments into ensuring that that disaster does not happen and that we assume as much responsibility as we properly can in order to ensure our own safety in the future?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that a disaster has consequences outside Russia. He is perfectly right to refer to the consequences suffered by some people after the Chernobyl disaster. However, that Western/Russian study, which was made only a short while ago, indicated that, while risks remain, the safety improvements that have already been carried out make it unlikely that there will be a repeat performance. One can never say that it will not happen, but I assure the noble Lord that we are doing our best, both internationally and through the European Union, to ensure that it does not happen again.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, of course, as always, I am in your Lordships' hands but I am aware that there is a fourth Question and only five minutes in which to take it. It may be that your Lordships will feel that we should move on.

The National Lottery
3.25 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the first National Lottery draw has come up to their expectations.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, yes.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that rather bleak reply, because I believe that we have all had a rather jolly time. By all accounts, the lottery seems to have been a great success. It has obviously been a lot jollier for a very small number of people. Will the great impetus from the opening draw be maintained? I hope that the Government will ensure that the recipients of funds from the lottery will receive them rather sooner than was

365
formerly planned. I understand that they are to receive them in a year's time. There will be great anxiety, which I can see mounting to near hysteria, if those bodies which expect to receive funds are not even told what they are to receive before the end of next year. Perhaps the noble Viscount will enlighten us in that regard.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the first week of the National Lottery has been a resounding success with around £45 million worth of tickets sold and a prize pool of £22 million from which well over 1 million people benefited. That is not a small number of people, which the noble Viscount seemed to imply.
The first contribution to good causes of £12.65 million was made to the National Lottery Distribution Fund for the five good causes on Tuesday 22nd November. The National Heritage Memorial Fund, the Sports Council, the Arts Councils of Wales and Northern Ireland, the Scottish Arts Council and the Sports Councils for Wales and Northern Ireland have already issued guidance to applicants for money. The Arts Council of England is to issue its guidance today; the Millennium Commission on 28th November; and the Scottish Sports Council on 1st December.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we have heard a lot about all the money rolling in. Will he tell us when the charities will benefit from the money rolling out? Will he confirm that the charities board, the distributory body, is not yet operational? Will he tell us when that body will be operating and distributing the money to British charities?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the National Lottery Charities Board faces possibly the most difficult task of all the distributing bodies, with well over 700,000 potential applicants for funds. It seems to be sensible that it should make sure that it gets it right, even if it means some delays in delivering the grants. It will be somewhat behind the other distributing bodies.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although I have criticised the Government for the first ever cash cut in the history of the Arts Council—a cut which Scotland and Wales were spared—the National Lottery is, nevertheless, the best news for the arts and heritage industries in this century? From wherever one stands, the Government should be roundly congratulated.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I welcome the support of my noble friend Lord Gowrie for the National Lottery. I am sure that he will be a distinguished chairman of the Arts Council and will have to make some difficult but, I am certain, wise decisions when it comes to dispensing the money.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, it is a fact that the National Lottery is a great success. However, is the noble Viscount aware that it would become an even greater success if there were more prizes rather than the exceedingly large ones that exist at present? The
366
Government's great success in introducing the lottery would thereby be enhanced and the country would find it nice to indulge in.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, over 1 million people benefited in prizes from the first draw.
Lord Howell: My Lords, while we very much congratulate the Government on the success of the lottery, is the noble Viscount aware that charities have a great and legitimate concern? The over-the-top promotion of the first lottery, upon which £47 million was spent, is already leading to great concern among charities that they will suffer considerably, despite the 6p in the pound that they will receive from a lottery ticket which is designed to compensate charities for that loss. Can the Government assure us that they will keep such matters under observation? Will they also ensure that the BBC honours its Charter when advertising the lottery?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we made that commitment during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House and I reiterate it. With regard to the BBC, it is a matter for the governors of the corporation to decide the conduct on the promotion of the lottery.

Business
3.32 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Goschen will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Railtrack. That will be followed by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on Discrimination against Disabled People.

Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about interest on judgment debts and arbitral awards expressed in a currency other than sterling; to make further provision as to marriages entered into by unmarried persons under a law which permits polygamy; to make provision for choice of law rules in tort and elict; and for connected purposes.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 to permit the title of podiatrist to be used as an alternative to that of state registered chiropodist under the terms of that Act.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Stallard.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Liaison Committee: Select Committee
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 a Select Committee be appointed to advise the House on the resources required for select committee work and to allocate resources between select committees; to review the select committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Committee—

L. Belstead,

V. Cranborne (L. Privy Seal) (Chairman),

L. Dormand of Easington,

B. Hylton-Foster,

E. Jellicoe,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Richard,

L. Weatherill.

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Privileges: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that a Committee for Privileges be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal be named of the committee—

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

L. Campbell of Alloway,

L. Cledwyn of Penrhos,

V. Cranborne (L. Privy Seal),

E. Ferrers,

L. Glenamara,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

B. Hylton-Foster,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Mowbray and Stourton,

L. Richard,

B. Stedman,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strathclyde,

L. Wigoder.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.34 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 in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we come now to the last day of the debate on the Address in reply to the speech which Her Majesty was graciously pleased to deliver. One could not help but reflect, when witnessing that remarkable ceremony of the opening of Parliament, how much the Monarchy, Parliament and democracy are inextricably bound together in the United Kingdom.
We were made conscious again of the great debt of gratitude which we all owe Her Majesty for the way in which she carries out her responsibilities, and for the unique respect and affection in which she is held by both Houses of Parliament and throughout the country.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, today we turn our minds to industrial and economic affairs. Today's debate will be enlightened by two maiden speeches to which we all greatly look forward—one by my noble friend Lord Nickson, who is a distinguished industrialist, and the other by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, who is a distinguished trade unionist.
Earlier this year the Government published a competitiveness White Paper. That set out the policies which we propose to carry out in order to try to help British business to win at home and abroad. The White Paper is the first comprehensive attempt by any British government to try to set out what "competitiveness" is actually about.
Whether we can improve our ability to earn a living depends on our ability to better our industry; to better our trade; and to better our ability to sell both at home and abroad and to all manner of people. We can only improve our ability to earn a living if we can improve our competitiveness in an increasingly competitive world. Competitiveness in business is the only way to raise living standards and to improve the qualify of life of people.
It is the duty and the business of businesses to create wealth. Governments do not do that. They merely have to try to set the conditions in which businesses can succeed—and that is difficult enough, especially when the whole world goes into recession. But, fundamentally, it is to businesses and to their employees that we must look if, as a country, we want to improve our competitiveness.
Often the best way in which governments can help is to get out of the way; to give people their heads; and to allow their entrepreneurial spirit to flourish. If we look back a little—and there is no harm in doing that from

369
time to time, provided that one does not do it for too long so that one gets a stiff neck—it was this Government who broke the ground on privatisation, a task which was unthinkable 15 years ago. Where we have led, many others have followed—France, Germany and the Eastern bloc. Even that bastion of communism, Russia is trying to follow suit.
Britain led the world in privatisation: the world watched Britain; the world admired Britain; and the world followed Britain. It has been the greatest success story of the last half century, pioneered by my noble friend Lady Thatcher when she was Prime Minister.
It was this British Government which showed that privatisation increases efficiency: it cuts costs; it improves management; and it enables businesses to react to what the public and the customer wants. It ensures that investment decisions result from the needs of customers, not from the whims of bureaucrats. It does so by increasing efficiency. If that happens, it leads to lower prices. That is good for the customer and for business, because it enables businesses to compete effectively against their competitors.
Since 1979, 47 major businesses have been transferred to the private sector. If anyone doubts the benefit of that, let me remind your Lordships of one simple fact. In 1979 those now privatised industries cost the taxpayer £35 million a week. Those same industries are now returning to the Exchequer £50 million a week in taxes on profits. That is some considerable turnaround.
We intend to continue in that vein, both to privatise part of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and to deregulate the domestic market for gas. Privatisation will enable AEA Technology to realise the full potential of its commercial activities. It will be able to sell its services in the way in which it—and not the Government—sees fit. That will benefit both its customers and our competitiveness. The Gas Competition Bill will bring genuine competition to the whole of the gas market. In all the brouhaha about whether people should get a discount for paying by direct debit, and all the rest, we tend to forget that since privatisation the domestic gas consumer has already benefited from a fall, in real terms, in gas prices before VAT of over 20 per cent. Now they will be able to benefit further.
The independent suppliers are confident that they can offer price reductions of around 10 per cent. By having more than one supplier, it will enable the industry, as a whole, better to provide what the customer wants. It was only at the end of the previous Session that we saw the passing into law of the deregulation Bill. Everyone hates regulation, until, of course, things go wrong, and then they say, "People should not be allowed to do such things". But, in our increasingly sophisticated society we have to have regulation whether for food, for safety or for the way in which we conduct our business. But these things, like tadpoles, have a nasty habit of multiplying themselves. But, unlike tadpoles, the old ones do not die off; they tend to hang around to the inconvenience of everyone.
370
Bad regulation has a heavy impact, particularly on small businesses. Yet small businesses are the engine room of the future. Deregulation will help these small businesses to concentrate their efforts on what they do best—that is, creating wealth and jobs. There are some 3,500 regulations which, as the current jargon says, "impact" on businesses. We have already earmarked nearly 900 of those for repeal or for reform. Some 55 measures, which will save businesses millions of pounds, have already been notified to Parliament under the new procedures. But this is only scratching at the surface. We want to cut out those regulations which raise prices, which destroy jobs, and which stifle innovation and choice. We have extended this work to cover charities and the voluntary sector, and we intend to keep up the pressure, both at home and in Europe.
If the Government are to enhance rather than to harm competitiveness, we need to understand how businesses operate and to understand the opportunities and the threats which businesses face. Businesses also need to see, and to know, how others operate. We have therefore sponsored different parts of industry to do different things to help them to become more competitive. We have, for instance, taken car component manufacturers to Japan to learn some of their methods. We are working with business, with trade associations and with people who have been seconded from the private sector to apply the search for improvement right across the board.
I said that small businesses are the engine room of the future, so they are. It is worth reminding ourselves that no fewer than 1.2 million businesses were created during the 1980s. There were approximately 3 million businesses in the United Kingdom in 1992, and 96 per cent. of those employed fewer than 20 people. Between 1989 and 1991—only two years —these small firms created an additional 350,000 jobs. We should never underestimate the powerful influence which small businesses have on the economy of the country.
The relationship between small businesses and the banks has received a good deal of attention in recent years, and the Government have made it clear that we expect the banks to show understanding and sensitivity in their dealings with small firms. Despite this, many small businesses continue to feel disenchanted with their banks, and I hope that this is a matter which can be addressed. Late payment of debts is a matter of particular concern for small businesses. Cash flow is, of course, vital to their survival and to their growth and no one should underestimate the damage which can be done to cash flow—and indeed even to the viability of the business as a whole—by the late payment of debt. We do not believe that a statutory right to interest is the right answer, but we have said that we will review the case for legislation if there has been no significant improvement within two years.
Small businesses often need help and advice. They ask anything from, how do I start a new business?, how do I raise money?, what accounts do I have to keep?, what are the statutory requirements for my business?, to how can I export? There is much advice and knowledge on offer but from such a huge variety of outlets that the poor unfortunate businessman seeking help frequently does not know which way to turn. So the Government

371
decided that there should be one place, in each locality, essentially run by private enterprise, to which the aspiring businessman can turn for help. These are what have been called Business Links. The Business Links will bring together all the local business support agencies including the training and enterprise councils, the chambers of commerce, the enterprise agencies, and national and local government. Business Links will reach out to companies which want to grow by providing them with support and advice which are specifically geared to their own particular needs.
From April 1996 all the services of the Department of Trade and Industry will normally be provided through Business Links, including support for exports, for innovation and technology, for design, and for the new diagnostic and consultancy services. Business Links will be able to help companies to export, to improve design, to improve the quality of their business planning, to encourage innovation and the spread of good practice, to improve their financial skills, and to improve the professionalism of their marketing activities. There are already 52 Business Links open. Our aim is to have at least 200 Business Links established in England by the end of next year.
Britain is first and foremost a trading nation. We are so good at denigrating ourselves and our achievements that one sometimes forgets what we have achieved. Few people realise that the United Kingdom exports more per head than does either Japan or the United States; that after decades of decline our share of world trade in goods stabilised in the 1980s; and that our exports are now at a record high. They grew by 12 per cent. in volume in the last year alone. Last year we exported more televisions and microchips than did either France or Germany, and over twice as many as did Italy. We exported twice as many computers as did either France or Italy, and more than Germany. We want to build on these achievements. And, what is more, we cannot afford to relax our efforts, because our competitors will not be relaxing theirs.
Although our exports are doing well, as a country we could do better, particularly in breaking into new markets. Last year Germany exported five times as much as we did to China and Italy exported more than twice as much. Although our exports to China grew by an impressive 47 per cent. between 1992 and 1993, German and Italian exports grew by 50 per cent.—and that was from a higher base. So, in order to help to encourage our exports, we in the Department of Trade and Industry have recruited over 100 private sector people, who have been seconded from the private sector, to work as export promoters. They are people who know about business, who know about running companies and who know about exporting—the opportunities and the pitfalls. And they will be able to help and to advise others who want to export.
In all of these ways the Government are helping industry to improve its competitiveness. But the most important thing which a government can do is to provide the conditions in which businesses can invest in the future with confidence. Low inflation and low interest rates are vital if we are to remain competitive.
372
Fortunately, as a result of the policies which we have adopted, inflation is running at its lowest level for over a quarter of a century. It has been below 3 per cent. for 13 consecutive months—the longest consistent period since 1964. Interest rates have been brought down to their lowest levels for 17 years. The outlook for the British economy is the best it has been for many years. In the past year alone output has risen by over 4 per cent. This is the strongest growth we have seen since the end of 1988, and it has far outstripped even the best projections. And we are still expected to be the fastest growing major European Union economy this year. In the last year alone, manufacturing output has risen by 5 per cent.; investment in plant and machinery is up by over 5 per cent.; unemployment has fallen by over 300,000; manufacturing productivity has risen by 6 per cent., far outstripping the growth in earnings; and unit wage costs have actually fallen by nearly 1½ per cent.—the biggest drop since records began in 1970. These figures are, I believe, all enormously encouraging, but we cannot ease up. In this life you are on an escalator. You either go up or down. If you stand still, you soon land down at the bottom. We want other countries, too, to invest in the United Kingdom because this creates jobs; it creates work for other companies which provide the components; and it is good for Britain.
But if we want other countries to invest in the United Kingdom they will want to be satisfied that we will be a better country in which to invest than are others. To a large extent we are succeeding. Britain is now the most attractive place to invest in Europe. We have, for example, the lowest main rate of corporation tax in the European Union. Forty per cent. of Japanese inward investment to Europe has come to the United Kingdom; 43 per cent. of American inward investment to Europe has come to the United Kingdom; we remain the number one location for United States and Japanese investment.
Those who want to invest in Europe have chosen the United Kingdom rather than France, Germany, Italy or Spain because they see that the United Kingdom is the best country in which to invest; that it is a country which encourages investors, and that it is a country which treats investors fairly. Inward investment since 1979 has created or safeguarded at least 600,000 jobs.
A great deal of investment by other countries into the United Kingdom has taken place over the last decade. In 1989 Toyota invested £700 million in their car plant at Burnaston. That created 3,000 jobs. Fujitsu invested £400 million in a semi-conductor factory in County Durham, creating over 800 jobs. That is likely to increase to 1,600. Robert Bosch of Germany has invested £100 million in a factory near Cardiff to produce car alternators. That has created 800 jobs. Last month Samsung of Korea announced a decision to invest £450 million to set up manufacturing facilities in the North East of England. The company is also transferring its European headquarters to London. Together these will employ around 3,000 people. Earlier this month Sony announced its new European computer games centre in Merseyside. That will create 260 jobs.
The advances being made and about to be made in communications, computers and technology are likely to have an impact on our lives and our way of life not

373
dissimilar to that which the steam engine had on our forebears. Whereas a few years ago car doors were being formed by panel-beaters, now they are being designed by computers in three-dimensional graphics. Whereas a few years ago we thought it a wonder to have direct access by telephone to someone in another country, now the fax is being supplemented by video conferencing and by interactive television.
That is a development with quite extraordinary possibilities, one of the least of which—although it may be one of the easier ones to understand—is that if your Lordships wished to watch a cricket match on TV—something which I fancy some noble Lords sometimes do—your Lordships would be able to determine whether to watch the match from the position of mid-off, the wicketkeeper or even silly point. That is an important point. That is the way in which television and television technology will develop. If it can do that in connection with what one might call pastimes, think what it can do for industry.
Telecommunications, and all that that covers, will play a fundamental part in innovation and efficiency, not only in research and development but in all the phases of production and marketing. It offers enormous opportunities for the expansion of businesses and for employment, particularly for small and medium-sized firms. Those who do not take advantage of it will miss out.
Information superhighways will be a major catalyst in enhancing the competitiveness of the United Kingdom as we move into the 21st century. The Government have set out their vision for building the United Kingdom's information superhighways in a command paper which we published on Tuesday.
We led the world in liberalising our telecommunications sector way back in 1984. We are now well placed to be a leader in the new era of what is known as "broadband communications". It is thanks to privatisation and deregulation that the United Kingdom is already a world leader in these new information techniques, and this gives us an excellent platform on which to build.
We will have to match the emerging "broadband technologies" with what is being done for the superhighways. This is complicated stuff, and deeply technical, but there is a growing convergence between telecommunications, information technology and broadcasting and the Government will do all that they can to encourage and to foster this. Networks for schools and hospitals are already well under way.
My Lords, I believe that the future is hugely exciting. It holds out possibilities for us which were previously unthought of and, if they were thought of were discarded, probably as fantasy. The world has shrunk. Technology has vaporised barriers. We are in a world market; it is simply not an option to be an island on our own. We want to be there "mixing it" in the markets of the world with the best of them: there is a better opportunity tomorrow. Our job is to find it, to seek it out, and then to exploit it. I have no doubt that the entrepreneurialism of British business, which has
374
characterised the nature of British business over the centuries, will achieve that—provided that we set the right conditions. That we are determined to do.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, we have heard a notably informative speech from the noble Earl, a speech full of apparent good news. It contained passage after passage full of cheery optimism and hope. It contained a myriad of facts. It contained not a single coherent new idea.
The noble Earl began by saying that he would look backwards. But there was no analysis of the cause of the recession from which we have now emerged; there was no indication of which discredited economic ideas have been abandoned; there was no indication of what exactly the current intellectual parameters of the Government's policy might be; and there was no inkling of how exactly the Government are going to ensure that the current recovery is sustained and that we do not slip back into recession. And there was no analysis of the Government's policies towards the European Union.
I can see that no one today expects the Government to be able to present a coherent policy on Europe. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is an enthusiast for monetary union. The Secretary of State for Employment is opposed to monetary union. The Prime Minister, as has become customary, seems to believe one thing on one day and another thing on another. It would be quite unfair of me this afternoon to expect logic or coherence in the midst of a family quarrel which has now gone as far as a suicide pact.
However, we might hope for coherence elsewhere. We find none. The gracious Speech declares that the Government,
"will continue with firm financial policies".
At the same time the Government boast of two years of interest rate cuts, beginning when inflation was double what it is now. Was that firm financial policy?
The gracious Speech declares:
"Fiscal policy will continue to be set to bring the budget deficit back towards balance over the medium term".
Yet the Budget Red Book directly contradicts that proposition. It says that the Government are determined,
"to ensure that when the economy is on trend the public sector borrows no more than is required to finance its net capital investment".
Which is it? A balanced budget or borrowing to pay for investment? Should we not be told?
Throughout the Government's presentation of economic policy there is the ambiguity and uncertainty which is the inevitable result of a lack of coherent ideas. Lacking any clear analysis from the noble Earl of what has happened, we must go in search of the economic policy which has produced all the good news with which he sought to cheer us up on this dull November afternoon.
With the aid of the most powerful analytical tool available to economists, namely hindsight, it is not difficult to work out what the Government's economic policy has actually been. First, the Government devalued the pound; secondly, they raised taxes which, by cutting living standards, ensured that resources were

375
available to the export industries; and thirdly, they had a stroke of good luck. A world-wide slump in raw material prices took the sting out of any inflationary pressure which the devaluation might have created. That is how the Government did it. Do they intend to continue the policy stance which has brought the good news which the noble Earl assailed us with? Are we to expect more devaluation and higher taxes with fingers crossed for continued impoverishment in the third world which ensures ever lower materials prices? That has been the policy for the past two years.
Why did not the noble Earl boast about the devaluation and higher taxes? Why did he not tell us, as Mr. Maples does in his famous memorandum, that real take-home pay is falling this year and "will fall again in 1995–96"? Why did not the noble Earl tell us that the result of the Government's policy, as Mr. Maples put it, will be,
"four or even five years of recovery with no rise in living standards"?
Perhaps it is because the noble Earl realises, as so many are coming to realise, that instead of creating new strengths for the British economy the recovery from recession has exposed the weakness of the economy—a weakness which the policies of the past decade have created.
What is really happening has been identified precisely by the Engineering Employers' Federation. The EEF says:
"Today there is a real danger that recovery from deep recession will be seen as evidence that the UK economy is healthy and that no further policy changes are needed. The EEF does not agree. The cyclical economic recovery which is now happily occurring will not be sufficient to ensure continuing growth of employment and living standards. For sustained future growth it will be necessary permanently to increase investment, by a large amount".
In the past 15 years Britain has had the lowest rate of investment among the major industrial countries. That persistent low investment—low investment in capacity, skills and new techniques—means quite simply that while our trading sector may be efficient, it is far too small. And the problem is getting worse. Despite the strong overall growth of the economy, gross fixed capital formation is today falling. Even more serious, given the importance of manufacturing in our international trade, investment in manufacturing is not only falling. It is now, in real terms, 30 per cent. below the levels achieved in the 1989 boom. Indeed, investment in manufacturing is now well below the levels of 1979.
British business is showing its total lack of confidence in the Government. British business is not investing. Everyone knows that if we do not invest, growing demand cannot be met. Of course, in the short run, extra shifts can be worked with existing machinery. More overtime can be worked by skilled workers. But there is a limit, and without investment Britain reaches that limit all too soon with serious consequences both for the balance of payments and the rate of inflation. That is why living standards, as Mr. Maples put it, will continue to fall.
376
So what is the Government's policy on investment? The noble Earl told us a lot about export and information services of the DTI. He told us about the DTI's role as a travel agency, taking businessmen to Japan. But when will the Government do something concrete? Are the Government themselves willing to take a lead by launching an investment programme to tackle the high infrastructure costs which place such a serious burden on the competitiveness of British industry? Are the Government at last prepared to face up to the serious deficiencies in Britain's investment in education and skills training in comparison not only with our European partners but also with the East Asian tigers like South Korea or Taiwan?
The answer to those questions is all too clear. Only this Monday, on the very day the German Government announced the creation of a Ministry of the Future, combining education, science, and research and technology, and dedicated to placing Germany in the forefront of world innovators, the President of the Board of Trade declared that he would commit the rest of his political career to converting the "last tiny rump" of Tory MPs who wrecked his plans to privatise the Post Office. That is his priority. That is his approach to investment in the Post Office, a vital part of Britain's communications infrastructure, whose importance is paramount for every industry in Britain.
The Government are simply unwilling to amend the Treasury rules to allow the Post Office to raise capital and operate freely. To do that would draw into question the rationale of their mindless privatisations, not only of the Post Office but of the railways too. How many noble Lords have taken the new Eurostar train to Paris and experienced the awful feeling of national shame as the train crawls from Waterloo to the Tunnel before speeding to Paris on the French side? Instead of a rational policy which allows the public sector industries to operate freely and compete according to sound commercial criteria, building alliances where appropriate with private sector investors—a policy which the Labour Party has consistently advocated—the Government prefer dogma.
If they are so dogmatically opposed to public investment, surely the Government must be doing something to boost private investment and help the growth of small firms on which so much of the necessary job creation and technical creativity depends. Something more than just information services is needed. Again, dogma has triumphed over any attempt to construct a practical policy.
As we learned over the summer, the Treasury is steadily (with due apologies to the noble Earl) emasculating the DTI. The boyish figure of the then Chief Secretary simply told the distinguished President of the Board of Trade that he could not have his regional incentives, and that was that. The DTI launched a study of competitiveness. It was a notable damp squib. Then the DTI launched a study of dividends and investment. What happened to that? When will it be published? Will the noble Viscount tell us? The truth, as he knows, is that it will never be published.

377
Indeed, the Treasury has cut the DTI down to size. Last year's Red Book revealed that in real terms the budget of the DTI would be cut from £3.5 billion in 1993–94 to £2.1 billion in 1994–95, to £1.6 billion in 1995–96 and to £1.2 billion in 1996–97—a department shrunk to just a third of its former size in four years. That will teach the President of the Board of Trade to say that he would intervene between meals. What a sad end for an ambitious president—Tarzan replaced by the Incredible Shrinking Man.
The DTI is not the only department which is being cut. The Red Book plans indicate major cuts in the Department of Employment too. No doubt Mr. Portillo will be asking for even greater cuts. At a time when our international competitiveness depends more than ever before on the quality and talents of our labour force the Government are obsessed with a labour market strategy which maximises uncertainty, exacerbates the poverty trap and penalises the unemployed. More time is spent by the Department of Employment on monitoring and penalising the unemployed than in helping them to retrain.
So here at last we have a policy. In the name of "flexibility", the Government are dismantling the employment rights of workers, denying them consultation, and denying rights for women and the disabled embodied in the social chapter of the Maastricht Treaty. They have stripped away minimum wage protection for those on poverty pay.
I hope that we hear nothing today from the Government side of the demonising slogan that workers' rights "destroy jobs". Not only does it ill behove a Government who have presided over record levels of unemployment to talk about others destroying jobs, but also all the evidence indicates that the deregulated, so-called flexibility strategy is profoundly inefficient. For example, in the deregulated services sector in the United States, there has been no productivity growth for the past 20 years. In the deregulated US construction industry, productivity growth has been negative over the past 20 years. In Europe, both sectors have enjoyed high rates of productivity growth. The reason is simple to see. A labour market policy which increases instability and uncertainty necessarily undermines investment in skills by firms and by their workers.
Today the Labour Party is publishing a new fair contract with the unemployed. We are committing ourselves to a package of measures which will create true flexibility, including, I can announce, a national insurance holiday for employers who hire people unemployed for over one year, and a tax rebate of up to £75 a week for six months to any employer who takes on a person who has been out of work for two years or more.
True flexibility, true efficiency, derives from a well-trained, secure and self-confident labour force which feels involved and committed to the enterprise in which it is employed. That is Labour's goal. By contrast, the Government's policies have done nothing but undermine the creation of a world-class labour force in this country.
378
So there we have it. For the past two years the economy has been successful because the Government have pursued a policy of devaluation and higher taxes, which they avidly declare they do not believe in. But even that transient success cannot be sustained without higher investment. Yet investment is falling and the Government have no policy whatever to do anything about it.
Britain desperately needs a government committed to investment and industrial prosperity; a government, most of all, whose policies are built on the long-term approach that every industrialist knows is the key to building economic success. Instead, we have a Government committed to a suicide pact in a desperate scramble for short-term survival. The sooner that pact is put into effect the better for Britain's economy.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the gracious Speech is mostly a dish which needs a little embellishment. This year it is only the shrimps around the sole which can be remembered even eight days after the Speech. I cannot think quite what state of forgetfulness will have fallen upon it eight months from now. I suspect that as an autumn manifesto for 1994, Mr. John Maples' draft will prove more resonant than the Speech and may also be a better guide to the Government's action programme.
On top of that, we come to the effusion of Mr. Patrick Nicholls, which seemed to be composed in about equal proportions of the attractive combination of envy of big countries and contempt for small countries. The Prime Minister and other luminaries seem to have an extraordinary touch in choosing figures of mature and statesmanlike views and phrases as vice-chairmen of the Conservative Party.
However, to turn in a happier direction—as I thankfully do—some of the embellishments which we have had to the gracious Speech have been highly acceptable. We have had a notably rich crop of maiden speeches. I recall in particular the speeches of my two new noble friends Lord Tope and Lady Thomas as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, whose aphorisms were well worth waiting a year for. There was also the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Ellesmere, who combined the pastoral reminiscences of a Shropshire boy, if not a Shropshire lad, with the intellectual authority of high level science. The speech of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury also made a considerable impression on me.
Today is the economic day and we are now almost on the eve of the Budget. I remain very sceptical of the wisdom of Mr. Lamont in turning a spring festival into an autumn one. Many noble Lords may have seen the powerful article of Mr. Terence Higgins in The Times yesterday which pointed out how precipitately that decision was taken and how its result has been a further reduction of executive accountability, as well as considerably reducing the opportunities for economic debate in another place. It is also, in my view, markedly inconvenient for your Lordships' House if the Commons is mainly concerned with the Budget and consequential legislation before Christmas, which virtually means no

379
legislative work for your Lordships' House in the early part of the Session. Except in so far as it is corrected by starting major and controversial measures in this House—on which the Government's experience in the last Session may not have been entirely happy—the consequence is inevitably an uneven spread of work for your Lordships' House over the parliamentary year and a great deal of back-end loading with considerable inconvenience.
Then there is the argument of tradition, but we should not necessarily be too bound by it. The tradition of the spring Budget, like most great British traditions from a festive Christmas to schools based on games and the imposition of a standard ruling class English accent, dates from the third quarter of the 19th century and no earlier. Nevertheless, it has had a fairly long run from the time when eight successive Gladstone Budgets, flanked on the one side by the University Boat Race and on the other by the opening day of the Royal Academy, gave a sense of spring stability in an epoch which was on the whole very stable indeed.
I have long been fairly sceptical of excessive Budget flummery and of making too much fuss about Budget secrecy. No one seems to do that much today, in any event. But there was much to be said for the spring tradition and the Government or a future government would be wise to reconsider the matter.
Chancellors are dominating figures in their day, central to the success or failure of the government. But what they do in the field of economic management is remarkably ephemeral. It is all washed away by the high tide of their successor; it is building sandcastles on a beach, compared even with departmental Ministers whose legislation can easily last longer. Nevertheless, institutional changes as opposed to economic management carried through by Chancellors can have a more permanent effect. On that ground, I should be doubtful about Mr. Lamont's two institutional changes which were: first, to move to an autumn Budget; and, secondly, to abolish that Conservative creation, Neddy, which had served seven of his predecessors pretty well.
However, having said that, I have come to appreciate recently why Mr. Lamont felt quite so infuriated at having to hand over to Mr. Clarke when he did. Mr. Clarke had a luckier inheritance than was superficially apparent at the time. First, he enjoyed the great benefit of not being Mr. Lamont—although perhaps that point was not easily taken by Mr. Lamont himself. Secondly, Mr. Clarke took over springs which were set for rebound because they had been so long suppressed and depressed. In those circumstances, the situation is often spoken of as though the recoil, when it comes, totally justifies the long years of suppression and depression which have gone before it. We had the same argument in relation to the depression of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, followed by the boom of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, in the 1980s. That is well set out in the most engaging and lucid, if not over-compressed, memoirs which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, has just set before us.
380
The argument of constantly preparing for the sunrise—that provided you are getting into a good position it does not matter how long you wait—ignores the vast tranche of national wealth which has gone for ever. It ignores the dismay, the misery even, which has been caused to individuals and is not recallable. Nor can the effect on Britain's long-term performance be disguised by choosing very favourable base years for statistics.
The bad years also often leave permanent damage, as with the excessive reductions in the manufacturing base in the early 1980s and the gross neglect of infrastructure in the early 1990s. Both of those points were vividly illustrated in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.
Nevertheless, with some strong export-led growth—a good deal of it European; I am not sure quite how that is reconcilable with the view that all the rest of Europe is a totally stagnant backwater—even if set off by a very weak investment performance, it means that the Chancellor has a considerable opportunity.
It is, of course, the case that the more he stresses the opportunity, the more he must accept the responsibility for how he develops it. There will be no one to blame, no scapegoats but himself, if things go wrong. Perhaps I may say, for a moment combining habitually hubris with humility, it is not entirely different from the position that I handed over to the noble Lord, Lord Barber, in the spring of 1970; although I would say in all honesty that there was at that time suppressed wage pressure, which, except at the higher levels of the gas company, does not seem to exist quite so strongly at the present time. Nonetheless, there was a real opportunity then, as there is now. I hope very much that the present Chancellor handles that opportunity better than it was then handled.
What is likely to happen? My guess is that this year we shall have a responsible Budget. It may be slightly dull; but there are many worse things than dullness. But next year will be the test. That will be the temptation. Will we then have a splurge, a return to the not notably Gladstonian traditions of those Conservative financiers, Maudling, Barber and Lawson? Will we begin again the rather dreary round of getting quickly into difficulties and casting away the relatively rare opportunities? Maybe we shall, but I hope not. Maybe we shall not. In any event, we shall wait, and we shall see.

Railtrack
4.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I should now like to repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the future of Railtrack, which, since April this year, has been a government-owned company responsible for rail infrastructure.

381
"The Government intend to privatise Railtrack within the lifetime of this Parliament. We will do this using the powers provided by the Railways Act 1993. Although the precise details and timing will be announced later in the light of market conditions, I can confirm that Railtrack will be floated on the stock market and that everyone will have the opportunity to buy shares.
"The Government believe that privatisation offers the best future for Railtrack, for passengers and freight and for train operators. It will allow greater use of private sector skills in managing the network; in improving Railtrack stations; in delivering efficient track maintenance; and in encouraging investment in the upgrading of railway lines. It will provide even greater scope for private capital to be injected into better facilities. Railtrack will be better able to deliver improvements in the service it provides to operators and therefore to passengers.
"Privatisation has been one of the great achievements of this Government since 1979. It has transformed former state-owned industries and brought real improvements for customers and employees alike. It has brought new management techniques and new sources of investment. It has spread ownership throughout society. Indeed, Britain's example has been copied around the world.
"The Department of Transport has been at the forefront of this programme. National Freight, Sealink, National Express, Associated British Ports, the British Airports Authority and British Airways are all thriving in the private sector. This announcement paves the way for the creation of another important private company.
"The privatisation of Railtrack will be the most significant single step in the overall process of transferring the ownership and operation of Britain's railways to the private sector. The Government have set the target of franchising a majority of train services by April 1996. That target remains. The franchising director will shortly start the pre-qualification process for the first franchises. The Government will be selling the rolling stock leasing companies next year. Privatisation of British Rail's infrastructure services units, British Rail Maintenance Ltd. and other businesses is already in progress and the transfer of British Rail's domestic freight services to the private sector should be completed by the end of 1995.
"Privatisation will enable Railtrack to provide a better service, bringing substantial benefits to train operators, passengers and other rail users and to investors. My announcement demonstrates this Government's continuing commitment to privatisation. It demonstrates our continuing commitment to railway privatisation. It demonstrates our continuing commitment to improving rail services. Above all, it demonstrates our continuing commitment to passengers and to our national economy."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which constitutes a series of uncorroborated assertions and winds up with what purports to be a policy. It is difficult to whip up for this Government even the enthusiasm that was revealed by Teddy Roosevelt for his presidential opponent, William Howard Taft, when he said: "He means well, feebly".
This statement has to be seen in its true context: the foundering of the Government's other flagships, Royal Mail privatisation and the timetabling for the franchising of rail services under the Railways Act, which is now hopelessly adrift; and also the need seen by the Government to attempt to pacify what Mr. John Maples unerringly described as the Tory parliamentary yobbos who are apparently to be unleashed on Mr. Tony Blair but who all too often, as we have witnessed, unleash themselves on their own Prime Minister. Above all, the Statement is nothing but a crude attempt to make way for tax bribes by flogging off Railtrack's assets.
I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions. Does not this announcement—there is not a word about it in the Statement—totally reverse the Government's previously announced plans for Railtrack? Was it not made clear by Ministers over and over again in this House, in another place, and in the media, that Railtrack, despite its plainly inadequate leadership, was to remain a publicly owned company to enable it to plan an investment programme over some 10 years? What is the Government's explanation for the fundamental change that they have announced today? It is pure expediency, is it not?
Secondly, is it not a fact that the privatisation programme has gone utterly awry? Was not the incorporation of the first six franchises to be completed by October? Has there been little or no interest in acquiring the franchises? If I am wrong, what evidence is the Minister able to put before the House today? We know of 25 shadow franchises. But what about the substance? With this change of policy, will not the much trumpeted incentives to be offered for management-employee buy-outs have to be shelved?
Thirdly, is it not clear that what will be attractive to speculators is not the 11,000 miles of British Rail's track and rail services but the huge property portfolio that Railtrack enjoys, with its many prime city centre sites? The price to be paid will be a drastically reduced national rail network serving only parts of the country?
Fourthly, what are the estimated costs of this privatisation? We know that the Government have already squandered £700 million in their preparation for privatisation so far without providing a single extra train, a single piece of track or any signalling—to say nothing of the fare increases which have beset London commuters in particular, with very much worse to come.
So what will this new element of privatisation cost? Will the Minister say something about the timetable? The Secretary of State, in a note to the Prime Minister dated 9th November, wrote:
"We have agreed our target date for the flotation should be the first quarter of 1996, but our public stance"—

383
represented, of course, in this Statement—
"should be only that Railtrack will be floated during the life of this Parliament".
What do they mean? Is not this a deception, and a deliberate one at that?
Sixthly, would the Minister concede that there is already growing evidence of what we predicted in our many debates on the Railways Bill; namely, the fragmentation of the national network? Travellers in some areas are already bemused when one timetable is replaced by three versions for three operators which list only their own trains. Will not this policy add to that confusion?
In my view, the Government would do well to heed the words of Mr. Maples—at least the few words that are relevant to this matter. He asserted:
"What we are saying is at odds with [the voters'] experience".
What they are doing to the railways is at odds with the voters' experience. Could they not bear in mind that, while it is not forbidden even for this Government to repeat their errors, it is not mandatory to do so?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we greet this Statement with grave concern. In particular, the uncertainty cast over the whole process of franchising is the basis of that concern.
At the present moment, as I have good reason to know, it is true to say that the various bodies involved in franchising and their representatives—OPRAF, the rail regulator and the train operating companies—hardly know how the other bodies work. Is it not ridiculous to insert into this process, with all its current uncertainties, yet one more uncertainty, when we were promised in the past that such uncertainty would not be injected and that there would be a period of stability?
One of the problems attendant upon this process is that the ability of the franchise operating companies depends upon the cost of operating over the track. I should like to know what reassurance the Minister can give us that those costs will not rise. What is the Minister likely to do if the costs do in fact rise? Does he simply contemplate that those costs will be passed on to the eventual customers, the rail passengers? Or is he proposing to put additional subsidies into the hands of OPRAF, the rail franchising authority?
I believe that there are good grounds for retaining Railtrack in public ownership for some considerable time. Indeed, it is possible to argue that it should remain in public ownership altogether. There is a major question connected with this matter. When will the Government recognise their responsibility for leading a joint public and private investment in the infrastructure of the railways? If, at some time in the future, they do privatise Railtrack, what will they do to prevent the rail network itself from being broken up?
Potential passengers—the customers, the people out there —are in intense doubt about the future of their railways. It is partly the privatisation process itself and partly the fear of the break-up of the network, as happened with bus privatisation, which causes those concerns. Perhaps the Government remember that rail
384
privatisation has been called in the past "poll tax on wheels". How confident are the Government that the timetable for rail franchising can be met?
The Statement makes much of the benefits of privatising Railtrack. Personally, I am doubtful about the wide extent to which privatisation has spread share ownership, though I accept it in the short term. The Government may find that the lottery money, about which we were talking earlier, substitutes not so much for donations to charity as for speculative buying of share issues in privatisation processes.
What sort of price do the Government think that they are setting on this very valuable asset? Estimates that I have seen speak of £1.5 billion. That is 1p off income tax for one year. It seems to me that, although the process of the privatisation of Railtrack may not be very beneficial to the customer or to the rail franchise companies, it might be beneficial in the very short term to the Government.
In view of what is happening in another major privatised company, my last question is this: what controls or indications will the Government give to the chairman of Railtrack as to the type or level of remuneration that he should seek in a privatised Railtrack?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I was very pleased to hear the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for the first time on a Statement. I welcome her presence as the Liberal Democrats' transport spokesman.
The Statement made today, as I said, demonstrates our commitment to the railway industry and to bringing it into the private sector. It has always been our policy that we would privatise Railtrack when we considered that the time was right to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, cast doubt upon that commitment and said that we were making a U-turn. I do not believe that to be the case. I feel that it is in order to quote the words of my noble friend Lord Caithness during the passage of what is now the Railways Act. On 15th July 1993, he said:
"We have made it clear that Railtrack's existence as a government-owned company will last only until it is feasible to transfer it to the private sector".—[Official Report, 15/7/93; col. 354.]
That is fairly straightforward and addresses that point.
The noble Lord went on to ask about a wide variety of questions which centred basically around the reasons why we should privatise Railtrack, what benefits it will bring and where we have reached at the moment in terms of the timetable. In terms of the timetable, shadow franchises are now being operated successfully. Considerable interest has been expressed. Until the pre-qualification process starts, we cannot expect firm, definite, binding expressions of interest for individual franchises. That is an important point, as I said in my statement. I mentioned when we expected it to go through.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out that Railtrack owns a lot of property. He felt that there was a danger of asset stripping, for instance through line closures. I do not believe that that will be the case at all. There are statutory closure procedures which are

385
very much part of the Railways Act 1993 for closures of lines and stations. Such procedures cannot just be taken at the whim of the new Railtrack plc, as it were.
The noble Lord went on to ask about the cost of the privatisation process for Railtrack. We cannot be sure at this stage but we are confident that the Railtrack privatisation will offer the best value for money to the taxpayer. It is important in the long-term interests of the railway to obtain the best railway we can, delivering cost-efficient and overall safe services to the taxpayer and the travelling public.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, went on to ask about a specific document. I am sure the noble Lord is well aware that we do not now and never have made it our policy to comment upon any document which may have been leaked. The timing of the flotation of Railtrack will depend on market conditions. However, I made it clear in my Statement this afternoon that that will be within the lifetime of this Parliament.
Both the spokesmen for the parties opposite asked about fragmentation. It is worth reminding them and the whole House that Railtrack is to be floated on the stock market as a whole; it is not to be sold off in a number of different pieces. That process will in no way lead to fragmentation. We firmly believe that the process which we have undergone and of which Railtrack will be a major part, will result in a much more efficient railway, providing better services for customers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked how charges were to be regulated and whether Railtrack would have a free hand. It is important to mention that charges are the basis of negotiated and agreed contracts with the train operating companies and those contracts have all been passed by the regulator in terms of charges. The question of salaries was also raised. The best people will be sought to take the best jobs. No doubt the shareholders of the new company will exercise their authority to ensure that the board members are paid at an appropriate level.
To return to the centre of what we are doing today, we are preparing to privatise Railtrack within the lifetime of this Parliament. Our objective is to improve the quality of rail services for the travelling public and freight customers through private sector ownership. We see Railtrack flotation as the logical next step in that process.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I may respond to his suggestion that I may have—even inadvertently—misled the House. Let me remind him that on 25th February 1993 Mr. Roger Freeman said to the standing committee that Railtrack, at least for the foreseeable future, would be in the public sector. That is consistent with what I said and not consistent with what the Minister said.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is worth saying that I in no way suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, misled the House in any way. I merely pointed out to him a factual quotation made on 15th July 1993. That quotation was made by my noble friend Lord
386
Caithness. It is on the record as being the Government's position at that time. Nothing more can be said in that regard.
4.43 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, during the passage of the Railways Bill, no Minister said that the Government had changed their mind about the status of Railtrack. Why was no statement made regarding that change of mind?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the question of when Railtrack is to be privatised is a matter of judgment for the Government. I would not dispute the comments made by my right honourable friend Roger Freeman. Subsequent to that, further statements were made which merely re-emphasised the policy. That policy is very clear.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us who have had connections with the railways over many years welcome the Statement? The indication that Railtrack is now being put wholly into the private sector we find extremely encouraging. In the private sector there will be a freedom in respect of both investment and administration which is impossible under state ownership. Many of us feel that Railtrack will therefore have a much brighter future than it appeared to have up to the making of this Statement.
Perhaps I may add a personal comment. As one who was a Member of the other place when the Bill to nationalise the railways was taken through Parliament, it is a matter of particular pleasure to me to see that silly job being undone.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend is so happy today; indeed, I am happy too. My noble friend is right. The privatisation process offers great opportunities for the railway system of this country. He is right also that Railtrack is currently constrained under our PSBR rules from borrowing money and operates under a number of other constraints in that regard. Railtrack is also constrained in not having access to private sector initiatives in funding and private sector management. I am entirely confident that the new privatised railway will be a great success and that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will continue to be proud of it.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I must first declare an interest in this question, in that I am a rail user. One of the interesting things we learnt this afternoon is that the Government's perspective of the "foreseeable future" is less than a year. If that is so, what hope have we that the investing public will take an even longer view?
Bearing in mind the lack of investment over many years in the infrastructure of British Rail by this Government, and bearing in mind that Railtrack will probably be bought by private sector investors with a view to making short-term profit—that appears to be the only perspective available either to the Government or to the City—what confidence do we have that the new owners will see fit to invest real money in improving the track facilities on which trains are currently run? To

387
improve our railways it is important to improve the track and rolling stock. A number of us both in this House and in another place have been pressing hard for west coast main line modernisation. Depending on what scheme is adopted, it could cost anything from £400 million to £1,000 million or more.
If investors in the City pay for Railtrack with a view to making a short-term profit, what confidence can we in Parliament have that they will invest vast sums of new money to improve our railway system?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the statements and questions of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, are based upon a misconception. I do not believe that the sole purpose of any investor, coming into what is a long-term deal, does so just to make what the noble Lord suggests is a "quick buck". What can be seen are long-term finance streams and the benefits of long-term investment. We are talking of contracts of a substantial length with train operating companies. It is not at all as the noble Lord suggests.
In terms of investment, the new privatised Railtrack shareholders will have considerable incentives to invest in the network in order to provide better network services for the company's customers and to develop a better business base. Privatisation will enable Railtrack to explore more widely available sources of private finance to fund infrastructure investment schemes in which hitherto it has not been able to participate. Railtrack will publish annually a 10-year investment plan which will be approved by the regulator after privatisation. Railtrack's investment programme will be commercially driven and will derive from its discussions with its train operating customers and with the franchising director, who will determine service levels and, therefore, subsidy provision for specific services. I believe that all that adds up to a privatised infrastructure operator who will invest for the future of the network.

Disabled People: Anti-Discrimination Measures
4.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement about measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people which my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has made today in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people.
"Earlier this year the Government published a wide range of proposals in a consultation document. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right honourable friend the Member for Chelsea, not only for his work on these proposals, but also for his tireless efforts over seven years as Minister for disabled people. We have received a large number of responses to the consultation document and I am grateful to all those
388
who have commented. As promised, we considered the responses carefully. The result is a package which goes substantially wider and deeper than the proposals we put forward in the summer. As we develop the detail of our proposals in the coming months, I want to continue to work closely with disabled people and others so that the end result is a package which meets the wishes of disabled people, and the legitimate interest of businesses.
"Over the past 15 years, the Government have taken a series of measures to help disabled people live with dignity and independence. We have trebled the amount spent on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and introduced new benefits like DWA; the recent reform of community care which has given local authorities additional resources of £1.27 billion in 1994–95; the new access to work programme, which enables more disabled people to take up employment; the introduction of Part M of the building regulations, which will ensure access for disabled people to public buildings; the new Education Act, which improves schools' provision in meeting special educational needs; and action to build on widespread achievements in the field of transport. These initiatives, combined with the efforts of local government, the voluntary sector, the private sector, and disabled people themselves, have led to major advances in the opportunities open to disabled people and the attitude towards them of the rest of the community.
"A process of change has been taking place. It must continue. An ageing population will bring an increasing number of people with some form of disability. It is wrong and it is wasteful for many of them to be restricted or excluded from many aspects of life. One way or another, our society must meet the aspirations of disabled people by ensuring that they are included on an equal basis in our work, travel, study and leisure.
"Our objective is clear: to eliminate discrimination against disabled people so that they can take a full part in society. But changes cannot happen overnight, as most disabled people themselves recognise. It is vital that the action we take has a realistic timetable, is practical, and takes account of the impact on service providers.
"I am therefore announcing today a series of measures and legislative proposals which have been conceived in conjunction with my colleagues in the Departments of Health, Transport, Education and Employment, and the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Taken together they will represent the greatest advance for disabled people in the history of this country.
"We will shortly publish a Bill which will deal with employment, rights of access and the establishment of a National Disability Council. Similar legislation is proposed for Northern Ireland. We will also be taking new action on education and transport.
"Greater employment opportunities are at the heart of enabling disabled people to be fully active and independent members of society. Some employers have done much in recent years to improve matters,

389
but there is evidence that discrimination persists. It is clear that the current quota system is unworkable and fails to meet the needs of disabled people. We therefore propose to repeal it.
"We propose to introduce a statutory right of non-discrimination against disabled people. It will be unlawful for an employer to treat a disabled person less favourably than he would treat others, unless there are justifiable reasons. In combination with this, employers will be required to make a reasonable adjustment where that would help overcome the practical effects of disability.
"The new access to work scheme can provide a wide range of practical help to disabled people and their employers of up to £21,000 over five years.
"The new employment right will be a major step forward in improving the employment prospects of disabled people.
"Disabled people who suffer discrimination will be able to complain to industrial tribunals, where the remedies available will be the same as those under other discrimination legislation.
"There will be a power to make regulations to ensure that adjustments do not involve excessive costs. The duties will apply to employers with 20 or more employees. Employers will continue to be able to recruit the best person for the job.
"A code of practice and guidance will be produced to promote clear understanding and reduce the likelihood of disputes arising. Should recourse to an industrial tribunal be necessary, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service would be able to offer the services of their conciliation officers.
"The Government's consultation document aimed to ensure that service providers did not deny access to disabled people because of prejudice or ignorance. In the light of responses to the consultation document, the Government believe that this proposal does not go far enough. Where practical, we also need to remove those physical and communication barriers which prevent the access to goods and services most of us are lucky enough to take for granted. The new right of access will therefore require service providers to make their premises and services accessible to disabled people as long as this is 'readily achievable'.
"It is vital that the new right is framed in such a way that it leads to genuine and lasting progress. We will therefore give businesses the option of providing their services by alternative means; and require modifications only to the extent they are readily achievable and subject to a financial limit; we will also ensure that there is a proper phasing-in period. We will consult on the length of the phasing-in period, the financial limit and the possibility of other exemptions from the right; for example, older or listed buildings. We will arrange to provide advice and conciliation with respect to this new right and, where legal action does take place, we are considering measures which will ensure that redress can be obtained without undue difficulty or expense.
390
"These provisions will ensure every business and service provider takes action to meet the needs of disabled people. They will leave no-one in any doubt that the fair treatment of disabled people is a responsibility placed on us all.
"In addition, within the next few weeks my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be issuing his own consultation document on making domestic properties more accessible.
"The consultation document made clear the Government's intention to exclude financial services from any right of equal access. But as a result of responses received, I propose to include financial services in the new statutory right. We shall be looking closely, in consultation with the insurance industry, at how legislation could best be framed to prevent discrimination while recognising the legitimate need for insurance companies to distinguish between any customers on the basis of likely costs entailed in meeting their insurance claims.
"All these new rights will apply to all those persons with a physical or mental impairment which is long-term or recurring. The impairment would have to have a substantial effect on the person's ability to carry out normal activities.
"The Bill will also establish a National Disability Council. This will be an independent body to advise the Government on how existing and new measures to help disabled people are working; and recommend further measures where necessary. It will therefore be a new powerful voice for disabled people in the decision-making process. It will present an annual report on its activities and findings so that we can continue to make progress. This report will be laid before Parliament.
"The consultation document was limited to the employment right, the right of access and the establishment of the National Disability Council. But we now propose to go further—by bringing forward proposals on education and transport.
"The more it is possible to educate disabled children with their able-bodied peers, the less we shall see adults avoiding, ignoring or feeling embarrassed by disabled people. We must ensure that this new approach is not frustrated by the physical inaccessibility of mainstream schools.
"The Education Act 1993 was a major advance in meeting special educational needs. It re-enacts the requirement on local education authorities to find a suitable place for every child with a disability and enhances parents' rights of school preference and appeals against decisions. Next year the Department for Education will conduct an audit of accessibility of all schools. Once its results are available, local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools will have an up-to-date picture of facilities, helping to inform their work on the supply of suitable places.
"Linking with this programme of improvement, we want to take new steps to encourage schools to make themselves more accessible to pupils with disabilities.

391
We will be bringing forward proposals under which funds will be made available to providers of education to provide imaginative and cost-effective projects aimed at improving accessibility. We envisage that the new scheme will encourage voluntary involvement by the local community. We shall consult on the details of the scheme.
"In addition, the Department for Education will shortly consult on the revision of their constructional standards to bring them in line with those set out in the current building regulations. This would mean that all new schools and extensions would be fully accessible to disabled people.
"Scotland has its own extensive provisions in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 for pupils with special educational needs. The Scottish Office will be considering further ways of encouraging authorities and schools to improve access for pupils with disabilities through the normal capital allocation arrangements. In Scotland, schools are already subject to the relevant requirements of the building regulations.
"All these measures will consolidate the improvements for children with special educational needs set out in the 1993 Act. They represent this Government's firm commitment to ensuring that every child with a disability gets full educational opportunities and to steadily improving access in schools.
"Transport is another crucial area for disabled people. The new right of access will cover transport infrastructure—for example, railway stations and bus terminals—but it will not apply to transport vehicles. The sensible way to improve accessibility here must be to do it when new vehicles are purchased. Huge progress has already been made in this way, for example, by improving the accessibility of InterCity trains, airports and London taxis. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is anxious to ensure that progress continues. In addition, he will strengthen the guidance issued to local authorities in preparing their annual transport policies and programmes to give greater weight to the needs of people with disabilities.
"It is vital that we take further steps towards making fully accessible the most commonly used form of public transport —the bus. The Government intend to ensure that all new buses will be of low floor construction, as far as this is technically feasible. The effect will be that, over an agreed time-frame, an increasing proportion of buses will be fully accessible to wheelchair users as well as more readily accessible to all other passengers with mobility problems. We will, of course, need to take full account of European legislation. A draft directive on bus construction is already under discussion and we will be making our case vigorously.
"The objective of our package is to give disabled people more power over their own lives. So I am delighted that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health will be announcing today that we intend to take a new power for social
392
services authorities and, in Scotland, social work departments, to make cash payments to disabled people who request them in lieu of community care services. This is a new departure which I believe will be widely welcomed. It will enable disabled people to control far more actively how and by whom the care they need is delivered.
"Further details on all our proposals will be included in a detailed policy statement to be published, in addition to a Bill, in the near future.
"Madam Speaker, in presenting this package, the Government are building on an already impressive record of helping disabled people. The steps I have announced today will involve millions of people in taking positive action to tackle the frustration which disabled people encounter in attempting to do the things many of us take for granted.
"We are guided by one over-riding belief: that it is the duty of society as a whole to enable disabled people to play a full part in national life, and to help them and us to make the best use of their talents. Recognition of that makes good sense for disabled people, good sense for the economy, and good sense for the nation".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we thank the noble Baroness for the Statement. Perhaps I may also place on record how appreciative I am of the fact that we were able to have the Statement a little earlier than is sometimes the case. As a result it gave us more chance to contact the groups concerned. I appreciate that and I thank the Minister.
Obviously, on this side of the House we are glad that this Statement travels the distance that it does. But we are not grateful, because every inch, every foot of that distance has been screwed out of a recalcitrant Government by the anger—yes, the anger—the pressure and the outrage not just of disabled people but of Members of both Houses, as well as that of citizens across the country. I believe that we all know in our heart of hearts that, but for the events of last summer, we would not be seeing this Statement now. It is better than nothing and we certainly welcome it as far as it goes. But, in my view, it is still far short of what disabled people are entitled to as of right. As I say, it would be churlish and quite unreasonable not to welcome the proposals.
The first thing which I am so pleased to see in the document —if I may go to individual aspects of it—is direct payments. Here I would like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who introduced a Bill with all-party support in this House to try to achieve just that. I remember the regret, it would be fair to say, that the noble Baroness demonstrated when she had to reject that Bill at the time. It must be a particular pleasure for her today to be able to announce the good news. The significance of that is that direct payments will place disabled people at the centre of organising their network of care rather than being dependent on the convenience,

393
the timetable, and so on, of others. That must be an important and major step forward, which is very welcome.
Secondly, I come to the areas which concern us. The first of these is access to employment. I ask the noble Baroness three questions on this section of the Statement. The Statement says that the Government are proposing to scrap the quota system, that it has failed. I believe that many of us have some sympathy with the view that the quota system has had its day, but I believe that many of us—particularly noble Lords who have a specific interest in disabled people with learning difficulties—are very worried that it should be scrapped without more effective and better powers in its place. In particular, if employers are not to be required to meet a quota system and disabled people have to pursue their rights against discrimination through tribunals and ACAS, but without the backing of an enforcement commission, will the noble Baroness consider whether disabled people should therefore be eligible for legal aid?
As I understand it, most employers are legally represented at tribunals. Many people, in the CRE, in race relations and other forms of discrimination, have the legal support of their trade unions. All the evidence shows that where there is legal representation the ability to achieve success is that much higher. Disabled people are very much more on their own; often very poor, rather fragile and rather bruised. They will need all the help that we can give them if they have to pursue their own grievances through a procedure which is known to be cumbersome, bureaucratic, difficult and slow. Can we hope for that?
The third matter on which I should like to press the Minister in terms of employment is small business exemption. I checked with the Employment Gazette and I understand that 95 per cent. of businesses in this country employ fewer than 20 people and cover about one-third of the working population. Obviously we understand that the approach has to be one of reasonableness and we do not disagree with that at all. But will the noble Baroness consider, when we come to the legislation, producing a timetable analogous perhaps to that of the United States, where I believe the provisions have worked very well? There could be a minimum of 20 employees to start with and in five years' time only firms employing fewer than 15 people should be exempt. In 10 years' time firms employing less than, say, 10 people should be exempt, and so on. In other words, there should be a pattern of implementation which, over time and in a reasonable way, brings all employers within the frame as it currently does immediately for employers under EOC and CRE legislation. We believe that disabled people are entitled to no less rights.
Then, on employment, will the Minister look at the question of indirect discrimination? It is significant in employment. I am sure that we all know of examples where a job requirement is that one has a driving licence even though driving is not essential to the job. It acts as a form of indirect discrimination. The latest research by Scope (the former Spastics Society) suggests that 51 per cent. of disabled people believe that they were refused
394
a job because of their disability; 35 per cent. said that they could not accept the job because of problems of physical access; and 55 per cent. of disabled people thought that they would lose their jobs because of their disability. On many occasions those forms of loss amounted to indirect discrimination. Will the Minister comment on that point?
Perhaps I may move from employment to public buildings and the pressure on volume house builders. We are obviously awaiting a consultation document on that. Will the Minister tell us when we may expect it? We welcome what the Statement said about tougher arrangements for financial services. That has been brigaded with access to goods and services; for example, insurance. I believe that I am right in saying that half of all disabled people have difficulty obtaining insurance; 37 per cent. find difficulty in obtaining car insurance; and 20 per cent. have difficulty in obtaining a mortgage. That is what we are talking about. May we hope, therefore, that the Minister will ensure that there is as much toughness with regard to the provision of financial services as to other aspects of the Bill?
I come to education. We obviously greatly welcome the fact that there will be an audit of physical accessibility. We all recognise that the DFE has a logjam of capital maintenance works which need to be implemented. As I understand it, at the moment about a quarter of primary schools and a tenth of secondary schools have full access. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government propose to introduce a phased implementation so that, say, within 10 years three-quarters of primary schools and half of secondary schools will have full access for disabled children? I believe that the cost will be around £30 million a year. That is not excessive for the degree of opportunity that it will offer children and their parents.
On transport, as far as we can tell the Government's policy seems to be sensible: as vehicles are replaced, the new vehicles will meet new disability requirements. Can the Minister give us any guidance as to what timetable she expects that to operate? I assume that it is 15 to 20 years.
We were given originally a yellow document entitled Compliance Cost Assessment. Noble Lords will remember that when we discussed the matter many noble Lords denounced as shoddy the cost of £17 billion that the Government calculated. The department asked for assessments. The DoE counted the figures twice but failed to dock off the cost of the work already done. Then it assumed that the work had to be done within five years, and that it had to be done whatever the expense. Not surprisingly, the eventual figure was £17 billion which no one, except the statisticians who drew it up, believed bore any resemblance to the figures of £2 billion to £5 billion which many disability organisations believed to be the case.
We are pleased that in today's Statement the Minister did not revisit that fictional figure of £17 billion which was wildly and irresponsibly inaccurate. We hope that the Budget forecasts and uprating statements are not drawn up by the same statistics team. We are pleased to

395
see that the figure has disappeared. What worries us, however, is not so much the putative cost of compliance but compliance itself.
I come to the one disappointing issue in the Minister's long and full Statement. The Government have refused to set up an enforcement commission. They are setting up merely an advisory committee (the National Disability Council) to give advice to the Secretary of State but not to enforce disabled people's rights. That will not do. An advisory committee with no enforcement powers, unlike the EOC or the CRE, means that the proposed Bill will give disabled people legal remedies; it will not give them what they are entitled to —civil rights.
Disabled people will remain on their own. They will often be poor, very disabled and lacking in energy and resources; and they will have none of the enforcement powers behind them that women and ethnic minorities now take for granted. Employers themselves say, and I quote from the employers' response to the Government's consultation document:
"If the new framework is to have credibility in the eyes of both employers and disabled people, it must be seen to be backed by the same commitment to guidance, support and enforcement which underpins the EOC and the CRE".
Employers are calling for an enforcement agency. Will the Minister tell us why the Government will not provide one? If we do not have an enforcement agency, disabled people will have only an advisory committee which will have power to do everything except act and enforce. We owe disabled people more than that. I hope that the Minister can give us some movement on that point.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It gives a list of our achievements over the past 15 years: a series of piecemeal steps forward towards better rights for disabled people. The Statement refers to the Education Act 1993 and the SEN code of practice which was introduced. It pays great attention to the laudable progress that we have made. However, we started from a low base. I am afraid that the legislation envisaged carries on in the same vein. It is piecemeal. It hedges everything with comments such as "as and when it is practical" or "as and when the costs are there". It does not provide any vision of where we should be going or how it will be achieved. It goes the other way around.
The Statement contains many good things, but we must accept that we are giving it two cheers rather than three. Direct payments enhance the rights and dignity of people with disabilities. That is important. That is the type of help required. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, full civil rights are required. That is what people with disabilities expect to receive. We have provided them for other groups in society. Why cannot we provide them for this group of people?
When we have a copy of the Bill, we shall be able to go through it in far more detail. We shall be able to discuss what should be in the legislation. Does the Minister have a rough idea of the approximate cost of what is to be brought forward in the Bill? If we have a
396
rough idea of that figure, we shall be able to see whether we have finally buried the absurd idea that providing civil rights for disabled people will cost £17 billion.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I suspected that there would be a welcome for these pioneering measures that we are putting forward today, but I also suspected that some of it would be somewhat grudging. I am pleased to hear that the noble Baroness welcomes the Statement. I think she said that she was glad but not grateful. We do not seek gratitude. That is not the purpose of government. We propose to enable people with a disability to lead fulfilling, independent and useful lives. That is the purpose of the Bill.
Perhaps I may take up some of the points mentioned by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. First, there is the question of the need for legal aid at tribunals. The majority of applicants who appear before tribunals are not legally represented. Industrial tribunals are intended to provide a means of redress with the minimum of formality. Legal aid is therefore not available for anyone who appears before a tribunal under any jurisdiction.
We feel strongly that the more we can go forward by conciliation, the better it is for everyone. When cases end up before tribunals, or court, few people are winners, except the lawyers.
With regard to the smaller employers, I understand that there is a feeling that small firms should also bear the costs of what we are proposing, but we have to draw a balance. We know that it is the small firms which are the seedcorn in creating this country's wealth. Therefore, we do not wish to overburden them. I understand that in America the disability legislation does not apply to small firms. We believe that we too should go down that road and exempt them from some of the burdens.
Our figures do not marry with those given by the noble Baroness. Indeed, 83 per cent. of employees would be covered by the new right. We believe that the figures given by the noble Baroness include self-employed people, and that distorts the figures.
With regard to education, we must wait for the accessibility audit that is now being carried out. We shall then look critically at what needs to be done and discuss the phasing of that with local education authorities.
We hope to make a policy statement before Christmas and therefore we are anxious to press ahead with the Bill. The policy statement will take up many of the detailed issues that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. It will also take into account the phasing.
We believe that this is a good Bill and we wish to see it go forward. The costs will not be exorbitant. The figure of £17 billion was given when the Berry Bill was introduced. That was the cost of that Bill—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no, it was not!
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we costed the proposals in that Bill. This is a different Bill and the

397
costs will be different. Noble Lords must wait for the compliance cost assessment once the details are worked out.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I welcome this first legislation coming from a government and aiming to tackle discrimination. One of the reasons is that I was the Member of another place who introduced the first Private Member's Bill on the subject. That was in 1968 after I had been successful in the ballot. Is my noble friend aware that early in 1969 my Bill was defeated after a two-line Whip had been imposed by the Labour Government of the day? I feel obliged to mention that because the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred critically to the present Government and even used the word "outrage". She may not remember the incident, but I can assure her that in 1969 there was much greater outrage among the disability groups about my Bill being voted down. This is, therefore, an historic occasion which I welcome.
The quota system is now 50 years old and it was intended mainly for war disabled. Does my noble friend accept that, if replacement does not find favour, major reform is necessary and that that was agreed on all sides of this House during my debate on 13th April? It is now mathematically impossible for all eligible employers to employ the present quota of 3 per cent.
As regards direct payments, I supported the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord McColl because I had understood that the system of direct payments applies in Scotland. Therefore, I have argued that it should apply to England and Wales too. I should be grateful if my noble friend could confirm that in Scotland there is already a system of direct payments.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend's patience has at last been rewarded. We strongly agree that the quota system needs major reform. As he said, it was introduced towards the end of the war and for a different purpose. It has proved to be unworkable. We believe that the measures that we have put forward will vastly improve the situation.
I am delighted to hear that the House welcomes direct payments. I am not sure about the situation in Scotland. Perhaps I can write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the last thing that I wish to do is to bandy party political points. However, is the Minister aware that the first anti-discrimination Bill, as distinct from the general Bill that was brought forward by the noble Lord, was brought forward by a Labour Member some 12 years ago? I have forgotten his name but he represented Stoke-on-Trent! There has been a series of Bills ever since.
It would be churlish not to welcome the Statement and I so welcome it. The proposals are an advance for disabled people. However, I wish to make a particular point. The Minister spoke of burdening small employers. That is the wrong language to use because the whole object of anti-discrimination legislation is to release the talents and skills of disabled people. The
398
Minister in no way excused the Government's failure to include firms of fewer than 20 employees but we hope to convert her and her colleagues on that issue.
I wish to ask the Minister to reflect on two related central issues. First, for the past 12 years the Government have resisted anti-discrimination legislation. Indeed, there have been 13 Private Members' Bills. The Government have now bowed to pressure from disabled people, the disability lobby and parliamentary and public opinion. There is nothing wrong with that; it is democracy at work. The Government have done well to respond. Secondly, the people and organisations which discriminate against disabled people will resist guidance and advice. They are the very people who require pressure. That pressure can come only from a strong disability rights commission which can investigate, monitor and enforce the law. Will the Minister and her colleagues consider putting forward a strong commission? If not, the legislation will go the same way as the quota system—it will be disregarded and discredited.
Baroness Ctunberlege: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Lord has been a doughty fighter for the needs of disabled people and I cherish his comments on welcoming the Statement. I take his point about small businesses. I am sure that many employers see enormous benefits in employing disabled people. Often they are the most loyal and reliable employees. Of course, there is nothing to prevent employers from employing disabled people if that is their choice. We are not making it mandatory for them to alter their buildings, introduce new systems and seek what could be expensive advice in order to do so. Perhaps we can take the Bill as it stands and see what progress is made. I am sure that small businesses will look to others and see some of the benefits.
The noble Lord called for a commission. The National Disability Council will be a powerful body and will be independent. It will advise the Government on issues relating to discrimination, suggest measures to reduce them, review the effects of the new rights of access and draw up codes of practice. It will also be required to report annually to my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and to lay that report before Parliament. I have no doubt that it will be conscientious, particularly as its membership consists of 50 per cent. disabled people or their carers. I am sure that it will perceive as one of its duties to monitor what is happening and to report back to my honourable friend.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I welcome this Statement, and in particular the additional references to education, financial services and transport. The journey that the Government have travelled on this issue has been marathon. I am certain that the degree of shift in their position and the most welcome acknowledgement of the need for wide-ranging legislation could not have been achieved without great efforts and strong arguments on behalf of the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. Therefore, congratulations are due to the Minister, to Members in another place and to Members of your Lordships' House. But above all,

399
congratulations are due to disabled people and their organisations. They have pressed the case so hard for so many years.
But, not unnaturally, the Statement indicates a number of areas where the Bill may need to be improved when it eventually comes before us. As already hinted at by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, of grave concern to MENCAP is the suggested abolition of the employment quota, at least for the time being, for I must stress that our Pathway scheme, which has placed thousands of people with a learning disability into employment, relies heavily on the quota as a mechanism to persuade companies to consider employing people with learning disabilities. What reassurance can the Minister offer that the new proposals for employment will address the particular needs of people with learning disabilities?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his work with MENCAP and other disability organisations. I understand what he says about the abolition of the quota scheme but we really do think that it is unworkable. I am sure that the new council will take a special interest in those people who have a mental handicap or learning disability. I have absolutely no doubt that, if there is any faltering, MENCAP will put enormous pressure on the Government.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend on the Statement that she has made. I remind her that the largest group of disabled people are those who suffer from various kinds of mental impairment. In that context, following what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, will she bear in mind that there must be some flexibility in the administration of the employment provisions of the scheme? There are those who are utterly unemployable and then there are a very large number, some of whom have been trained by MENCAP, who can do a wide range of unskilled jobs which nevertheless require a bit of training. They do those jobs well and continue to do them.
Will the Minister bear in mind that it would be a mistake to write into the Bill too great an emphasis on integration of those who are mentally handicapped into ordinary schools? It can be a disadvantage to them and to other pupils of those schools.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend, who I know has had very close associations with MENCAP and other organisations. With regard to flexibility in employment, perhaps we should leave that until we have the policy statement. I am sure that my noble friend will wish to comment on that. When the Bill is published, I am sure that he will put forward his views very strongly.
With regard to integration into ordinary schools, it has been our policy to integrate as many young children, teenagers and students, when they go to college, into normal schools and colleges. But we take the point that there are some children and young people who do not thrive when they are taught in mainstream institutions.
400
Of course it is a question of local judgment. One always has to take into account the comments and wishes of parents and carers of those children.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, we have listened to noble Lords who have spent a lifetime fighting for the disabled. I believe that the conscience of the country has been disturbed. But, at the beginning of the Minister's Statement, she paid a quiet but gracious tribute to the right honourable Member for Chelsea and I wish to underline that. He fell victim because he was the spokesman at a difficult time but I believe that he had fought within the administration to the utmost of his ability for disabled people and I am very glad that the Minister paid that tribute.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I was very interested to hear what the Minister said and welcomed what she had to tell us. Local authorities up and down the country are doing a good deal to try to ensure that disabled people have access to various forms of transport. Therefore, I was interested in her remarks about access to the rail network. In Surrey we know that it would cost about £2 million in order to make the 20 busiest stations fully accessible. Upon whom would those costs fall? Would they fall upon the newly privatised Railtrack?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not believe that I can fully answer the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. The whole question of costing will be addressed when we come to the cost compliance assessment which the Government will run, so we shall be looking at the detail of that.
I pay tribute to those transport undertakings which have already taken that very seriously. One can see the Docklands Light Railway and the tram systems in Manchester and Sheffield, where already there is total accessibility, and, of course, British Rail has its 125 system throughout the country.
I believe that transport is absolutely crucial. It is everything for disabled people in terms of independence. Seven thousand London taxis are now accessible to disabled people. We are getting there—a true British Rail term, I believe.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. Will my noble friend tell us when we can expect the proposals by the Secretary of State for the Environment on new domestic dwellings? Will the changes which he is to put forward be made by a straightforward change to the building regulations or will there be a specialist discussion document beforehand?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as to the timing, it will be shortly. I cannot say exactly when. I did not hear my noble friend's second question.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I asked whether the matter would be dealt with by changing the building regulations or whether there would be a discussion document which builders, who will have to put the proposals into effect, will have an opportunity to consider beforehand.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there will be discussions with the construction industry.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
5.37 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Nickson: My Lords, I rise to my feet for the first time in your Lordships' House with feelings of privilege and occasion which I comfort myself will have been shared at one time or another by all your Lordships. I am indeed grateful for this opportunity to speak so early from these Benches on the gracious Speech, following my noble friend Lord Ferrers. He started the cricketing analogies. The first test in Brisbane starts in just under six hours' time so perhaps I may continue them. I have sat for some time in the pavilion, as it were, waiting with my pads on to go to the wicket and I am quite glad to be here now.
I am very pleased to be able to speak for the first time on industry. I have spent 40 years of my life in various industries, the past 20 with a foot, or sometimes not much more than a toe, in the public sector as well. I was disappointed to miss the opportunity to speak in the important debate in June in your Lordships' House on job creation and technology which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Caldecote and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth. I read it in Hansard with agreement and a great admiration for the clarity of the views expressed.
I flirted with the idea of speaking, if the opportunity occurred, on other subjects. I thought that I might talk about the single European market and some of its implications. However, I felt that that would be unwise for a maiden speaker at the present time. I also thought that I might speak about the environment; but, if so, I would have taken the opportunity to do so yesterday. Similarly, I thought that I might talk about top pay and escalation of top pay in the private sector. But I thought that that would be too delicate a subject for a maiden speech. Moreover, as chairman of the Senior Salaries Review Body, I would also have had to abide by the Addison Rules.
Having run away from all those subjects, I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if I speak on a subject that I probably know best, even if it is equally well known to all your Lordships and if what I have to say is somewhat threadbare. However, unlike the radio programme "Just a Minute", I believe that it bears repetition because it is fundamentally and absolutely important.
There has been a spate of White Papers, reports and initiatives in recent months on industry—especially manufacturing industry—on science and technology, on competitiveness, which so vitally affects both our economy, and, most significantly, on employment. I shall not catalogue them because noble Lords will be familiar with them. They come from the Government, Committees of your Lordships' House, from the Trade and Industry Select Committee of another place and from the Confederation of British Industry, to name just a few.
402
Each of the latter is individually important; but, collectively, they spearhead a tide of informed opinion that brings to the forefront of our national agenda—and, it is to be hoped, to the consciousness of public opinion—the single most important topic for the future prosperity of our people: wealth creation, or—to pick up a phrase that my noble friend used—our ability to earn this country's living in the world.
For too many decades attitudes to industry, and especially to manufacturing industry, have been somewhat negative. For too long people who perhaps should have known better have peddled the notion that manufacturing did not matter and that Britain could survive as some sort of upmarket service station. That is nonsense and noble Lords know it. Manufacturing industry plays a great role in our economic activity. It is responsible for 70 per cent. of the exports of goods and services. It is responsible for about 50 per cent. of consumer expenditure and it employs over 4 million people. There are at least another 4 million employed by the service industries that are dependent upon and supply that manufacturing industry. Yet, the Victorian image of dark satanic mills—that is, grubby, noisy, confrontational, boring, unglamorous and relatively poorly paid—persists.
The attitudes of the professions—perhaps, most significantly, the teaching profession—and that of parents seeking a career for their children, sometimes seem to reflect those views. "Don't, Mrs. Worthington, put your son or daughter on the factory floor". The City, law, medicine, science, the public service (both civil and military) the Church, accountancy and politics have all been the preferred career choices of our best brains and of our best graduates for some time. Your Lordships' Benches testify to that fact very eloquently.
The desire to be of service in all those ways is both admirable and absolutely necessary. Noble Lords must not think for one single moment that I am denigrating any of those great and essential callings. My point is very simple. All of us have spent, and still do every day, too much time talking about how to divide the national cake instead of how to increase its size. We all know that the National Health Service, education, the environment, local government, defence, the Civil Service, the police, the judiciary and even politicians in the Houses of Parliament must all be paid for out of the earnings of UK plc, the wealth creating sector.
I turn now to the introductory speech made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. Of course, I completely agree with him about the need for competitiveness. I very much welcome the continued, sustained recovery and the reduction in the trade deficit. I also welcome the increase in employment. Above all, I welcome the continued low inflation rate. UK industry is more competitive than at any time in the recent past, even if our productivity is still 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. below that of our competition.
Perhaps I may turn for a moment to the first Starred Question on the Order Paper today. I was most struck by what was said. It is true that we need a level playing field. It is also true that some other governments in Europe are less fastidious than our own in ensuring that European legislation is complied with. If I may use the

403
slightly colourful words of the Director-General of the CBI when I was its president, "We won't win at cricket if the other side is playing karate".
I am absolutely delighted by the new strategic alliance between the DTI and industry. I am delighted that the Government's attitude is so publicly positive to industry and that, to quote from ministerial statements,
"industrial competitiveness has been put at the very heart of Government policy right across Whitehall. And that is where it will remain".
In the Business Links that were announced, and in all such matters, that is very important. Indeed, I believe that it is more important than government throwing money at the problem. Attitudes are most important. Partnerships are also important at local level. In Scotland, the Scottish Development Agency and Scottish Enterprise—though, perhaps, noble Lords will say that I would say this anyway having been responsible for both those bodies—have been successful. But why? It was because we had partnership. We had partnership with the private sector as the engine for entrepreneurial growth, but we also had partnership with local government and local authorities. That is absolutely vital. One needs that because those in the public sector have to be the active facilitators for the private sector to develop.
I was very pleased to hear my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie say, when referring, I believe, to Section 171A of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act, that local government would have a continuing role to play in economic development under the new legislation. That is important. I believe that we have seen success as regards partnerships in the way that my noble and learned friend outlined.
I should like to conclude where the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, left off and concentrate on investment. I believe that we have been extremely successful on inward investment. Certainly, we are quite proud of what has happened in Scotland. My noble friend quoted the figures that I had intended to use for the United States and Japan over the past decade. But I believe that our record on investment as a nation against that of our competitors has been less good. I may not agree with the noble Lord's recipes for it—and perhaps he would not expect me to do so totally—but I do agree with his diagnosis.
I should like to concentrate on one final matter. Technology is globally transportable. Europe's wage rates can never compete with the NICS in the Far East, far less with India and China. So where must we go for success? We must invest. We must invest in innovation, in product design and development and in skills. Since the war, the Japanese estimate that 50 per cent. of all the most important inventions in the world have been British. We file more patent applications every year than our competitors, yet the Germans and the Japanese seem more successful than we are in turning the twinkle in a researcher's eye into world-class products that sell.
We have excellent businessmen who know what will sell and who know how to market; but, somehow, they do not meet in the middle. We need to close the research push/demand pull gap and we can do that, I would
404
suggest, in three ways. First, I hope that the Government will continue to address this matter, as they are doing, very actively. Secondly, I believe we need a continuum, and a better dialogue at national level and local level between higher education and industry to ensure that they meet on a more regular basis.
Thirdly, and lastly, I believe that our great institutions who own 75 per cent. of British industry might direct some of the spotlight that they focus on short-term performance, and which they have turned on corporate governance lately, towards ensuring that long-term investment is sustained, even through economic downturns and even at the expense of lower dividend distributions in order to ensure that investment is maintained. I have said all I want to say. I would only just add that wealth creation and the need to earn this country's living is once again at the top of the agenda, and long may it remain so.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Kingsdown: My Lords, it is an honour to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, after such an excellent maiden speech and to congratulate him on behalf of the whole House. The noble Lord, as we have seen, is a man of wide experience in industry, commerce and in many other important national and voluntary activities and organisations. As we have also seen, he adds eloquence and wit to this wealth of experience. I am sure that the House will hope to see and hear him frequently.
I wish to continue perhaps with his theme—that of wealth creation—but to concentrate particularly on the influence of low inflation on our economic life and our wealth creation. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told us earlier on, the rate of inflation in the United Kingdom now is the lowest for 27 years and the prospects look better than they have ever been within the adult memory of most of the population. I see this as something to be welcomed and as one of this Government's great achievements. They have set themselves stringent inflation targets and they are hitting them. The new openness flowing from the Bank of England quarterly inflation report and published minutes of the monthly meetings between the Chancellor and the Governor, has done much to strengthen the credibility of our monetary policy in the eyes of the public and above all in the eyes of the markets. Yet I think it is interesting to contemplate how widely all this is approved or recognised as welcome by people at large.
Clearly, it is pleasing that basic prices are not going up but I am not sure how many people believe it, so deep is the cynicism about inflation in this country, no doubt on account of continuous experience. I fancy there are still people with savings who would like to see their deposits once again earning double digit interest rates but who overlook that their present real rate of return may now be better than it was at those high nominal rates. There will also be house owners who would clearly like to see a rise in house prices, albeit nominal, to escape from negative equity. I have to say that I have great sympathy with them, although I believe that a stable market in house prices is a very important element in a stable economy.

405
I know of some industrialists who have pleaded with me that surely a little inflation has never done any harm and that price rises, perhaps modest but regular, are a great help in running a business. The repayment of debt in devalued currency is not such a harsh experience as true real repayment. Exports are easier, surely, when sterling is not held at a level to check inflation. Finally, can it really be right that in the name of low inflation so many people should be out of work?
It is when the plaintive tone reaches that question that the advocate, indeed the implementor, of stable monetary policy is confronted with his greatest challenge and his most serious argument. It is this problem that I wish to address as best I can. It may be ambitious of me, I acknowledge, because I believe it to be the major policy issue currently facing developed countries, and it is likely to remain so for the rest of the decade. It is from this issue that the greatest pressure will come on economic, financial and monetary policy makers.
If, very generally, inflation was the problem of the '70s and the '80s, the comparable problem of the early '90s has been and is the level of Government deficits. This is now being addressed, at least in our country. Yet for so many countries these deficits are connected with the level of unemployment and the cost of benefit payments that flow from it. I know that we can hope to see, and indeed do see, some respite here as economies once again resume growth. If so, why not be more vigorous in pushing economic growth? Why not indeed? But past experience suggests that it is at this point that we have to be very careful.
The rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom has increased markedly and steadily over the past 30 years. In the '60s the unemployment rate averaged 2¾ per cent.; in the '70s it was 3¼ per cent. and in the '80s it was 9 per cent., and this is where the rate currently stands, although mercifully it is falling. We need not torment ourselves that this experience is a problem specific to the United Kingdom, indeed our record is better than many of our European partners. In the European Union, unemployment has almost quadrupled in the past 20 years from 2.7 per cent. to 10.7 per cent., while in that period the rate in the OECD countries has more than doubled from 3.5 per cent. to 7.8 per cent. In the United States the increase has been considerably smaller—from 4.8 per cent. to 6.7 per cent.
We need also to bear in mind that the experience of unemployment is unevenly spread across a population. For many, the spells of unemployment are long. Of those unemployed in Europe, almost half have been unemployed for a year or more; that is, are long-term unemployed. The comparable figure in the United Kingdom is 35 per cent. and that in the United States for long-term unemployed is 7.2 per cent. That is a sharp contrast and I will return to this difference later.
We need to try to understand this phenomenon of high, even growing unemployment. What might constitute a cure? Policy makers across the developed world are addressing themselves to this matter at the Detroit jobs summit, through an OECD study, a European Union White Paper and follow-up work to it for ECOFIN. We have here in the United Kingdom a
406
process of policy reforms that has been continuing since the '70s. I think for policy makers a necessary distinction is the degree to which unemployment is cyclical against that which is structural; and the difference crudely is that part of unemployment, the structural part, which is not reversed by a subsequent economic upturn. The structural part has attracted the idea of "the natural rate of unemployment", the rate of unemployment which follows when inflation is stable. This concept is much embedded in the literature on unemployment and has inspired much work and disputation among learned economists. I hope I shall not offend them too much if I simply say that the value of the concept is to emphasise that attempts to reduce unemployment below its natural rate by monetary or macro-economic means are unstable and probably ineffective in the medium and long term and potentially explosive for inflation.
Fluctuations in unemployment round the natural rate in response to aggregate demand can be seen as cyclical only: fluctuations, and above all reductions, in structural unemployment are the result of movements in the natural rate itself—changes in labour market institutions, demographic effects, advances in technology, growth in international trade, and so on.
No doubt issue can be taken over that distinction between cyclical and structural unemployment, and above all over estimates of what the natural rate either is or could be. However, there is one painful conclusion to be observed from the United Kingdom experience. There was a time when many people took the view—and some things that I have heard suggest that the view lingers on—that unemployment is essentially the result of inadequate demand and that it could be reduced by pursuing expansionary fiscal and monetary policies. It could indeed, up to a point and for a time. However, what has emerged in past years in practice, clearly in our country but not uniquely, is that there were limits to that approach. Those limits were repeatedly exceeded, inducing growth beyond capacity constraints which spilled over into higher and accelerating inflation with the inevitable ultimate tightening of policy and its concomitant short-term rise in unemployment.
However, the problem seems to have gone deeper than merely the ups and downs of each cycle. The ups and downs over time did cumulative damage. The top of the ups and the bottom of the downs were each lower with each cycle, resulting in lower average growth, employment and rate of investment and finally a lower potential rate of growth over the medium and long term. In other words, a cyclical process cumulatively produces a structural result.
Can we separate out the cyclical component of unemployment and deal with that as a start? The answer is in the affirmative to the extent that we can flatten out the ups and downs of the cycle. I doubt if we can ever eliminate the economic cycle itself, but sound macro-economic policy over a sustained period can go a long way towards that flattening.
Here it is appropriate to emphasise that stable money and low inflation are not simply totem poles, a source of professional self-satisfaction for finance Ministers or central bankers, an objective in themselves, but only

407
essential ingredients of the real objective of economic policy, a means to the end of sustainable economic growth with all that that contributes to sustainable employment, low government deficits and rising prosperity.
What about the deeper problem of structural unemployment? Here the experience in the United States can tell us something. I said earlier that the figure for US long-term unemployment is 7.2 per cent. of the unemployed in contrast with the UK figure of 35 per cent. and that for Europe of nearly 50 per cent. The explanation for that sharp difference appears to be crudely that, while the prospects of losing your job in the United States are higher than in Europe, the chances of finding another one quickly are also much higher. The US labour market is the freest and most mobile in the world. The figures that I have just given are a consequence of that. There may be social elements in that which are not likeable, but we need at least to understand the phenomenon. By contrast, in Europe you have a better chance of holding on to your job, partly because employment protection is greater, but, if you have the misfortune to lose the job, your chances of finding another one quickly are more remote.
I believe that, as we move more and more from the concept of a job for life, whatever the colour of your collar—blue or white—to the need for skills for life in various jobs during a working career, we shall have to be prepared for a pattern of change and mobility more akin to that obtaining now in the United States. That preparation will involve increasing policy concentration on education, training, retraining, anything to improve qualifications and skills, greater mobility, housing policies to facilitate that mobility—all those moves with which we are familiar but where progress still needs to be made in both policy and its implementation.
Where progress has been made, and well made, is in that other field of monetary stability and the essential contribution that that makes. Let us hold on to that with conviction without failing to put our backs behind the structural changes which are still necessary and still incomplete.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time I should like to speak about what I believe, from a lifetime of service in the trade union movement, to be one of the keys to our future economic success. I refer to the skills needed in what I venture to call the productive economy. I wish also to say how grateful I am for the kindness and consideration that has been shown to me by your Lordships, by Officers of the House and by many members of the staff.
This House is a cosmopolitan community with Members from richly varied backgrounds. As your Lordships may be aware, I come from a career working with the trade union which today is called the GMB but which for most of my time was known as the General and Municipal Workers Union.
408
I realise that the part played by trade unions in our society has been, and perhaps still is, a matter of some controversy. For instance, some economists have described trade unions as having no more than a fugitive role, an imperfection in the labour market. Whatever theory may say, in practice the fugitives have survived. However, the environment in which they operate today is more challenging than it has been for decades. The world of work is more insecure for everyone nowadays. Global markets have exposed British business to a colder competitive climate. Keeping up with the competition now means much more than matching their prices. Increasingly today product quality and standards of service decide whether customers are prepared to pay premium prices and whether businesses survive.
Last year in this House my noble friend Lord Haskel drew attention to the way in which worldwide competition was increasing the pressure on people at work. He summed up the situation by saying that nowadays our industry has to produce extraordinary results with ordinary people. I agree completely with that summary and with all that it implies about the education and training that working people need to do a good job.
In the debate on the Address in this House in 1962 Lord Williamson, a former GMB general secretary, warned that the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to a high and stable level of employment was threatened by the low level of training in British industry. Unfortunately that warning had a Cassandra-like quality. No one took it seriously, but it became disastrously true.
What was true of the 1960s is even more true of the 1990s. British industry is being held back, not by burdensome and bureaucratic regulations as some would have us believe. It is being stifled by skill shortages. The commanding heights of modern economies lie in the education and skills of their workforce, but too little is being done in this country by either side of industry or by the Government to scale those heights. Trade unions must accept their share of responsibility.
A survey by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) showed that at the beginning of the 1990s trade unions only negotiated about training in two out of every 10 workplaces where they had membership. Unions have traditionally put pay at the top of their bargaining priorities. It is clear to me today that they need to broaden their bargaining agenda and shift the emphasis from pay to prospects. Bargaining has to be about building skills as well as about paying bills.
I have the honour to be chairman of Ruskin College, Oxford, which helped the Transport and General Workers Union and the Ford Motor Company to negotiate a bold scheme for the education and personal development of Ford workers. I have also had a limited involvement with the Rover Group where a similar scheme has been introduced. I believe that the Rover example is particularly interesting because, as I am sure many noble Lords will recall, the company was beset with major industrial relations problems in the 1970s

409
and early 1980s. Now it is a successful manufacturer and recently announced the creation of nearly 1,500 new jobs.
With the co-operation and commitment of the trade unions, the company has transformed the method of production. All employees are encouraged to participate in, and contribute to, continuously improving processes and performance. But I am afraid that trade unions are having a much tougher time negotiating training agreements with indigenous small and medium-sized firms, the very sector of the economy from where the new jobs should come. That is a problem we need to address—and address urgently.
It is understandable that attention tends to be focused on education and training for young people entering the workforce for the first time. But we must remember that over 80 per cent. of the people who will be at work in the year 2000 are already working today. It is essential that their skills are improved.
Perhaps I may take as an example my own trade union. We are endeavouring to negotiate the right to one week's training per year every year for all employees. That is a start. The union is trying to take the CBI at its word when it calls for lifetime learning by British workers. It is trying to give effect to Article 15 of the European Social Charter which provides for lifetime training rights for all workers.
Learning, education and training must not stop when people start work. But the figures show that the less training you have had today, the less you are likely to get in the future. That represents a massive denial of opportunity to women, young people and members of black and ethnic minority groups.
In some circumstances the market system can and does work. But when it comes to skills and training something extra is needed to prompt employers into action. The CBI estimates that nearly two-thirds of United Kingdom employers invest less than 2 per cent. of payroll costs in training, whereas three-quarters of French employers invest more than that figure. Perhaps we should follow the practice in, for example, Germany, France, Japan and Singapore where employers are encouraged, and in some cases required, to invest a minimum percentage of their payroll costs in training.
The skills gap will not close of its own accord. Already a CBI survey shows that 10 per cent. of manufacturing firms report that a shortage of skilled labour is the factor most likely to limit their output. That is confirmed in a more recent survey published last week covering over 900 companies in the West Midlands. Nearly 30 per cent. of them report that it is more difficult now to recruit the labour they need than at any time since the winter of 1990 and that skill shortage is,
"a reflection of the reduced emphasis upon training during the recent recessionary period".
I believe that there is considerable support in industry for a national training strategy which would replace the present market-driven voluntary system. Such a strategy would include measures to ensure that all employers contributed fairly to the training of their own workforce. It would limit poaching and encourage training in transferable skills.
410
I fully appreciate the work being carried out by the training and enterprise councils and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. But more is needed if we are to achieve sustained economic growth.
I see the position quite simply. The stark choice facing workers in modern economies is this. They can either sell their skills or work for low wages, or not work at all. I want Britain's employers to invest in their workers; to exploit their potential, to tap their talents, and to develop their capacity. The alternative is for Britain to slide down-market into a low skill, low wage economy, a future which I am sure no one in your Lordships' House would look forward to with anything other than dismay.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Tugendhat: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said earlier that the debate had been notable for the high quality of the maiden speeches. Today we have seen that quality still further enhanced with two notable contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, and my noble friend Lord Nickson. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, comes to us with a lifetime of experience in industry—certainly in the trade union movement to which he referred —but also with great knowledge of the Post Office, the fishing industry and his experience at Ruskin College. He has demonstrated in the most eloquent possible way today his ability to transmit that experience and wisdom in a manner that will command the attention and influence the views of people in all parts of the House and not only on his own Benches.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, has already congratulated my noble friend Lord Nickson. Therefore, there is little more for me to say other than that in view of his reference to the opening of the first test match in Brisbane in less than six hours' time, I only hope that the English team do half as well as he did today.
Before I come to the substance of my speech, I must make one further point. It is to say how grateful I am for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am, sadly, unable to stay until the end owing to a previous long-standing engagement. I therefore crave the indulgence of the House for my absence subsequently, especially of my noble friend who will wind up and of those who will wind up from the Opposition Front Benches.
I turn to the substance of my speech. The Government are under such sustained attack, in some respects more particularly from their own supporters, that it is difficult for one to realise that the economy is probably—indeed certainly—in better shape than at any time since most of us can remember. The rate of growth is nearly 4 per cent. The underlying rate of inflation is at 2 per cent., a level last seen in the early 1960s. The growth is export led. The balance of payments is improving rapidly, according to some independent experts, at perhaps an annual rate of £6 billion a year since 1992. Unemployment is falling; and even manufacturing industry, about which so much concern has rightly been expressed in recent years, is recovering.

411
One could go on. Of course I recognise that the devaluation of 16th September 1992, to which the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, drew attention, is perhaps the crucial factor on which this recovery has been based. But I believe that he was less than fair when he then appeared to attribute the remainder of the success to the fall that occurred some time ago—it is being reversed now—in commodity prices. We need to look at other factors as well. In particular, it is just, at this time in the early 1990s, to examine the impact that structural reforms carried out in the 1980s have had, or are having, in terms of flexible labour markets, more internal competition and more inward investment. Like most structural reforms, those that took place in the 1980s have taken time to bear fruit but they are doing so now in the 1990s. It is also right to remember the substantial reduction in the level of inflation that took place while we were members of the European exchange rate mechanism.
Finally, it is crucial to pay tribute to the tight fiscal and monetary policies that have been pursued since the devaluation, which have enabled the inflationary impact that normally follows a devaluation to be restrained and which have brought it down still further, reduced the public sector deficit and nurtured growth in the economy.
Of course, we have been helped—and it would be churlish to deny it—by the recovery in the United States and this year in continental Europe. But it is also fair to point out that this is the second year running in which the economy has greatly out-performed the forecasts and greatly out-performed expectations. That would not have been possible without the measures that I have listed. I therefore pay tribute not just to the present Chancellor for what has been done since the devaluation, but also to his predecessor, Mr. Norman Lamont, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, paid a somewhat oblique compliment, I felt, in the course of his remarks.
There is one further point I also wish to make. That is the importance of the reforms initiated by Mr. Lamont when he was Chancellor and continued by Mr. Clarke, to enhance the role of the Bank of England in the formation of monetary policy and to make that formulation more transparent. Both those measures—the enhancement of the role and making it more transparent—have done much to improve the quality of policy making and the confidence reposed in it in this country and abroad.
What now? For God's sake, don't blow it. Having come as far as we have, the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, speaking with all the authority of a former Governor of the Bank of England, ought to weigh heavily in the Government's ears. The Chancellor must keep his pledge on no premature tax cuts. If necessary—by which I mean if conditions demand it—the Governor must be prepared to recommend higher interest rates and, as he has already done, do so before rather than after the event. The willingness of the Governor to recommend, of the Chancellor to accept and for the decision to go ahead before rather than after inflationary pressures have begun to build up has had a
412
beneficial effect on the way in which the United Kingdom economy is viewed. I hope that the Chancellor will continue to pay heed to the Bank of England's advice in these matters.
It is also important, I believe, to remind ourselves that it is not enough for the British rate of inflation simply to be better than we have been accustomed to in this country. Four per cent., the top end of the Government's range, may be much better than we have been accustomed to, but it is by no means good enough by international standards. We need to be not just below 2½ per cent. but significantly so. In that connection, it is perhaps worth pointing out that the French rate of inflation at present is 1.6 per cent. or 1.7 per cent.
I shall give four reasons why it is important that the rate of inflation in this country should be low not just by our historic experience but also by the standards of our competitors and partners. The first is that our past record means that markets are much more suspicious of us in relation to inflation than they are of many others. Therefore, our Government's funding carries an interest rate premium that others do not have to carry and that we must get rid of.
Secondly—and this is a point which was eloquently made by my noble friend Lord Nickson—we must encourage as high a level of industrial investment as possible and as sensible an allocation of resources. That will be greatly aided by a low rate of inflation. Thirdly, we need to maintain competitiveness with our competitors abroad and especially with the newer ones who are becoming increasingly important in world export markets. As my noble friends Lord Nickson and Lord Ferrers pointed out, the British share in manufacturing exports has recently been increasing but the going will become tougher and it is important that we should operate from a sound domestic base.
Finally under that heading, we need to keep inflation low because our population is ageing. That means that people need to maintain the value of their savings in order to be able to provide for themselves, otherwise the cost to the public purse will be even greater than would normally be the case.
Before concluding I wish to make one further point. In economic terms we are living in revolutionary times. The market economy has expanded to embrace the whole world. Huge technological changes are taking place in every aspect of business life. The result is great upheavals in people's lives. That creates enormous opportunities for some; for those with the appropriate skills, the appropriate training and the adaptability that is needed. But it is also a cause of great anxiety to others. Those for whom it is a cause of great anxiety are to be found in all sectors and at all levels of our society.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, indicated, the changes have already meant and will continue to mean that we shall see far-reaching changes in the traditional patterns of career and work. Periods of full-time employment will be punctuated by unemployment, part-time work and self-employment. Those experiences will be common across the whole of our society. For many people, part-time work and self-employment may well become the norm. Involuntary early retirements will also continue.

413
I believe, therefore, that the Government need to bear that in mind and to cushion rather than to penalise those who lose out from these developments. In a nutshell, we must certainly continue to encourage dynamism and change; but dynamism and change and a faster rate of economic growth, with a low rate of inflation, will not benefit all the people all the time. Those who lose out temporarily or permanently still have rights as individuals and as citizens. Therefore, I urge the Government, in framing their tax and benefit policies and their public expenditure proposals, to take those factors, too, into account. If we think only of dynamism and change rather than of balancing those with people's need for security, there will be a backlash which could bring all the economic success which we have achieved to a juddering halt.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation following the four powerful speeches we have just heard on economic affairs. I shall not attempt to emulate them. We have also been fortunate to hear two particularly important maiden speeches, each covering quite different matters. The noble Lord, Lord Nickson, spoke on wealth creation and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, on training—quite different subjects, but complementary. They come together. I agree with all that the two noble Lords said.
I must ask the forgiveness of the House, particularly that of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for having to leave early. The two long Statements have delayed proceedings and in the morning I have to attend a meeting in Dublin which will deal with one of the two matters on which I shall speak. Both require urgent attention.
I am concerned that the gracious Speech does not mention the sea or anything related to it, despite the fact that Britain is an island nation. The Channel Tunnel will make some difference in that we are no longer totally dependent on sea-borne heavy goods. But it will not change the basic facts. Approximately 95 per cent. of the goods imported and exported from this country travel by sea; by volume, only 18 per cent. of those goods are carried in British-flagged ships. One consequence is that a large number of unsafe or improperly crewed ships are trading in our waters. The report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, Safer Ships and Cleaner Seas deals with one aspect of that problem and the consequence of it.
The fact is that the British merchant marine is in steady decline. It now stands at only 3.4 million tonnes dead weight, compared with 36 million tonnes in 1981. The British shipbuilding industry is also in crisis. The formerly large British manufacturing industry for marine equipment is also contracting.
The reason for the crisis both in ship owning and ship building is basically the same. British owners and builders are playing uphill on a steeply inclined playing field. I know that it is the Government's wish to level that playing field. But, if that is ever possible, it will take years, by which time we may no longer have British-owned ships or British shipbuilders. This is not the place to go into the complex details of those
414
industries which were fully debated in this House on 28th April 1993. The Government have since taken some action but not nearly enough even to maintain the status quo. To assist the ship owners, I hope that the Chancellor will shortly finalise details for roll-over relief, which he has proposed, and extend the three years that has been suggested to at least five years. I hope also that the Chancellor will override Treasury resistance and give British owners of British-flagged ships the right to 100 per cent. capital allowances. That could be dealt with in two or three sentences in the Chancellor's speech next Tuesday and would give some encouragement to owners and managers of British-flagged ships.
Things are made more difficult for United Kingdom shipbuilders and manufacturers of marine equipment by the substantial assistance given to shipbuilders in other yards in Europe and to a more serious extent in South Korea. Against South Korea, the playing field for our shipbuilders is almost vertical.
South Korean yards have been taking orders for Capesize vessels at around 41 million dollars, which equates approximately to the material cost alone of such ships in the United Kingdom. A recent study has shown Harland and Wolff to be achieving the lowest cost among European builders but even Harland and Wolff s price is between 18 and 26 per cent. more expensive than that of South Korea for this size of ship. It is not surprising therefore that the order book at the end of June for South Korea stood at over 10 million tonnes while the figure for the UK was only one half of 1 million tonnes. The price difference is not wholly due to subsidy. South Korean yards are able to use differences in exchange rates which are very favourable to them. That opportunity is not open to non-South Koreans.
I have had some interest in shipbuilding, being connected with Harland and Wolff for many years. But I know that I speak for all UK shipbuilders who face the same problems. I urge the Department of Trade and Industry to engage in close consultation with British shipbuilders and British manufacturers of marine equipment to identify the problems and to facilitate rapidly the ability of UK manufacturers to compete on equal terms with foreign countries. There is no time to be lost. To me it is quite unthinkable that the UK may soon not have a stake in shipping or that the UK should no longer be able to build ships.
I wish to turn to the economy, but just one aspect of it; namely, investment in manufacturing industry, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nickson. It is clear that investment by manufacturing industry is not adequate. That has come through in various reports and is the case despite recent surveys showing that UK manufacturers have fewer companies of so-called "world class" standard than have our competitors elsewhere. There are several reasons why investment is still inadequate, one being the lack of medium-term confidence together with other things that cannot be changed quickly. But there is one reason that stands out.
In the past few years advances in computer software and associated hardware have progressed and have now been applied successfully to a variety of machine types

415
used by small and medium-sized companies. That has increased their productivity very considerably. Unfortunately, to take advantage of that progress it is seldom sufficient to buy one machine. It usually means that a whole new system must be installed, perhaps with a different lay-out. In practical terms that means that in order to make a real advance a lot of money must be spent very quickly—very often much more than can be covered by cash flow in the companies involved. Generally speaking, small and medium-sized companies are not over-anxious to put themselves in the hands of their bankers. There is enough evidence of what happened to some companies which did that shortly before the last recession.
There is a relatively simple way of partly overcoming the difficulty. Again, the Chancellor can do it in a sentence on Tuesday. He must give manufacturing companies that wish to make substantial investment the right to 100 per cent. capital allowances. Very often, payment of corporation tax will be delayed by only one year and, as companies become more profitable due to the new investment, the Chancellor's eventual tax take will be larger.
I must declare an interest as the chairman of a small to medium-sized manufacturing company which has recently completed a substantial investment of the nature I have described—with, I must acknowledge, assistance from the Northern Ireland industrial development board. The investment has been completed. The company is working well and is now acknowledged to be world class. I have been through the accounts and, putting aside the financial assistance received, if we had been able to reduce corporation tax during the period of investment by using 100 per cent. capital allowances the effect on cash flow would have been equivalent to 20 per cent. financial assistance with capital expenditure. That illustrates perhaps what a powerful tool 100 per cent. capital allowances can be.
I was pleased to hear the paragraph on Northern Ireland at the end of the gracious Speech. It is everyone's hope that steady progress will be made towards real peace. I wish most sincerely to congratulate the Prime Minister on the way he has handled the Northern Ireland situation and the progress towards peace in recent months. If he and the Secretary of State continue in the same manner, with thought and care for the real interests of all the people in the Province, we shall all be more than grateful. There is general satisfaction. I am particularly pleased that the Prime Minister is to visit on 13th–14th December to chair an international investment conference. It is important that the money that is being offered from various sources is controlled and well directed. The Northern Ireland economy is ready to advance, and we all look forward to the projects that will come from that conference.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nickson. In what the noble Lord had to say, I recognised a kindred spirit. I, too, came to this House after a lifetime in manufacturing industry. I sympathise with a
416
lot of what he said, and I believe he will agree with a lot of what I have to say. I should also like to welcome the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Gladwin. I agree entirely with him on how we should deal with competition, especially as he was generous enough to quote words from my maiden speech. I hope that the Government will listen to what he has to say about employment, training and skills and have the good sense to act on it.
In the gracious Speech and in the Minister's opening remarks, there was reference to investment and competitiveness, improved working of the labour market, increased competition in the gas industry and steps to promote enterprise. I should like to look at those four aspects of industrial policy: investment and competitiveness; improved working of the labour market; competition; and enterprise.
Let me first look at investment. As a country, we are not yet paying our way. We shall achieve that only through growth. Both my noble friend Lord Eatwell and the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, explained that that growth must be in our manufacturing sector. The Minister reminded us that during the past year there was a review of competitiveness with a view to encouraging that growth. Where are the proposals from that review to help industry perform better? My noble friend Lord Eatwell reminded us that during last year we were also promised a review about short-termism in investment and the pressures on our companies to pay higher dividends than our competitors. Where is that important work? Perhaps the Minister can tell us.
What we are told is that there is economic recovery. But, as others have pointed out, investment is not recovery. We are all worried about why firms are not investing in response to recovery, especially as we have such a successful financial sector. After all, there is a limit to the amount of restructuring that industry can do. Mr. John Maples seems to have a point when he observes that what the Government are saying is completely at odds with the experience of Tory supporters. The truth is that what the Government are saying about the economy is at odds with everybody's experience.
The answer is that there is a new responsibility for government; namely, to work in partnership with the private sector. Public and private investment are needed to stimulate each other. The noble Lord, Lord Nickson, told us about that. An advanced economy such as ours cannot for long raise its underlying growth without vigorous public and private investment. Properly chosen investment in improving the skills and health of the workforce and the quality of the infrastructure produces high returns, often higher than those from private investment in land and buildings. That is the job of government.
The highest return is from investment in equipment and new technology. That is the job of the private sector. However, Treasury rules are used as an excuse for the Government not stepping in to maximise commitment in those areas which promote growth through a more active public policy. That is why today the Shadow Chancellor has proposed a public-private finance task

417
force, which will go much further toward that objective than previously. He has also proposed a corporate tax review to encourage investment.
The factors determining growth are not beyond the influence of government. I found it a little odd and confusing that there was no mention in the gracious Speech of that very important aspect of our national competitiveness, broad-band communication, and then, a week later, a Command paper on that very topic was presented to Parliament. The noble Earl spoke of this matter with great enthusiasm and not a little perplexity. I hope that the Minister will give us an opportunity to debate this matter in your Lordships' House.
The second aspect is the improved working of the labour market. Again, the noble Earl the Minister spoke about it with great enthusiasm. Perhaps this will mark a U-turn and the Government will abandon the ridiculous notion that low wages and the opt-out from the social chapter are the main factors in our competitiveness. That has been disproved time and again in recent months. Only two weeks ago, the Engineering Employers' Federation reported in a survey that 43 per cent. of its respondents thought that the opt-out of the social chapter was entirely irrelevant in running their businesses. This month the Mackenzie Global Institute in Washington reported that it is government barriers to competition rather than labour market rigidities that explain why recent employment creation has been lower in the European Union than in the US and Japan.
I shall come to those government barriers to competition later. Meanwhile, I urge the Minister to note that the Mackenzie study says that, while many employers complained about inflexibility, the evidence showed that when companies were forced to react to changes in the market place they were able to overcome those barriers. I quote:
"The transaction costs of hiring and firing play a relatively minor role compared to total labour costs".
That only adds to the argument that, if the Government wish to improve the working of the labour market, the way to do it is to educate and train the workforce so that those people become desirable and valued employees and not just a low skill, casualised workforce which is easily hired and fired. The opt-out of the social chapter only encourages such casualisation and protects those companies that are poorly managed, have low investment and rely on the state to top up low wages with benefits. The Government are still out of touch on this issue. In the real world, minimum standards and the social chapter contribute towards competitiveness. They are not obstacles.
I hope that improving the working of the labour market, mentioned in the gracious Speech, will not only incorporate the social chapter but will also apply to the entire labour market from shop floor to boardroom, and include the scandal of excessive executive pay and share options. Share options should be available to all employees under the worker share option schemes. In modern industrial Britain it is as important for employees at all levels to think and act like owners as it is for directors. That is how firms encourage innovation and build innovation into their businesses. In the end, that is how we shall compete.
418
That brings me to my third point: competition. The Minister spoke of competition as the key to the Government's trade and industry policy. Yet the Government are split over the most important strategic factor to encourage that competition: a properly working single market within the European Union. Professor Hobsbawm recently observed that the organisations and people which have flourished during the past 20 years are those that operate effectively across international boundaries. Creating transnational bodies that have some form of democratic accountability is our biggest challenge. Sadly, there was nothing in the gracious Speech about that. Perhaps that is yet another example of the needs of the party opposite taking priority over the needs of the country.
Meanwhile, the Government take a relaxed attitude towards competition at home. Since 1988 the Government have admitted on several occasions that UK competition legislation requires substantial strengthening in order to combat price fixing and informal restrictive practices by employers. Successive Directors General of Fair Trading have publicly expressed the urgent need to increase their powers of investigation. In January 1994 the DTI and the Office of Fair Trading paper on deregulation of competition law admitted that the Government are conscious of the strong criticism levelled at them. It is strange that a government claiming to regard competition as the key to its trade and industry policy should have nothing specific about it in the gracious Speech. Perhaps the Minister can explain that.
The other side of the coin from competition is enterprise. In the gracious Speech we were told that the Government will continue to promote enterprise. The Minister said that he believes that enterprise should produce lower prices, better service, improved quality and more choice. I believe that also. But again Mr. John Maples points out that what the Government are saying is completely at odds with what their supporters experience. Their experience is that enterprise is something which is good for shareholders and managers but expensive for consumers.
The noble Lord says that privatisation reacts to what the consumers want. That is not our experience. Consumers of such important items as gas, water, electricity and probably now railways, have a completely different opinion. In those privatised and regulated industries it is the interests of shareholders and managers that come first, even before privatisation. Managers are persuaded by the prospect of higher salaries, higher pension contributions and the necessary share options to agree to privatisation in the first place. The assets are undervalued and sold cheaply at the expense of the consumer. The regulator is then obliged to ensure that for several years the management achieve or improve on the profit forecasts, cash flow figures and other promises made in the privatisation prospectus. In that way managers have an easy regime of relating their prices to the RPI, whereas in the real competitive world they would be faced with many other risks and pressures. That is why—again as Mr. John Maples said—privatisation has not been popular and small

419
businessmen in particular feel let down. So much for the noble Earl's euphoria over privatisation and small businesses.
In those circumstances the customer can only look to the regulator because the Government have passed over to the regulators huge powers to make fundamental decisions on such matters as price, profitability and company structure—and that across a sector of our economy which represents 20 per cent. of our gross national product. Not even in the heady days of nationalisation was such commercial power vested in Government appointees. No wonder privatisation is not popular with consumers.
We all want industry to perform better. That is how we will create more jobs. In spite of what the Government say in relation to recovery, people still fear unemployment. They are sceptical because they do not have more money in their pockets. The perceptive Mr. Maples tells us that the reason is that real take-home pay is falling this year; it will fall again in 1995 and again in 1996. I hope that the Government will heed the arguments I put forward today. The mixture will be more effective and will encourage the growth necessary for our country to pay its way.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is the last evening on which we are debating the reply to the gracious Speech with which Her Majesty opened the present Session. So far we have had an extremely interesting discussion with an authoritative expression of the trade union attitude in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, and an equally impressive speech by my noble friend Lord Nickson on the employers' angle in industry. We have seen a good example of the wide body of expertise in a whole variety of directions which is to be found in your Lordships' House and which enables our discussions to be participated in by people who really know what they are talking about.
The gracious Speech and the address in reply contain some important words. For example:
"My Government will continue with firm financial policies designed to support continuing economic growth and rising employment, based on permanently low inflation".
Those are important words, as are those which immediately follow:
"Fiscal policy will continue to be set to bring the budget deficit back towards balance over the medium term. My Government will reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector".—[Official Report, 16/11/94; col. 3.]
That is an extremely important statement and my first question is whether the proposals now before us fall in with that undertaking. There are proposals for increased taxation. There are the small but irritating taxes on air passenger flights and on insurance. But much more important is the major build-up of tax which contributes to legal aid. That is an important economic aspect. Despite the efforts—very real and sincere—of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the cost of legal aid has been allowed to rise steadily year after year. In the current year it rises from approximately £1,200
420
million to £1,300 million. That is a substantial amount. When my noble friend replies, perhaps he can say whether the Government are satisfied with that or whether they are prepared to tackle taxation being levied in order to finance such an enormous payment for legal aid.
There are some possibilities for modification. Why is it necessary to give legal aid at all in civil cases? Why is it not possible, in lieu of that, to do as they do in the United States and simply say that lawyers may arrange for payment by results? Why is it necessary for people of great wealth to be given legal aid? There have been a number of cases—Mr. Nadir, Mr. Jawed Hashim and others—where people of considerable wealth have been allowed large sums by way of legal aid. We must ask why that is permitted. Indeed, it is an open question—and the mention of those gentlemen prompt it—as to why, if legal aid is to be given at all, even in criminal cases, it should be given to people who are not citizens of this country? Many of those people come to this country and get into trouble, but they come from countries that do not grant comparable facilities to British citizens who get into trouble in their countries.
Those are all real and serious questions. They involve substantial expenditure. I come therefore to what seems to me to be the central point of the debate; that is, if we are to secure (as I hope we are) a continuance of the economic recovery which the Government's policies have so far contributed towards bringing about—a situation in which there is stability; in which prices have risen little; in which inflation is small—it is essential that we should not make matters more difficult by increases in taxation. Increases in taxation are being effected now, no doubt because of the increased expenditure.
A considerable increase of VAT is proposed next year, particularly on domestic fuel. I regard VAT as, on the whole, a bad tax in principle. It is quite plainly inflationary. It adds directly to the price of commodities and there is no difficulty in concealing it. To increase it, as is proposed, as from next April from the present onerous 8 per cent. to a figure of 17.5 per cent. is a very serious decision to take. It would undoubtedly cause hardship, particularly to elderly people who feel the cold and require fuel, especially in the winter. I know it is proposed that it should not come into force until April but it is presumably intended to run through into the following winter, so that is a factor to be taken into account.
The tax is extremely unpopular. I very much hope that when my noble friend the Leader of the House replies he will indicate that the Government are giving some further thought to this matter. It would be a great mistake, at the time when public opinion is having to decide on the Government's future, deliberately to inflict a desperately unpopular proposal of this kind which it is not possible to justify on its merits. Why, if one requires fuel to keep warm, should one be charged tax of 17.5 per cent. on what one is paying for it? I do beg of my noble friend, as I beg of the Government, to think twice. It is bad enough to have installed the 8 per cent. increase, but to install the proposed figure would be extremely hard.

421
The gracious Speech also contains an interesting sentence:
"Legislation will be introduced to equalise the State pension age between men and women and to improve security, equality and choice in non-state pensions".—[Col. 3.]
It is about 35 years ago, when I was the Minister in charge of social security, that the question was raised of the rather curious situation in which the retirement pension was paid to men and women at different ages and why indeed women, who have an expectation of life generally of three or four years more than that of men, should become entitled to the retirement pension five years before their male contemporaries. I had to consider, as Minister, whether we could tackle this problem. It was obviously an extremely sensitive and difficult one. I came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to handle unless one had agreement between the parties so that the change could be spread over a number of years and not suddenly confront the ladies with a big increase in the age at which they would become entitled to a retirement pension.
I shall be extremely interested to hear from my noble friend the Minister what the intentions are. I assume that it is not intended that the change should be made quickly. Indeed, the gracious Speech does not even indicate whether the change will be to alter the age for women or for men or to produce a compromise between the two. I suspect that it is proposed to raise the ladies' pension age of entitlement, but presumably that cannot be done quickly. It cannot be done when a lady is at the point of retirement—suddenly to be told that for some years she will not receive her pension after all. It has to be phased in. It was that problem of phasing in which deterred me, when I was the Minister, from going forward with what was quite obviously a sensible reform.
There is no justification whatever in principle why women, whose expectation of life is longer than that of men, should draw their retirement pension five years earlier. On the other hand, suddenly to withdraw from people the expectation of the right to draw one's pension is a very serious matter indeed. The fact that the Government have put this matter in the gracious Speech indicates that they are very bravely seeking to tackle it. But I wonder whether we could be told—and told very soon because there is great anxiety about this outside among future pensioners—what the Government's intentions are, particularly with respect to phasing in.
The central problem to which we all have to address ourselves is making sure that the economy works. The Government are to be congratulated on the improvement which has taken place. Despite the gallant efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, to denigrate it, the economy has very considerably improved and there are very wholesome aspects of it: the stability of prices, the virtual departure of inflation and the improvement—the considerable improvement—in the unemployment figures. This result of the Government's policy is going forward at this moment, despite the efforts of the noble Lord opposite in criticising it. But if it is to continue it is essential not only that a certain measure of stability should be maintained but that taxation should not be
422
increased. If taxation is not to be increased, then it is necessary—because there is the question of the balance of payments—for expenditure to be restrained.
I have suggested one direction—legal aid—in which it could well be restrained and where at the moment it is still rising. And although I know that this is a highly sensitive issue, the question of our contribution to the European Community simply will not go away. I do not understand why the European Community needs to increase the amounts that it exacts from its members. One would have thought that with three, and perhaps four, new members joining the European Union there should be a surplus, enabling a reduction to take place. The fact that that has not happened, the fact that we now have this demand for more money, suggests that there is a great deal of extravagance in the European Community. I suggest that it is the duty of the British Government to the British people to attack that with very considerable firmness. Since we have to raise another £150 million in the coming year, rising by several times in the years ahead, this will make it just that bit more difficult to maintain reasonably low levels of taxation and therefore opportunities for industrial expansion which will result from that.
We are at a most interesting moment in the economy of this country. I believe that we are coming through—indeed, that we have come through—some of the worst of our problems of recent years. I believe that we can continue with this recovery, but only if the Government remain determined to restrain, and indeed prevent, increases in taxation and for that purpose, therefore, to restrain the demands for expenditure. I would welcome any statement that my noble friend the Minister is able to make on this issue. I know that he realises how anxious people are outside this House in the City, in industry, in business generally, and the ordinary citizen, as to the future. Such reassurance as can be given tonight will be of great value and will be a very happy termination to what has been a most successful debate.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is always a very great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in economic debates of this kind. At the outset I should like to associate myself with his remarks about the imposition of a 17.5 per cent. rate of VAT which I believe is quite monstrous. At the same time I am aware of the expenditure constraints on the Government at present. Quite clearly, it is in the best interests of the nation as a whole that such expenditure as the Government believe it right to make is made with the object of securing the greatest possible value for money; that there should be as little waste as possible; the maximum amount of efficiency in financial administration, and so on.
In that connection later I propose to follow the noble Lord's remarks concerning the new own resources decision that has to be made on the limitation of the amount of funds to be provided to the European Community. As time passes, our own affairs, as I shall seek to show, are increasingly bound up with the

423
financial decisions which are made in Brussels as well as those which are made here in support or otherwise of what is decided in Brussels.
Before dealing with that aspect of the matter I must deal with the supposition that has frequently been expressed, although in pleasant and elegant terms, by the Benches opposite about the prosperity and prospects of this country. According to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the economy is now soundly based, inflation is well down and we have the best prospects for 20 or 30 years. It is customary—and it takes very strong people to do otherwise—to look at it from one's own point of view, position in society, standard of living, one's own personal prospects and matters of that nature. It is perhaps as well that the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party should remind those of us who may have forgotten that:
"There is a feeling of powerlessness and insecurity about jobs, housing, health service, business, family value, crime etc and no vision of where we are heading".
He continues,
"the reality is now that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest, who are getting poorer".
Those are the remarks of the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party addressed to the Prime Minister and his close associates. It differs from the version that we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, this afternoon. It is of course the harsh reality that the living standards of at least one-third of the British population are below those which the Council of Europe has determined to be the poverty level. In point of fact, it is true that the bottom one-tenth of our population has suffered from deprivation since the Government came into office and that in real terms their living conditions and the funds available to them have declined by about 10 per cent. At the same time the fortunes of those in the upper section of our community have improved by something like 60 per cent. in money terms. Those are the realities.
When we talk about economic affairs—with all due respect to my noble friend Lord Eatwell who is a professional economist—we are talking in terms of political economics. A really vibrant society which is at ease with itself is a vital requirement for the continuous advancement of the living standards of all its people. One cannot expect an economy to function properly if it is based on the deliberate creation or the conscious tolerance of an underclass who increasingly cannot share in the personal serenity which is given to so many of us—perhaps to the remaining half or three-quarters of the population. The underclass live in appalling conditions. They live in houses which are unfit for human habitation. They live without any perspective enabling them to hold any kind of constructive view of the society in which they live. When they are not sleeping in doorways they are crowded into hovels.
One cannot speak of an expanding economy, one which is prospering or which is sound, if conditions of that kind are present, unless there exists some essence of solidarity between all the income ranges in this country and unless people can reach some fundamental agreement and confidence, not necessarily expressed in terms of income or wealth equality, but through a sense
424
of belonging to a nation or a community. Those factors lie at the root of any economy which can even approach calling itself sound, mildly prosperous or stable.
What bothers me is that the Government seem to talk with two voices. We have one voice in the deputy chairman who obviously has contact with the people. The Government's definitions of the various types of expenditure on which they embark make the mind boggle. At present, in order to achieve financial stability, as they call it, or sound finance, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would call it, we have some most extraordinary expenditures. I shall not go into all of them, but they include the literally billions of pounds which are contributed to the European Community. The figures show that over the past 15 years, after accounting for all abatements, all receipts, we have spent some £18 billion net on Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, reminded us in the debate the other day, the overwhelming mass of our trade is with Europe. Therefore there is a pay-off.
What the noble Lord did not talk about, and what no one ever talks about, is the composition of that trade, because during that same 15 years we have accumulated a trade deficit of some £73 billion with the rest of the European Community. So we have been paid £18 billion net in order, apparently, to secure a trade deficit of £73 billion. That does not sound to be good business or value for money.
I am not saying for one moment that we should not make a contribution to the European Community. There are in many ways sufficient benefits in terms of mobility, the opportunity to get to know one another in Europe and to trade with Europe, perhaps to justify a modest contribution which apparently other countries do not have to make. But we must subject that expenditure to the normal value for money criteria which we would adopt in respect of other expenditures. I raise the point with a degree of emphasis, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the unusual course of circulating a letter to Members of another place setting out his reasons for advocating that we support the new limits that were set up and agreed at Edinburgh. Even he apparently made some mistakes. After accusing those of us who queried the figures of being idiots, he admitted that he had made an error of £700 million, which is not all that frightfully good. I suggest therefore that we should take a more critical view of that matter.
Do Her Majesty's Government ever express any dissent over such matters upon which they are prepared to stand? We had the case of the Italian and Spanish Governments exceeding their quotas. They were fined some £3.3 billion between them. The Italians threatened that they would not pass the budget unless that fine was reduced. What harm would it have done us, as net contributors, if the budget was not passed? Why not call their bluff, instead of making that ridiculous statement which he must regret—to which I will return later when we discuss the Bill which may or may not come before us—and pretending that it was wiser to settle out of court, and say, "Look how much we have gained!"?
Exactly the same consideration arose in connection with the European Parliament. The European Parliament invested heavily in a new building in Brussels capable

425
of accommodating the newly increased representation. It spent some millions in doing so. Ah, ah! The French wanted a new parliament in Strasbourg, so what did they do? They too tried a bit of blackmail. They threatened that unless the Parliament was built in Strasbourg, and the contract was signed in Strasbourg—incidentally without competitive tendering—they would not agree and would veto the newly increased representation to the European Parliament of ourselves—we only had one or two more Members—and more particularly Germany which was to have 14. They stood on it. They declined to pass the agreement.
The European Parliament became party to that as well, because its Members also did not agree. The bureau met, without notifying its members, and passed the matter, quite illegally of course. But who bothers about illegality? We live in a Community in which the British try to obey the law, as a matter of course because we tend to do that here, and France, Italy and Spain obey it when it suits them. We let them get away with it. Now why? It puzzles me considerably that a government who have to say, "We cannot spend another £5 million on the health service; we cannot afford to have anything other than cash limits for home care; we cannot afford to build more new classrooms or provide new books because we do not have the money", should go through all these contortions, court all this unpopularity in so doing, and agree supinely with those states which seek to take advantage of us, with, incidentally the apparent silent assent of the president of the Commission who is usually more voluble than reticent on such matters.
Why is that? Why does it happen? I ask the Government to address themselves to that question. This expenditure which, incidentally, in the next six years will involve a further £18 billion of taxpayers' money—I should like to emphasise that point, because all expenditure of which the Government do not approve or which has to be dragged out of them, is taxpayers' money—is said of course to be a trivial percentage of the total GDP of Europe. The next six years—£18 billion! That is as much as in the past 15 years. How will the Government defend that?
We all try to be reasonable. I know that there is nothing sinister about it so far as concerns individual Ministers, but sometimes I wonder—my wonderment does not extend only to the Government but to other organisations of Parliament as well—whether they have given up thinking for themselves and have left it all to their advisers and researchers. That is not entirely unprecedented. I hope for the life of all in this country that it will soon stop.
7.28 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, following the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is rather like being an ab initio pilot behind the wing commander in charge of the Red Arrows—a lot of ground is covered; there is much colour; and there is a slight feeling of dizziness, certainly for myself.
I should like to join other noble Lords who have complimented our two maiden speakers. I follow very much the line of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter
426
in saying how much their professionalism has added, and will add, to the gravitas of our deliberations in the House. I must admit that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, touched a chord when he referred to his involvement with training, particularly that of the Ford Motor Company. I was once employed by the Ford Motor Company. It has the most excellent training facilities. The ones I know are at Dagenham. They are superb. They cover the full range of the company's employment. I hope that my noble friend Lord Nickson will come here from Scotland as frequently as possible. His deliberations will be warmly welcomed. In particular, he has had the opportunity of being at an altar that I know a little about—but that is for another occasion.
I wanted to make a short contribution to this debate because I believe that Her Majesty's most gracious Speech has come in for rather more criticism in your Lordships' House and in the British media than it deserves. Perhaps it can be likened to the jug of water that rests on the Table in your Lordships' House. There are those who would describe it as half empty and there are others like myself for whom it is half full.
In the past 15 years we have seen in the field of industrial and economic affairs in this country some remarkable changes and, more importantly, a reversal of some of the worrying trends that have bedevilled our country since the end of the Second World War. Of course, it is convenient and popular to forget some of the achievements of the present Government in the early 1980s because that seems a long time ago and perhaps today it is not fashionable. In reversing the errors of decades, we are effectively pushing an increasingly heavy snowball up a hill and I believe that we should not yield to the siren voices of criticism, no matter how eminent their source. The benefits that we are seeking are difficult to achieve and will take time. We must "keep on keeping on".
As has been recalled already, the most gracious Speech included a commitment to:
"continue to promote enterprise, to improve the working of the labour market, and to strengthen the supply performance of the economy".
Today some of your Lordships have not been slow to criticise the Government in some areas of their performance. But the other side of the coin is that they have created an environment of low interest rates, low inflation and good industrial relations. They are exactly what is needed to get on with the job of building Britain's competitive infrastructure.
In many essential areas—and I think of education and training, a respect for the engineering profession, a dedication to quality, the encouragement of inward investment, support for GATT and a belief in the work ethic —an environment has been created that has enabled our people to turn back the clock on some of the mistakes for which we have all been responsible in the past 50 years.
Speaking in another place in 1974, Mr. Tony Benn said:
"In developing an industrial strategy for the period ahead, we have the benefit of much experience. Almost everything has been tried at least once".

427
I do not often agree with Mr. Benn but in that I do. We can certainly learn a lot about our future industrial strategy by studying and avoiding the mistakes of the past.
In the field of education and training, there is clear evidence that we have learnt from the errors of the past. We are beginning to reap the investment by both government and industry in effective industrial training and the requirements of industry have begun to filter through to our teachers in the classroom. Here I would commend the work of my noble friend Lord Caldecote and Mr. Peter Gummer in their support for the effective charity, Understanding Industry. It has done much to increase in the classroom the awareness and appreciation of the importance of industry. Let us consider that in 1991 30 per cent. of those leaving school declared that they wanted to go into the media while only 7 per cent. wanted to go into industry. We have ground to make up. It is in the mind. This charity and many others are addressing the problem.
Within the engineering profession there is evidence that the fragmentation of the past is being overcome. The current initiative, led by Sir John Fairclough, to achieve a greater coalescence within the engineering profession by radically restructuring the Engineering Council must be applauded. This must help to improve our competitiveness as an engineering nation when compared with, say, Germany, France or Japan—nations where the profession of engineering earns the highest respect.
In the field of quality management and that of total quality, progress is also being made. It is extremely heartening to know that recent independent consumer research in the United States of America places Rover and Jaguar in a most favourable light when compared with Mercedes or BMW. Indeed, this evidence of recommitment to the old values of craftsmanship and quality within the British workforce and management has enabled this country to attract the levels of inward investment which are such a contributory factor in pulling down so positively our national level of unemployment. The facts are incontrovertible, certainly to those who read the statistics, and even the press cannot resist the good news. This country has received 40 per cent. of all European inward investment. The UK now attracts more inward investment than any other country in the OECD, including the United States. Beware the Social Chapter! It would rob us of jobs. Let us tread with caution.
While dealing with industrial and economic affairs, it is important not to lose sight of the significance of the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations concluded in Marrakesh this year, in which the Government and the British EC Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, played such a strong part. This round should provide a substantial boost to world trade and hence to international prosperity, so we dare not be behind in the field of competitiveness. It brings new opportunities for our exporters, expands the choice for our consumers and acts as a spur to economic efficiency worldwide.
428
Competitiveness and productivity are ruthlessly linked. We are seeing a re-emergence at all levels of the work ethic. This is evident in the recent strong growth in our national productivity which is producing a dramatic fall in our unit labour costs. They are important; they are part of productivity.
Since 1959 I have spent most of my time marketing British industrial equipment abroad and, from the practical point of view, I welcome all these changes. Our exporters have a golden opportunity to go abroad with their heads held high and to sell the products made in this country. It is my belief that during the next year we shall see an even greater improvement in our balance of payments position than is currently being forecast by the Treasury.
My contacts with my international friends—some of whom are in Russia, China, India, Singapore and parts of the Far East—underline my belief in our economy. Their response has been stronger than has been evident today in some quarters of your Lordships' House. They are a considerable distance away from this Chamber.
It was in 1769 that Sir Joshua Reynolds made an address to the students of the Royal Academy in which he said:
"If you have great talents, industry will improve them: If you have but moderate abilities, industry will supply their deficiency".
As a nation, Britain has proved over and over again that its people are possessed of great talents. I believe that, thanks to the environment created by our Government, we are set fair to capitalise on the many new opportunities that are available to us, to prosper and to win.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in the gracious Speech the lines that gave me most comfort have already been picked out by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. They are:
"My Government will continue with firm financial policies designed to support continuing economic growth and rising employment, based on permanently low inflation".
Continuing growth, rising employment and permanently low inflation are surely the aims of all of us who are concerned about the economic situation in the UK. If those aims are achieved, all will then follow: as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, greater wealth creation which, of course, is essential to fund education and health and social services, so ably described in the marvellous maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nickson; increased competitiveness in international markets whose management of inflation is probably not as good as ours; and, above all, a re-establishment of confidence in ourselves as a successful nation which is respected overseas.
The confidence factor is so very important. The all too human reaction to a constant diet of bad news, destructively critical comment, point scoring by opportunists and a complete absence of any acknowledgement that some things are good or improving is to believe that all is bad and then to be sucked down into a spiralling demise of confidence. Belief in one's country and oneself is important.

429
At present the sad reality is that there is a massive "feel bad factor" which frankly belies the economic reality of the United Kingdom. Why is that? No, I am not going to lay it at the feet of the press nor, indeed, at the feet of government. In my view it is due to a great extent to economists.
Economics has always been called the dismal science, which is a trifle unfair. I speak as a one-time economist, and I suppose once an economist, always an economist. I guess that for a few years past, economists have probably produced a preponderance of dismal forecasts and analyses. But even when matters improve on the economic front, the good news does not seem to be covered or, if it is, it scarcely impinges on a population that does not seem to understand.
Why does the population not understand? It is because, if one of my theories is correct, the language in which the news is conveyed is couched in such turgid terms as to be unintelligible. Last week I collected an armful of statistics from the Printed Paper Office. Reading them—and I am an economist—was a complete switch-off, despite the fact that they contained good news. If only time were spent translating the statistics into something more meaningful in non-economic jargon we should be much better off. Not for nothing is the word "waffle" an acronym for Wordy Arguments Flow From Long-Winded Economists. Economists should find a more understandable way of explaining that, for example, in the three months ended August 1994, compared with the same three months in 1993, the balance of trade showed a reduction in the deficit of some 30 per cent. They should also be able to explain why that matters.
It says in the statistics that excluding "oil and erratics" —nice economic jargon—the deficit also decreased from £;4.1 billion to £3.6 billion. In turn, that masks a 10 per cent. increase in exports. Those are all in the right direction and they all matter. Another example is that GDP at market prices in 1993 is 14.4 per cent. up on the same figure for 1990 and, even more important, 6.1 percentage points up on 1992. Volume statistics, which for a long time were below the 1990 figures because of the recession, increased in the fourth quarter of 1993 and are growing stronger all the time. Economists should explain why that matters.
Employment matters. It is referred to in the gracious Speech. The percentage of unemployment, the unemployment rate, in October 1993 was 10.1 per cent. The latest provisional figure for October 1994 is 8.9 per cent. That is still too high, but at least it is going in the right direction.
I could go on but in the interests of time I had probably better not. However, I should point out that more overtime is being worked and that therefore there are higher total earnings. Higher productivity is being achieved and the public sector borrowing requirement in the first seven months of 1994–95 financial year at £19.2 billion is a lot less than the £26.4 billion for the same period the previous year. All of that definitely matters. It is good news. Of course, there is bad news as well.
430
All of that contributes to growth and a reduction in unemployment. It is the result of government policy. But probably the greatest cause for congratulation of the Government is the way in which inflation has been brought under control. It is such a long time since the period of double digit inflation in this country—even inflation of 20 per cent. plus—that we probably do not remember it. Those of us who do remember it may have been in employment and it did not really matter too much because we had inflation-linked wage increases.
But I remember it. I remember the enormous burden of worry which my father, who was a retired civil servant, had at the end of his days. He was not on an index-linked pension. He had saved all his life. He had taken a very cautious approach, even to his expenditure, but at the end of his life his savings were almost worthless because of rampant inflation.
If a recent article by Anatole Kaletsky in The Times is to be believed, it could be that those days have gone forever. But we cannot be complacent and I welcome the firm commitment in the gracious Speech to maintaining permanently low inflation.
I do not wish to fall into the waffle trap but I should like to make one suggestion before I sit down. If there could be a common ground of agreement, however narrow, that all politicians acknowledged that there are very positive trends in our economy, that in turn could be transmitted to the population at large and lead to a genuine "feel good factor". I suggest that that may be a task for the seven wise men appointed to the Treasury.
A noble Lord: Six.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, yes, it is six. My noble friend is quite right. Could they agree a sort of "state of the nation" statement? They would be regarded as apolitical and therefore, being realistic, more believable by the population at large. It could even be that the next step would be to restore faith in politicians when they were seen to be doing a good job, because a good job is being done. Let us all agree. Inflation is low, which is a great achievement; unemployment is falling; our competitiveness is increasing; and there are many, many great success stories in British industry. I think it is worth a try.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords on the two excellent and informed maiden speeches that we have had this evening. I also endorse what my noble friend Lord Tugendhat and others have said about the excellent recovery that we have seen in the British economy over the past couple of years. That is partly due to the reforms of the 1980s.
I could say a great deal about education and training. I am afraid that it has become one of those great black boxes into which many hopes are poured after the speaker has run out of concrete ideas about what to do. Of course, no one can be against education and training, but I deny that we know how to improve that department dramatically and pouring money into that particular box is no guarantee of improved output.

431
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, based his speech on our poor investment performance over a long period. However, perhaps I may point out one fact; namely, that since 1980 UK investment has grown faster than that of the United States and that of our major European competitors. That is in stark contrast to the 1970s when Britain was firmly at the bottom of the G7 investment growth league. There has been a dramatic improvement.
I should like to take up and further develop a number of interesting points made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in reference to two phrases in the Queen's Speech:
"to bring the budget deficit back towards balance over the medium term [and] … reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector".—[Official Report, 16/11/94; col. 3.]
Both will test the resolve of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The second also opens up a crucial divide between noble Lords on both sides of the House. We stand for reducing the role of the state in national life, while many noble Lords opposite stand for increasing it. I believe that that will be one of the main political battlefields over the coming years.
We moved a great deal during the 1980s. No one believes any longer in the state as owner. All over the world, most notably in the former communist countries, the state has been divesting itself of that function. That process was started in this country in the early 1980s. Even the Labour Party has finally caught up with privatization—better late than never.
The same can be said of the state as planner. The days of national plans are over. We all accept that, for most purposes, the best planning system is the market. That has been another major change in the political economy over the past 15 or 16 years. But the state as spender is still alive and well. Perhaps I may give your Lordships some figures which are purely illustrative. Before the First World War, the typical Western state spent under 10 per cent. of the national income. Between the wars it was about 25 per cent. In the 1950s and early 1960s it was about 30 per cent., and by 1975 it was over 45 per cent. Since then, the rise has been stopped but not reversed. Today, the British Government spend just under 45 per cent. of GDP. I submit that that figure is much too high and that it needs to come down dramatically.
We can argue about what a safe percentage is; that is, safe in terms of the liberty of the individual and the efficiency and productivity of the economy. Of course, people will differ about that, but there seems to be a safe limit. In 1945, Colin Clark suggested that it was 25 per cent. I would settle for 30 per cent. which is roughly the share spent by governments in the 1950s and early 1960s, a period known as the "golden age" of the post-war economy. Undoubtedly, the deterioration of economic performance after that was associated with the rise of public spending as a share of national income, though that is a correlation. I leave open the causal link.
I return now to the budget. The government aim to balance the budget over the cycle. I applaud that aim. I believe that that is an excellent fiscal rule. Experience has taught us that fiscal policy needs to be governed by rules: it cannot simply be left either to the calculations
432
of economists or those of politicians. If the state runs budget deficits through good and bad times, it loses all ability to exercise any stabilising influence on the business cycle. The state can flatten the ups and downs of the cycle, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, said in his speech, but in order to do so it must conduct a prudent and credible fiscal policy. If a rising debt-GDP ratio results, it will eventually drive up interest rates or taxes and crowd out private spending. The state would then lose its ability to be a macro-economic stabiliser. That is what happened during the past 15 years as a result of the excesses of the 1970s.
However, balancing the budget should not be the main object of fiscal policy. It should certainly not be the long-run aim. That should be to balance the budget at the lowest possible level of taxes and spending, consistent with the necessary duties of a modern state in a wealthy market economy. How does one get from here to there? Recovery will certainly help. Ann Widdicombe told the House of Commons on Tuesday that unemployment was costing the Exchequer £14 billion a year, or close to 2 per cent. of GDP.
Reducing unemployment will undoubtedly reduce public spending and increase public revenue, thus enabling taxes to be cut. We should do everything that we can to expedite that result. In fact, it is already happening. Unemployment is already falling. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take up on a larger scale the ideas of Dennis Snower that the long-term jobless be allowed to transfer their unemployment benefits to employers who are willing to hire them. I know that the Labour Party has come out in support of that proposal. The first steps in that direction were taken by Mr. Norman Lamont. I should like to know the results of that scheme. It has been running for two years now on a pilot basis. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether there has been any conclusion from the operation of that pilot scheme as to whether it could be extended? I believe that it could be usefully extended.
But the growth of the economy on its own will not do the job of reducing the share of the public sector in the national income. My noble friend Lord Lawson managed to get taxes and spending down to 39 per cent. in 1990, but that was at the height of an unsustainable economic boom. A sustainable reduction in the tax burden requires a permanent reduction in the agenda of the state. That is the bottom line. We need to open up a wide-ranging debate on the justification of state spending and whether it needs to continue at its present level in a modern, developed economy.
We need to ask ourselves whether we can redefine the responsibilities between the individual and the state. We need to ask: are the functions which have been assumed by the state in respect of social security, medical care, retirement pensions, and so on, appropriate in increasingly wealthy societies? Of course, there is a host of small-scale cut-backs that one can make across the board which may add up to a fair amount. For example, large cuts in the defence budget, which has expanded to 8 per cent. of GDP, would be reasonable over the medium term. Cuts could be made

433
in the cost of the running of government. One could also apply what has been called the "circumcision principle" —that is, cut 10 per cent. off everything.
However, that is all small beer compared to the big issue of entitlement spending. Spending on entitlements—non-means tested cash benefits and services—comes to £120 billion, or 18 per cent. of GDP. I refer to the basic state pensions, child benefits, one-parent benefits, state education and health and personal social services.
If we are serious about reducing the share of national income taken by the state, long-term public expenditure policy needs to be informed, I suggest, by three main principles. First, there should be no new open-ended commitments. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, the fastest, growing component of public spending since 1979 has been legal aid. Other fast-growing components include invalidity benefits, mobility allowances, attendance allowances and one-parent benefits. What these have in common is that there is a commitment to provide money to people who satisfy certain conditions. It sounds cheap when you start such a scheme, but claimants tend to rise dramatically over time; partly because behaviour changes in order to qualify for the benefits being offered and the only way of dealing with that is through cash limits on these entitlements.
The second principle is to eliminate commitment creep—the tendency for pledges to be reinterpreted increasingly generously over time. We need to think far harder about separating the basics, which must remain free, from the add-ons that we might ask the better off to pay. The third principle is that of course some benefits should be means tested. The most obvious candidates are the state pension and child benefit. Huge savings can be made by concentrating these on those with low incomes. The principle, after all, is exactly the same as that of the progressive income tax; the better off pay more to the state and get less out of it. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the best way to get rid of the poverty, which he most eloquently and rightly deplored, is to target help on those most in need. That has been denied by our system of universal benefit.
Unless radical measures are taken to contain and reverse the growth in public spending the Government will find themselves presiding over an increasing tax burden. This is not good for the economy and it is not what they promised to do at the last general election. It is not what they want to do but it is what they will have to do unless they have the courage to open the debate on spending entitlements and the conviction to win the argument.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, goes, I should tell him that I propose to disagree with bankers both present and past. However, I start by saying that I shall not quote the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, if that is any help to your Lordships. What I propose to do is to disagree with just about everyone else in your Lordships' House who has spoken today.
434
I thought it would have been nice if the debate had begun with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, admitting that just occasionally something had not been quite right in the 1980s, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was willing to agree. Indeed it is always a pleasure to follow him because whether or not one agrees with him—I certainly did not agree with everything he said—he makes a serious and important speech, as he did today.
I am sorry that the noble Earl put every aspect of our country's success today down to increased competitiveness which came out of privatisation. That is what he seemed to be saying. I am bound to say that that is somewhat of an exaggeration, to put it mildly. For my part I am prepared to admit that the previous Labour Government did occasionally get it wrong and that I as Chief Secretary to the Treasury from 1974 to 1979—that seems years ago and it is, it is 15 years ago—did occasionally get some matters wrong as regards the economy. But one cannot just gloss over the past 15 years and say that privatisation has dealt with everything and everything will be all right now.
At least the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, conceded, as did my noble friend Lord Eatwell, that we owe much of our present success to what used to be called Black Wednesday and the devaluation. It should, of course, be called Wonderful Wednesday. I personally accept that none of what has happened now would have been possible without that devaluation. But I can agree with the Chancellor and with the noble Earl that the outlook we have now, depending on how we use it from here on, is the best we have seen for years. We have high growth, low inflation, falling unemployment—however, I will discuss briefly later how it is not falling anything like fast enough—rising exports and rising investment, and interest rates are at the lowest they have been for many years. It is what the Chancellor called his dream scenario. I see the noble Minister agrees with that.
Noble Lords: Golden scenario!
Lord Barnett: My Lords, he called it a dream scenario. He hoped it was a dream scenario. I take it from that that everything in the garden is lovely, when of course that is far from being the case. Despite the fall in unemployment, which I very much welcome, unemployment is still around 2½ million. No one could welcome an economy where there are 2½ million unemployed. Even then the statistics, to put it mildly, are misleading because the figures are almost certainly higher. That is especially true for the statistics as regards men. That is very sad. The highest level of unemployment arises among men. One cannot just give them lectures about how they should take account of the general economic situation and the fact that it may always be like that, and that they should take part-time jobs, more training and the rest, and all will be all right for them and their families. Frankly, if I were unemployed, I should feel a little upset at being lectured in that way.
However, let me refer to other statistics on unemployment and the "feelbad" factor which clearly stems from the lack of security in employment. I do not think there can be much doubt about that. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that economists

435
are not my favourite class of people but nor are they enemies of mine. Many of them are good friends. To blame all of the "feelbad" factor on economists is a bit rich. I certainly would not go along with that myself.
I now turn to investment, which is a crucial area. Although it is growing, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, have pointed out, I think he would accept it is still far too low to enable us to sustain the level of growth which we desperately need if we are to reduce that high level of unemployment. There are figures which indicate that many companies are looking for pay-back periods of as little as two to three years on capital investment. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has seen that. If they are waiting for two to three years for pay-back, it is not surprising that they cannot see a return and therefore they do not invest. I find that very sad indeed. It is therefore not just the quantity of investment that we are not getting, but also the quality of investment. That requires, as has been said by many speakers in your Lordships' House, and as was mentioned in an excellent maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Gladwin, investment in skills, training and education. That is vital if we are to obtain the kind of real capital investment we need and, what is more, to deal with the actual shrinkage of our manufacturing base compared with that of many of our leading competitors abroad.
Then, I am bound to ask, as many on the Opposition Benches would ask, what would a Labour government do to deal with these huge problems as well as dealing with the resources that are desperately needed for the National Health Service and social services? Some answers to these points were given yesterday by my good friend the Shadow Chancellor. However, it is no use saying that all those resources will come from higher growth and from dealing with tax avoidance. We shall not obtain much from higher growth in the early years, even if we get the higher growth. Indeed we shall not get it ever unless we are prepared to face up to the consequences of what will happen when we try to achieve that higher level of growth.
As regards stopping tax avoidance, all I can say is that I wish my right honourable friend luck. However, I am bound to tell him that my experience is that those who avoid tax and their advisers are likely to be more fleet of foot than the Shadow Chancellor, or even the Inland Revenue. Therefore, although he will obtain some extra tax, it will be nothing like enough to meet the demands on resources that he will have to face, especially if we are to deal with the huge problem of unemployment.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, is not in the Chamber. He referred to the cyclical, structural and natural levels of unemployment. If I were one of those unemployed, I would not care very much whether I was structural, cyclical or natural; I would just be very unhappy about being unemployed. I would want to know what was being done about it. For a former Governor of the Bank of England to tell someone that his unemployment is cyclical, structural or natural will not help him very much.
436
I know, of course, why the Shadow Chancellor talks of tax avoidance rather than what is really needed, tax increases. He is understandably concerned about a repeat of the accusations made during the last general election of "tax and spend". I know that he will be able to throw back in the face of the present Chancellor and Government the fact that, no matter how much tax they cut in 1995 and 1996, the tax increases will still have been higher than those tax cuts, especially if the Chancellor aims for a balanced Budget—or nearly a balanced Budget, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, put it.
Some of the tax increases which we have seen in the past 15 years, and particularly in the past few years, have been described as taxation by stealth. The way that has been done has been very clever indeed. It has hardly been noticed. No government in history has managed such taxation by stealth. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, did not manage it, in his clever way. Mortgage tax relief has been cut; personal allowances have been cut by reducing the amount of tax allowed on those allowances; even tax on dividends has effectively been cut for the higher paid. All that has been achieved by sleight of hand, almost without being seen. There have been all those tax increases, not to mention the VAT which we were told we were not going to have.
If I were going to be Chancellor I would rather accept the challenge of saying how I would finance a Labour programme than win power and then do nothing with it. We must look for radical solutions, and I hope that the Shadow Chancellor will do so in due course.
First, there is the question of growth to pay for the many demands on resources to which I have referred. We already see the constraints, with growth at 3.5 per cent. or nearly 4 per cent. The constraints are clear, and are due to the productive capacity in this country. If he goes for higher levels of growth—and the Shadow Chancellor cannot increase those overnight because he will not be able to increase the productive capacity—he will need higher investment. However, the benefits of that higher investment will take time to come through. In any event, how does one persuade manufacturing companies to invest when they are not doing so now? That is a crucial question. He can, and in my view should, do that by means of some tax incentives, but that will also take time.
The Shadow Chancellor should invest directly in the public sector, I hope in partnership with the private sector. That must be a sensible way to move forward. The noble Lord, Lord Nickson, in his excellent maiden speech, made something of that point. But even that will take time to come to fruition.
A Shadow Chancellor can invest directly in training and education, and I hope that he will. Again, to some extent, he can do that by incentives to the private sector. But once again, all of that will take time.
Therefore, in the early years, when there will be a desperate need for more resources, what is he to do? There are two ways in which he can help immediately and directly. Instead of raising tax by stealth, as the present Chancellor has done, he can say openly and honestly that he will increase tax to some extent in order to finance the extra resources he will have to find if he

437
is to do anything at all. If he does not say that he will not be able to do it. Secondly, I make no bones about it. He should go for higher growth, even if initially that means a slightly higher rate of inflation.
Those two measures, together with other incentives to which I want to refer briefly, are vital if we are to have a hope of dealing with the terrible levels of unemployment. They remain terrible, at 2.5 million, although I welcome what has been done so far.
What else can we do? The Chancellor's own six wise men have made recommendations. It is worth mentioning what they said. A significant caucus of them said that the main requirement for a lasting reduction in unemployment is a period of moderate and balanced growth. The Chancellor will no doubt claim that he has achieved that. However, all six of them favour changes that would reduce the cost to employers of taking on people on low wages. Policy options include a negative income tax, subsidies to low-paid employment and welfare benefits to provide a basic income guarantee. I do not necessarily agree with all of those recommendations, but the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was a good one, and I hope that it will be taken up by the Chancellor next week. I certainly hope that it would be taken up by a Labour Government.
Those changes were also recommended by the CBI itself, which also supports radical action. Howard Davies, the present Director General, said 10 days ago that:
"It would be disastrous at this stage to embark on the old cycle of interest rate increases and exchange rate appreciation".
The Chancellor said last week that he will not merely follow United States interest rates upwards. I hope that that is true, but I will believe it when I do not see it. We have seen what has been happening in the past few days, and I would be surprised if he did not follow them.
I want to say to Eddie George, the Governor of the Bank of England, and to my right honourable friend the Shadow Chancellor that if we are not to embark on that old cycle it is crucial that we take the power out of the hands of the Governor of the Bank of England. At the moment we have, effectively, an independent central bank. The power has been given to the Governor of the Bank of England effectively, because, if the Chancellor does not agree with him and it becomes publicly known that he does not agree with him, that would be disastrous. Therefore, we have effectively., an independent central bank, whose sole concern is inflation.
Inflation is crucial, but there are also other, wider issues with which a Labour Government would have to concern itself. The most important of all is that of unemployment. That must be at the top of the list. The Labour Chancellor will not be able to do much about it if he simply follows the present policy. Indeed, neither will the present Government.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, recently we were all delicately reminded that it was not necessary for every speaker in the debate to make reference to the maiden speeches. But after two maiden speeches of such
438
quality I cannot let this opportunity pass without saying how privileged I feel to be taking part in a debate to which they have brought such distinction.
Like my noble friend Lord Nickson and others, I was greatly heartened by the opening speech of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. He catalogued the good news, for which the Government deserve full credit and which in all fairness should be widely reported by the media.
My noble friend was right also to warn against standing still. We must continue efforts to strengthen our industrial base and to build on current success. A pointer as to how to achieve some of that has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others.
Earlier this month the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the CBI conference, made an important speech, at least half of which was devoted to the need for investment and to the role of private finance in achieving that. He spoke eloquently about the prospect of encouraging private finance in investment projects in the public sector—what has come to be called the private finance initiative (PFI). He said:
"I am determined to push the PFI right across the public sector … private finance is increasingly going to become the main source of growth in investment projects in the public service".
He went on to give examples of hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of projects already approved and under way in transport, housing, prisons, hospitals, urban development, information technology and elsewhere. He also made reference to the £42 million Royal Armouries project in Leeds. The new Royal Armoury Museum complex now under construction at Clarence Dock close to the centre of Leeds is the first major PFI arts project under the auspices of the Department of National Heritage. As I was chairman of the Royal Armouries for eight years until 1st October, when I handed over to my noble friend Lord Younger of Prestwick, I hope that I may share some of the experiences and reflections relating to an example of PH in practice. I hope noble Lords will not feel that it is too narrow a point because in my view some of the lessons learned have wider application.
At the start of the process, the Royal Armouries Board of Trustees and full time armouries staff, most ably led by the Master of the Armouries, Guy Wilson, felt like pioneers seeking out new territory—a feeling, I suspect, at that time shared by officials in the department. Fortunately we were soon able to enlist the assistance of Schroders, financial advisers. Their understanding and creative flair helped us to devise a credible financial structure for the venture.
Leeds, of course, was enthusiastic. Both the development corporation and the city had perceived the extent to which the establishment of a major national museum and leisure attraction close to the city centre would be a catalyst for economic growth and for the regeneration of the whole Clarence Dock area. The development corporation offered £5 million towards the capital cost of the project. The city came forward with £3.5 million. The Government, with the support of the then chief Secretary—he is now happily the Secretary of State for National Heritage—committed £20 million to be spread over a number of years.

439
That public sector finance, firmly capped as it is, was authorised only after an exhausting analysis had confirmed the financial and social benefits to the public sector that would flow from the development. It was a condition that private sector investment should be secured in the form of a joint venture with the Government.
The benefits of that are real and substantial. The new museum will become an important contributor to the economy of Leeds and beyond. The estimated £35 million input into the construction industry will support up to 300 jobs. The employment of 150 to 200 staff will contribute about £5 million to the Leed's economy. There will ultimately be at least 850 to 1,000 new permanent jobs in the area. There will be the annual spend of the anticipated 1 million visitors to the museum injecting about £10 million to £15 million into the local economy, with hundreds more jobs arising from that.
Already a number of improvements have been taking place: the adjacent road network has been enhanced; the facilities of the Aire and Calder Canal have been substantially upgraded; and soon, I hope, urgent action will be taken to end the pollution in that river. The rates and taxes will be payable by the new company and the museum. Education is to be a prime feature of the museum—a key objective. Displays will bring history to life through the medium of the artefacts and will form an integral part of the national curriculum. There will be an information centre interpreting current events.
This will be the first time that a major national museum, will have moved its world renowned collection to establish a unique cultural focus in the north of England. Through the joint management and shared skills of the private sector and the Royal Armouries, a much higher proportion of the collection than ever before will be made available to the public, international as well as national, for its enjoyment, information and education. The extensive and continuous promotion—PR and travelling exhibitions—will trumpet the name of Leeds. Altogether it is a good investment for Leeds and for its business community.
By making that move, space is being released within the Tower of London to allow for further improvements in the way in which the display is presented. It has already resulted in an imaginative and visitor-sensitive new display of Crown Jewels. The Royal Armouries will be able to show to better advantage prime items from its collection, in new presentations in the White Tower. There will be proper restaurant and refreshment facilities in the Tower which are long overdue. All those factors will bring in more paying visitors, many from overseas, giving them better value for money.
Therefore the benefits for the public sector are substantial. Yet, rightly, the responsibility for the construction of the museum and its commercial operation, with all the attendant risks, rests with the newly created private sector company, Royal Armouries (International) plc (RAI). It required all the considerable powers of persuasion and the perseverance of Sir James Glover, the chairman of RAI, to secure the required private sector investment. The consortium of private sector investors, led by 3i and the Bank of Scotland are
440
together contributing £14 million. It was not easy to find the lead investor. It was not a case of making a selection between competing claimants. The Government are, of course, right to stress the importance of competition in public procurement. That is underlined in their guidance note to departments. Competition is right in principle. But in practice it needs to be sensibly applied, taking special circumstances into account. There are instances where it might not be appropriate, and where its employment will be unnecessarily burdensome and counter productive. The PFI has to operate in two directions. At times it will be selecting among competing bids for participation; but at other times it must seek and invite participants.
In the case of any PFI initiative, in particular one originating with the public sector, where competition is most crucial is at the very beginning in the selection of a merchant bank or other financial adviser. Once that expertise is available, a preliminary financing structure can be prepared from which to seek the involvement of a lead investor. When the lead investor has been identified, agreement can be reached on an outline financial framework appropriate to the project and acceptable to both the public and private sector.
I wish to make it clear that private sector influence must not become simply an add-on extra to an elaborate structure devised and conceived wholly within a government department. Top quality private sector management needs to be involved from the outset.
It is important that government departments do not underestimate the degree to which the private sector will need to have allayed its suspicions of the public sector. Potential private sector investors have to be convinced that the public sector's financial commitment to the project is irrevocable and unconditional. The private sector focus will rightly be on the viability of the subsequent revenue stream which will have to be robust enough to cover the financing and start-up costs and to deliver a fully commercial rate of return to the investors. Only then will investors accept the responsibility and the risks inherent in the project.
However, it then becomes the responsibility of the public sector to help ensure that the project comes to fruition. Admittedly, control will have passed to the private sector, a condition which in itself will require a change of attitude and approach on the part of departmental officials. Some simply cannot resist the temptation to intervene on an almost daily basis. The requirement for reports, submissions and explanations can add enormously and unproductively to management's workload. That applies as much in the case of museums as to any other enterprise. Of course, the public sector will continue to be identified with the project and will have a job to do. For example, without the very substantial efforts of departmental officials, the new Royal Armouries would never have emerged off the drawing board. Perhaps I may refer, too, to the stalwart support which came from Ministers, most notably and magnificently from my noble friend Lady Blatch.
However, in the public eye and in reality it is not one sponsoring department that is involved in the issues; the commitment to the project is made in the name of the

441
Government as a whole. It is the Government as a whole who rightly take credit for helping it to come about. In the case of the Royal Armouries project at Leeds, during long hours of critical negotiations we had the extraordinary spectacle of one part of the public sector fighting tooth and claw for its own particular narrowly perceived interest, with near fatal consequences for the major investment project which the Government as a whole wanted. Yet the Government were apparently unable or unwilling to do anything about it.
So there must be a single central source of direction. All arms of the Government should somehow discover ways of working effectively together. Since the private sector is being encouraged to come into partnership with the public sector, it has the right to expect that the public sector will co-ordinate its efforts and deploy all its resources to promote the venture and help it to succeed. They should bring the same enthusiasm for investment of that kind as they invariably do for inward investment from abroad.
I have one further point to make. It is important to recognise that it takes time to put together a big and complex financing project. In the first place, careful and detailed project analysis and feasibility studies are essential; independent reports have to be commissioned; specialist agencies have to be engaged and each step has to allow for open competitive tendering. This is all necessary even to arrive at the position where prospective financial advisers can be adequately briefed.
Where, then, the project is initiated within the public sector, the government division responsible must recognise that time, manpower and extra skills are all needed at the very beginning. That means money. Departments, including the Treasury, must be prepared to prime the pump. If spending controls are too rigidly applied, there is the danger that the project will either be inadequately researched or be stillborn.
The volume of work involved can be enormous, especially in a major start-up scheme, which is what in effect the Royal Armouries project in Leeds can be said to be. At the final countdown, after four years of study, research, gestation and preparation, there were six weeks of intensive marathon negotiations involving 14 sets of lawyers representing some 20 organisations. At completion, there were more than 100 legal documents to be signed, every word of which had been subjected to the closest analysis and debate. Those were all necessary to achieve, among other essentials, proper security of tenure for the private sector, to identify the separate responsibilities of both partners in the enterprise and to preserve the statutory position of the Royal Armouries and the independence of its board of trustees.
As the PFI is now becoming more widespread and more accepted as a means of achieving new investment in public sector projects, government departments will need to develop their own core of expertise. With the support of the Private Finance Panel Executive and with the backing of the Treasury's private finance unit they should be ready to move quickly and imaginatively. Their role should not be that of the passive monitor, nor that of the policeman scrutinising public expenditure—necessary though that latter function undoubtedly is.
442
In relation to the PH, they need to be more positive. They should be prepared to promote, guide and influence the development of schemes suitable for partnership between public and private finance. That will bring immense benefit to this country. I think that my noble friend and the Government are to be congratulated on introducing and supporting the concept of the PFI.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, in a debate on the Motion to give thanks for the gracious Speech, I should at least start on an amiable note. It is not difficult to express great pleasure and satisfaction at the larger number of speeches we have heard, not least the two notably impressive maiden speeches.
As another Cambridge man, I must confess to sharp disappointment with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. When I heard him condemn the Queen's Speech as lacking in new ideas, my mind raced back to the time when the Labour Government were in office and we had such new ideas as the national plan, the National Enterprise Board, incomes policies, and the selective employment tax. We had a succession of new ideas which the noble Lord might think best forgotten, like some of the other schemes. I prefer the old ideas like enterprise, incentive and freedom of choice. I do not think that the Government should make any apology for working those quite hard.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, seemed hypnotised by macro-totals of investment. They worried him a great deal. We had a different view from the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, which I rather favour. In any event, to say that investment was higher in 1979, if that were true in aggregate terms, would tell us nothing of the merits of that policy compared with the present policy. The essence of investment is the quality of it, not its quantity. We can now look back and say that a great deal of investment in 1979 was being sunk in failing industries—motor cars, docks, coal mines, the steel industry and all that.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, took up a point I have heard frequently from people whom I respect both on the Labour side and in business. It is that our entrepreneurs tend to look for shorter pay-off periods for their investments. They look to get their money back in two, three or four years, whereas the Germans and notably the Japanese are more patient and work to five, 10 or even longer time horizons.
I believe, or at least strongly hope, that this deficiency is perhaps the consequence of the much more marked financial instability we have suffered in this country where inflation has undermined longer-term planning leading to fevered expectations of future consequences among businessmen who think that they should get their money back as quickly as possible. For my part, I strongly applaud the Government's dogged commitment to stable monetary policies against inflation. I prefer them a great deal to the monetary excess that we had in the latter part of the 1980s.
Perhaps from the Cross-Benches I may redress the balance on the Tory record. I think it has received too little acknowledgement, not least from the Opposition

443
Benches, who have been among the main beneficiaries of its historic achievement. I phrase that in terms of the signal triumph since 1979 in purging the socialist virus from our economy and polity. That is rather strong language, but if noble Lords ponder it they will realise that in the past 15 years or so we have had nothing less than an historic overthrow of the prolonged post-war "Butskellite" consensus, in which I myself at one time had some belief—that myth of the state's superior competence compared with competitive markets.
Despite some backsliding, the heirs to Thatcherism have not entirely given up, to judge by the Queen's Speech. Thus I can commend strongly only one sentence which reads:
"My Government will reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector".
That sounds quite promising, but it rather prompts the question: what has been their record? What has happened in the recent past? The best source of statistics for this purpose is provided by the time series of the Annual Blue Books for the years 1979 to 1993. I have extracted a great deal of statistical detail, but I shall oblige noble Lords by summarising and distilling it in the following precise conclusion.
Over the period of 14 years from 1979 to 1993, government spending has continued to rise in real terms. But, as a proportion of a faster rising national income, government spending fell marginally from 47.5 per cent., on my calculation, in 1979 to 45.5 per cent. That is a modest reduction. It is highly unimpressive if we recall the large savings by the Exchequer on subsidies to nationalised industries and proceeds from privatisation.
Anyway, what should we say about a situation where approaching half of the nation's annual production is commandeered by politicians? It is certainly a long way from M. Jacques Delors' latest fevered jibe against the Prime Minister that his economy is based upon "an excess of laissez-faire". Yet last month, one of my favourite bishops and a near namesake, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford—to whom I addressed a warning, and have his permission to speak in his absence—wrote an astonishing article in The Times. The headline read:
"Praise be to taxes, the sign of a truly civilised society".
He declared:
"Taxes are a good thing and paying them is a spiritual matter".
Even supposing that taxes make bishops feel better, what generalisation can we make about the effect of taxes on the real economy?
My starting point is that, with very few theoretical exceptions set out in the text books, all taxes in varying degrees damage economic welfare. I would, if there were time, challenge anyone to think of a really good tax—let us say, one that yields significant revenue; that positively benefits the economy; that is easy to collect; and that is so acceptable to the victims that they do not try to dodge it or shift the incidence on to someone else.
Lord Richard: Tobacco?
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I did not want to get drawn into the matter of tobacco as chairman
444
of FOREST. I must tell noble Lords that when a tax is imposed directly to reduce consumption, one consequence may be an increase in smuggling. As noble Lords may know, there is now a big development in smuggling, which hits domestic production and employment and even to some degree, marginally, tax revenue.
In brief, my assertion is that all taxes on incomes inevitably tend to blunt incentives, thereby damaging employment, savings and investment. That is a very moderate statement, a very moderate form of judgment. High income tax inevitably encourages avoidance and evasion, thereby reducing the yield from the tax.
Taxes on low incomes inevitably reduce the gap between net earnings (take-home pay) and social benefits. Therefore inevitably, at the margin at any rate, they encourage voluntary unemployment and the black economy.
The truth is that we cannot know the full tally of the damage which this mountainous ragbag of taxation produces. So taxes on the present scale should not make the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford feel more spiritual. Indeed, some of us might rather join in Milton Friedman's prayer, which is to thank heavens we do not get all of the government that we are made to pay for.
The right reverend Prelate justified his eulogy of high taxation with the well-worn arguments about the old, the sick and the young, followed by a far-fetched analogy with "the way the early Church looked after the poor". Leaving aside the rather important distinction between coercive taxes and voluntary giving, how much of the £260 billion that was spent last year by party politicians (and much more this year by the way) is remotely concerned with the right reverend Prelate's welfare agenda of poverty? The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, gave us some figures to the effect that something like £120 billion of the £260 billion was devoted to entitlements of one kind or another. But the noble Lord acknowledged that that co-exists with a situation which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, paraded where large numbers of really urgent cases for assistance are neglected and left unsatisfied because we have a preference for—it has been an ideological preference on the Labour side, at any rate until recently—universal rather than selective benefits.
The truth is, despite the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that this century has seen a transformation in average standards of living. If half their incomes were not confiscated by taxes, most families could pay their own way in welfare, with the added boon of choice in pensions, schools, health care, housing and so on. Instead, we have seen a massive shift of spending power over half the economy away from individual preference to an unholy mixture of criteria.
The original motive was very splendid. It was to help those who could not help themselves. But, if I may say so after watching closely the party-political battle over the past 50 years, since 1945 the dominant motive has increasingly become nothing more elevated than what I now call short-term scavenging for votes to win

445
elections, as was practised most blatantly and disgracefully by the Labour Party in 1974 and by the Tory Party in 1992.
I conclude with a positive proposal. This stealthy collectivisation of incomes would never have been possible without the war-time trick of picking private pockets through pay-as-you-earn taxation. Therefore, to concentrate minds, and also perhaps to concentrate government spending in the long run, I commend strongly to Her Majesty's Government—and even to the reborn Labour Party—a last major act of denationalisation: nothing short of the re-privatisation of incomes. Let us follow the American example of self-assessment and put an end to deduction of earnings at source. If Chancellors had to collect income tax direct from citizens, we could expect a livelier debate on the scale and purposes of state spending and state taxing. One result, I confidently predict, would be a principled pruning of the proper agenda of government action for the 21st century.
8.47 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, investment has been an ingredient to which almost all speakers have referred. I should like to touch upon a circumstance which affects investment; namely, the capital gains tax.
Before 1962, there was no capital gains tax. There was a tax on dealing short-term, but long-term capital gains were tax free. The capital gains tax was imposed by Selwyn-Lloyd in the 1962 Budget and lasted for the next 20 years, usually at a rate of 30 per cent. The system was then materially changed by my noble friend Lord Lawson in 1982. Here, important changes were made. As many noble Lords will recall, income tax and capital gains tax were joined or equalled, the capital gains tax being superimposed upon income so that, even with a relatively small capital transaction, the 40 per cent. top rate applies.
The March 31st 1982 market price was allowed as an option to cost in calculating the liability for tax. Indexation on retail price index was applied, whether on the March 31st market value or cost; and an annual exemption of £5,800 applies. The problem arises from the fact that the markets of the world have risen a good deal more than indexation. It follows from that that the great mass of investment capital is greatly in excess of the index value.
I take as an example the figures for four companies which would be included in a small or large investment programme: Shell, the Pm, BATs and Unilever. In the case of Shell and the Pm, to sell an investment and invest in new industry or whatever would cost more than a quarter of the value of one's holding. In the case of BATs and Unilever, that figure rises to nearly one third. It follows that there is a hold-up of capital wishing to invest—and we all agree that investment is necessary. One would have to recover the loss of capital of those very large proportions in the tax paid before any benefit could arise on the new investment. The effect is clearly to freeze great masses of capital. I hear continually of investments that are "frozen in". That is a very common term now.
446
That situation cannot be good. Quite apart from the effect on new investment, it means that in effect great masses of capital are not managed at all. I refer particularly to our very large foreign investment portfolio, where no doubt the capital gains are as great as they would be in the companies that I have mentioned. Surely it would be for the good of this country if they were properly managed. The level of tax, which is high, probably leads to export of capital, tax shelters and such. Those things are legal. They follow the financial need.
I believe that it would be wise to return to something in the nature of what existed before 1962. For instance, there should certainly be a tax on short-term profits, which could be taxed, as they were at that time, as a part of income at whatever rates apply. Beyond a certain date—perhaps five years—the capital gain should be free. I have no doubt that that would release vast amounts of capital. It would lead to better management. I hazard saying that there would be a significant repatriation of funds which are legally held abroad. Apart from any other reason, a tax shelter is very expensive to operate and it would be advantageous to repatriate funds here.
I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to comment on my tax suggestions at this delicate time. I should like to hope that in time the Government will give consideration to those factors.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, this evening's debate has been fascinating. It is interesting to note that only about three or four of the 20 speakers so far have been supportive of the Government. Even they were critical in some respects. I wonder whether that is because of the remarks which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made at the beginning of the debate, when he described privatisation as a success.
I wonder whether we are entitled to ask: a success for whom? Looking at the privatisation of British Telecom, what happened there? Thousands upon thousands of British Telecom workers have been made redundant. Looking at the privatisation of the water industry, what happened there? The bills for water for everyone in the country have escalated since privatisation. Looking at the privatisation of the electricity industry, what happened there? We have seen the destruction of our coal mining industry. Looking at the privatisation of the gas industry, what do we see there? We see that British Gas are to institute a charging régime which will penalise the poorest domestic users of gas.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he believes that those reductions in employment have resulted in higher prices and a worse service to the consumers. If he does, perhaps he could explain why.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I was endeavouring to identify who had benefited from privatisation and for whom privatisation had been a success. Having gone through a range of aspects of privatisation, I have come to the conclusion that the only element of success that is common throughout the whole privatisation scene is

447
the situation of senior management and boards of directors. The common theme is that, for those people, privatisation has been a personal financial success. All the senior members of those privatised companies have seen their personal pay packets rocket. The latest example is the managing director of British Gas who has received a 75 per cent. pay increase.
Surely we are entitled to know the Government's criterion of success. It would seem to me to be totally at variance with the perception of the British people of the criterion of success. It is interesting that, as I said, out of 18 contributors so far only four have spoken in support of the Government, and three of those had some reservations about government policy. I believe that that is a reflection of the Government's criterion of success.
I was tempted to make those remarks by the opening speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. In hoping for a positive future for the industrial and economic life of our country, I wonder whether we might take a different view and consider a different way of doing things. Perhaps I may take as my theme that taken by the right honourable Tony Blair in his speech to the Labour Party Conference this year; namely, co-operation. It is interesting to reflect that the British workers who are the best organised are also the best educated and trained. Let me give the examples of the medical profession, the legal profession and teachers. Those British workers are very effectively organised, some in professional associations, some in learned bodies and some in trade unions. But the common element is that they are well organised.
As a result of that organisation and working together they have ensured that they are well educated and trained. Maybe the rest of British industry can learn from that. I would not say that where we allow our workers to organise, but rather that where we encourage them to be organised we see benefit for our economy because such organisation encourages personal and community investment in education and training.
It sometimes annoys me to hear nationalisation being pilloried. One noble Lord in this debate today actually revelled in the fact that, having been a Member of Parliament when the railway industry was first nationalised, he is now seeing its denationalisation. But we tend to forget that in every case of nationalisation a massive transformation has taken place by public investment in those industries, which has been for the benefit of the country as a whole. There have been massive changes in working conditions that were welcomed, agreed and accommodated by trade unions and the workforce generally.
In the railway industry we saw the transformation from steam to diesel electric and now electric. In the coal industry we saw a transformation from where the pick and shovel were the tools of the trade to where sophisticated, intensive mining machinery is employed. We forget that in the process of change the workers in those industries had to be retrained and re-educated. They accepted, welcomed and encouraged that because they saw that it was to their advantage. I hope that before too long those that hold responsible positions in
448
government and in industry will recognise that this country will benefit far more by co-operation than by insisting on conflict, which is debilitating to us all.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I shall address my brief remarks and questions to two passages in the gracious Speech. The first is that the Government,
"will seek to ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is applied to European legislation".
Secondly,
"Legislation will be introduced to give force to the changes in the European Community's system of own resources, following the agreement at the Edinburgh European Council".
Noble Lords will remember that throughout our debates last year on the Maastricht Treaty, those of us who had read the treaty and who therefore opposed its ratification were constantly assured by the Government that its Article 3b, or the "subsidiarity" clause, was to be our glowing shield against any further loss of our sovereignty to Brussels. Many of us doubted the Government's assurances because, on reading the treaty, we had discovered that some 110 new areas of our national life were to be ceded by it to qualified majority vote in Brussels. In the context of this debate, therefore, we feared that we would be outvoted on directives which would damage our industrial and economic prospects. Indeed, of the 110 new areas to which I referred, most can be said to be potentially damaging to our industrial or economic well being.
I was interested to hear the remarks of my noble friend at the start of the debate and I do not wish to detract from anything he said when I remind him that it is upon the small businesses that red tape and regulation fall most heavily.
During our debate on the Maastricht Treaty we were of course given two further assurances; first, that with the completion of the single market the flood of directives coming our way was about to dry up into a mere trickle, and, secondly, that our opt-out from the social chapter would avoid the more economically damaging directives. Perhaps, therefore, I may take the opportunity to touch base on those issues with my noble friends on the Front Bench by asking a few questions.
To start with, so that we may form an opinion on the value of our opt-out from the social chapter, will my noble friend be so good as to tell us the directives which have been issued or are being considered by Brussels under the heading of health and safety at work and on which we could therefore be outvoted by a qualified majority? I am not suggesting that our opt-out is entirely without value. A number of other directives are being considered under the social chapter out of which we can, in theory, opt. Indeed, my right honourable friend Mr. Portillo has wisely declined to bestow the benefits of the parental leave directive upon us. We also technically opted out of the works councils directive, though many of our international companies who trade in Europe are being dragged into it.
Other choice morsels under the social chapter include directives to reverse the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases, and to interfere in employers' and employees' freedom to negotiate contractual terms for

449
part-time and temporary workers. It remains to be seen whether the next inter-governmental conference in 1996 will allow us to continue to avoid such follies. Let us hope so.
Next, I should inform my noble friend that the flood of directives and regulations from Brussels appears to continue unabated, much of it in pursuit of the single market, which we were told was complete two years ago. For instance, in the three weeks between 1st November and today, 26 draft regulations and decisions and 11 proposals or communications have been deposited in your Lordships' House, which your Lordships' Select Committee does not propose to scrutinise. Assuming that this has been a fairly typical three weeks—and I believe that to be the case—it indicates that there are still annually some 442 draft regulations and decisions and 187 proposals and communications which we do not scrutinise. I admit that some of them are comparatively trivial, but no doubt there are many which we might like to look at if we had the machinery to do so. Of course, we do our best to scrutinise the more important initiatives. Indeed, there are 63 of those with our five sub-committees. If my noble friend or any other noble Lord thinks I am exaggerating, then I respectfully suggest they acquire a copy of our Progress of Scrutiny document from the Printed Paper Office and read it carefully for themselves.
As to how subsidiarity is working, can I ask my noble friend to give any concrete examples of how it has actually borne fruit since we ratified the Maastricht Treaty? I am aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister secured agreement at the Corfu Council some six months ago that 25 per cent. of all Community legislation was to be repealed. Can my noble friend say what progress is being made with this excellent initiative? Can he also say whether the Commission and our partners in Europe therefore regard the doctrine of the occupied field, whereby the Community never gives up any powers it has acquired, as dead? So much for my questions on subsidiarity.
There is much that I could say about the proposal to throw yet more millions of pounds down the fraudulent European sink. But, given the lateness of the hour and the delicacy of the matter in the other place, I shall refrain from doing so. Can I, however, ask my noble friend to understand that, for many of us, our deep distrust of the European monster grows considerably deeper when the Government do not even seem to know how many millions of pounds we are being asked to throw away, or when? It is the sort of incident which makes some of us more determined than ever that an objective cost benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union, as it now exists, should be carried out by reputable people before the 1996 intergovernmental conference.
The Government, of course, say that such a cost benefit analysis cannot be done; or so they said in answer to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, on 10th October this year. On the same day they told me that data on the cost of our compliance with European water directives had not been collected. However, as I mentioned in our debate on
450
fraud against the Community on 31st October, when pressed by your Lordships' Select Committee, the Government reluctantly revealed that we have so far spent some £9,000 million on the two European water directives, most of it, in my view, wasted. I would say to the noble Lord who preceded me, who alas is no longer in his place, that most of the extra cost of water of which he complained is perhaps more properly laid at the door of the European Community than at that, strictly, of Her Majesty's Government.
So can I ask my noble friend whether he really believes that a realistic cost benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union truly cannot be compiled; and if that is his position, why not? Or is it just that the Government would rather not know the answer? I look forward with interest to hearing his reply.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, when the economic news is good, we have reason to be grateful to all who have played a part in making it so. Output is rising, unemployment is falling, inflation is low and stable, so let us be thankful to employees and employers, consumers and producers, the Bank of England and the Government. However, a time of good news is not one to sit back and say that all is well and the market will put right those things that are not.
In Russia, a bitter joke is told these days. Under socialism, people used to say, it took five people to replace a broken light bulb: one to get the new bulb from the store, one to fetch the ladder, one to hold it, one to climb up and actually change bulbs, and one to throw the old bulb into the rubbish. How many people does it take under capitalism? The answer is: none, because the market will do it all by itself. Well, it does not. That is why a time of good economic news is also one to introduce necessary reforms.
There are two issues above all which require action. One is to get people back to work. The gracious Speech mentions several measures to this end, and they are welcome. The workings of the labour market need to be improved and those who seek jobs need to be supported. In this regard a great deal can be done that does not require legislation. I shall mention three points. First, some jobs—perhaps many—will not carry wages which make them attractive to anyone. By themselves, they do not allow a decent standard of living. Subsidising employers does not help. Indeed, it may crowd out better-paid workers. At this point, I for one do not agree with the Snower-Layard proposals. Topping up the incomes of those who accept such employment makes more sense, or there may be an argument for introducing viable basic income guarantees through a negative income tax. The example of the tax credit system introduced by the Mexican Finance Minister, Dr. Pedro Aspe Armella, is worth examining.
Secondly, the quandary of many jobs left undone and at the same time many people—notably young people—looking for meaningful things to do, somehow has to be resolved. One way among others is a form of community service by all—a tax on people's time as it were—rather than on their earnings. We are fortunate in

451
this country in being able to build on a strong voluntary tradition; indeed, public support for an extended voluntary service may well be the right way forward.
Thirdly, the hard core of those who have grown accustomed to living outside the labour market, but not outside the benefit system, poses special problems. I do not believe that these can be resolved by workfare; that is, by making benefits dependent on work. Perhaps the existing underclass problem cannot be resolved at all. It is all the more important to do everything in our power to prevent the recruitment of another generation to a condition of economic and social exclusion. This is where vocational training linked to jobs and thus at least to an initial experience of the labour market, is crucial.
The other issue of reform to which I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships' House may seem less immediate but is, if anything, more important. It is that of investment. Once again the market by itself, strong and beneficent though its invisible hand may be, will not do it. We need a massive shift from the distribution of the profits of our often highly competitive businesses to investment in the medium and long term if wealth is to be more than a bubble; if it is to create well-being rather than the brief excitement of GNP figures.
Shareholders are fine, although they have long ceased to be representative of the public at large. Aunt Agatha, alas, has given way to institutions which represent numerous interests of aunts, uncles and even of my own college, St. Anthony's. There is nothing wrong with these institutions, but their interests must not be the only driving force of investment decisions or their absence. I was very pleased to listen to the eminent maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, on this subject. Stakeholders are as important as shareholders, if not more important.
I have the pleasure of chairing a commission set up by my right honourable friend Mr. Paddy Ashdown which looks at "wealth creation and social cohesion in a free society". Its members include independent experts as well as some associated with parties on this side of your Lordships' House. Our common concern, which actually has little if anything to do with party, is that the shareholder economy has got to be turned into a stakeholder economy. Shareholders are most certainly also stakeholders; they have a legitimate interest in an adequate return. But there are those who cannot sell their stake as shareholders can—employees, suppliers, financial institutions and local communities. The key question is how we create attitudes which encourage investment in the interest of all stakeholders rather than the distribution of yields in the interests of just one group among them. New attitudes need a new institutional framework to support them.
For this is what a fundamental shift in our policy for the British economy should be about: to move from short-term pain or gain to sustained and sustainable wealth, from a shareholder to a stakeholder economy. To bring about the shift, some hard questions will have to be answered. What changes in the domestic practices of justly renowned financial institutions are needed? Is there a general problem of the relations between banks and business or is this an issue concerning the access of
452
small and medium-sized companies to finance? Will the links do the trick? Are current structures of corporate governance adequate? How should company decisions reflect the interest of employees and of the broader community?
It would not be difficult to go on raising such questions, but the main point that I want to offer for consideration is simple. Important reforms take place when conditions are improving. It is a mistake to believe that people accept sustainable changes when they are standing with their backs to the wall. This is therefore a favourable time for changes in basic economic attitudes and policies. The theme of such changes has to be to convert often brilliant, short-term successes of companies, and of the economy generally, into a lasting pattern of wealth creation while at the same time paying attention to the strength of civil society and the commitment to liberty. With many others, I look forward to a future Queen's Speech which states such objectives and spells out some of the means to achieve them.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, as 22nd speaker on the fourth day of this debate it is somewhat intimidating for me, not a lawyer, an economist, a large-scale or, indeed, much of a manufacturer, to address your Lordships. I see that it is now 22 minutes past nine, and I shall attempt to be brief. In the gracious Speech many proposals and ideas were listed. It is disappointing, after so many years of successful and vital government by the Conservative Party, on whose Benches I am pleased to sit, to discover that the gracious Speech was described variously as "dull", "unadventurous", or even "worthless".
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, pleased me greatly with his choice of simile when he described the gracious Speech as all blue but sometimes mouldy. I shall attempt in due course to show him that all of it was blue and none of it was mouldy. I hope that I will not take up so much time that your Lordships will feel that I too have made a mouldy speech.
It is always difficult to follow an economist such as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. I listened with great pleasure to his excellent speech. He is right: we must improve investment and education to prevent the further creation of an underclass—something which, I think, when I was a young boy was always seen as having a ladder out of the slums. In many cases, through faults in the education system, we may have taken out a great many of the rungs in that ladder. That is something which should be addressed as a matter of the greatest importance.
I am glad that the noble Lord thinks that the private sector is an essential part of the fabric of society. He makes the valid point that stakeholders in it cannot always sell their stake, but I hope that under this Government, and in the future, they will not want to do so.
It is difficult to deal in any sense with all the subjects that have been raised. I teased my noble friend on the Front Bench and told him that if he wanted to finish his dinner I could go on for an hour but that I should be a

453
bit pushed, and I hope that I will not have to. My noble friend for many years Lord Ferrers made a speech in which he painted a glowing picture of all the Government's successes and of all the good things which are to come. From my experience over a number of years in industry, agriculture and voluntary organisations, I think—in American terms—that he has delivered a True Bill, assuming that we are the Grand Jury, which I am sure we are.
My noble friend said that the Government must not interfere too much. They have created a privatisation revolution that has spread throughout much of the developed and less-developed world. For that our former and present Prime Ministers can take great credit. They have done a tremendous job.
Noble Lords may remember that I introduced the Bill with perhaps the most boring title for many years. I am glad to say that it is now an Act and that there is to be further gas market competition based on that Act and on the Bill soon to be presented.
My noble friend also said that deregulation is helpful particularly to small businesses because they do not have the management power to wrestle with the intricacies of complicated and sometimes seemingly absurd rules. He described them correctly—I know because I am a small businessman—as the engine room of the future.
I entirely agree with his remarks about the clearing banks attracting a great deal of suspicion. On one occasion, my bank manager telephoned me and said that he would like a further guarantee. I said, "I am terribly sorry. I have the most frightful attack of flu and I cannot give you a guarantee in the terms that you want without a board meeting". He asked sharply, "When is that?", and I said, "I haven't fixed a date yet. Who knows, I might die of flu before you have it!". The subject was dropped. One must be tough and in doing so one gains experience.
That is where the idea of Business Links, announced by my noble friend, can be most valuable. It will advise those who are setting up in business which card they can reasonably play against the opposition, whether it he local government, the planning department, the bank or anyone else. It may even be some environmental busybody. It is good to know that we have an outstanding record for exports and growth. It is the best in the EC.
Your Lordships will be pleased to know that, following the announcement about Railtrack, I have dumped a whole section of my speech dealing with the problems facing the railways. I am hoping for better times there, and I am sure that they are coming.
My noble friend remarked that the computer had the same effect on industry, and so forth, as did the arrival of the steam engine. Let us not forget that the steam engine supplanted the horse, wind and water power—or just not doing it at all.
I turn to communications. Perhaps by some ill fortune I and other noble Lords may at any moment be on the television screens in perhaps a couple of hundred houses and therefore we know the speed of communication. Indeed, the world has shrunk.
454
I wish to comment on the marvellous maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Nickson. I agree that manufacturing is important and that Britain should not become the service area for the motorways of the world. I am sure that he will agree that valuable services can be supplied for the public and for their good. I intend to touch on one of those services. Some of your Lordships will know that for many years I have been engaged in the tourist industry. I must declare an interest in that a family company of which I have had the honour to be chairman for many years is engaged in the provision of holidays and holiday accommodation.
The tourism industry is probably the largest in the world. It employs an immense number of people, is very labour intensive and therefore should be welcomed as a valuable addition to the labour market. It also has a great advantage in that, unlike many industries, it provides happiness and enjoyment. That is what it is there for. If customers are not happy they do not come. The industry is extensive and covers all the civilised world. I understand that one can go on a package tour to the Antarctic, though I have not yet felt the urge to do so. However, it is also an industry subject to rapid change of fashion or interest and that causes considerable problems in the provision of capital.
In this country for many, many years we were net importers of tourism. That has now changed and we are paying out more from our balance of payments for people to go to the Costa this, that or the other, than comes in from people who wish to go to splendid resorts such as the place where I live, St. Andrews, or to London, Stratford, York or Aberystwyth. With long distance travel by air, that tendency will continue. The Channel Tunnel, which has just opened, makes cross-Channel trips even more attractive, particularly as you can apparently fill a transit van with beer provided you say that you are going to drink it yourself.
The UK is a wonderful country. We have had stable government for many years. We have many historic ruins. The country is compact. It is not very far to travel from anywhere to anywhere unless you are on the M.25. It is orderly, you are not particularly likely to be mugged, murdered or poisoned. Our tourist industry makes a great effort to present what is available in a good style.
It is perhaps as well to remember that in less developed countries if extremists want to overthrow the government, the first thing they do is start to shoot the tourists. I read today in The Times that Egypt has decided to increase its budget to encourage foreign tourists by no less than 14 times—not twice, or four times, but 14 times. I have a particular interest in that country because my mother is buried in Cairo and I have always wanted to go there, but have never had the opportunity.
We must attract more tourists. They can be either indigenous or foreign. I believe that the Government are slightly mistaken in attempting to promote almost exclusively the idea of attracting tourists from foreign countries, preferably the high spending Japanese, Americans or South Americans. Who knows? But it is typical of the EC that something like 80 per cent. of all tourists within the EC visit only their own countries.

455
That percentage has been slowly declining in this country due to the attractions of foreign package holidays.
I am sorry to say to my noble friend that that is partly due to the fact that the Government neglect the home market in allocating expenditure; that is, money to be spent by the tourist boards.
Another extremely important factor is that in this country VAT is payable at the rate of 17.5 per cent. on almost any holiday which you chose to take. If you go abroad for a comparable holiday with no travel included—if you rent the premises; for example, a gite in France—the rate is 5.5 or 6 per cent.; that is, one third. In this country we are charging a VAT rate which is three times higher. We must remember that the individual is the ultimate payer of VAT. Businesses can usually reclaim it.
Another factor is that the calculation of VAT on package tours, according to information which I have from an extremely trustworthy and good source, is charged, in effect, only on the profit element of overheads. Overheads can usually be reckoned to be one-third. One reads in the newspapers about major package tour companies making a pound, thirty bob or, on a good day, two quid on each individual holiday. Well, 17.5 per cent. of two quid is 35p. If someone comes to my caravan park—and I tend to charge them about 11 quid a night for a touring caravan—I am sure that anyone can work out 17.5 per cent. of 11 quid. I shall not attempt to do so at this hour of the night, but I should point out that it is a great deal more than 35 pence.
Again, my noble friend spoke in impassioned or, perhaps I should say, eloquent terms, of the importance of a level playing field. But the effect of the high-rated VAT is to impose the equivalent of a very large tariff or barrier to trade on the indigenous holiday industry. If we want to improve employment and investment prospects in that industry, in which I have been happy to work for many years, then, in accordance with my noble friend's announced policy, I hope that he will see his way to levelling the playing field—or, perhaps, in order to avoid the cliche, I should say ensuring that everyone plays fair.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we are coming to the end of this impressive debate. We have had a wide range of views expressed about many aspects of the economy, exemplified, for example, by the speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, on tourism. We have also had very thoughtful contributions from two maiden speakers and a number of other noble Lords. I should like to add to that list the speech recently delivered by my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf. I hope that the Government will derive a measure of benefit from all that has been said. I hope that it will not simply lie in Hansard but will be carefully dissected and circulated among Ministers so that many of the ideas proposed today can eventually be incorporated in government policy.
456
We are in a recovery situation following on a serious downturn. Of the many themes that were developed today, perhaps the main theme was: is this just another cyclical improvement to be followed in due course by a further sharp recession? I believe that many of the comments were addressed to that fundamental issue. I became a little perturbed when, in his introductory speech, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told us that our economy was moving ahead faster than any other European country. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, saying that, in almost the same words, in the late 1980s. But, within a year or so, the economy had overheated, corrective action was taken and we were in recession. Let us hope that that will not happen this time. I do not believe that we ought to take any chances in that respect.
Obviously we cannot avoid being involved in trade cycles. They affect all countries as we become much more global. What I think was most interesting and constructive today was the number of noble Lords who talked in their speeches about ways in which the cycles can be flattened. The fact is that the recession from which we have recently emerged was probably the sharpest that we have had since the war. Therefore, it is eminently desirable that, the next time we become involved in a global downturn—and, as I said, we cannot avoid being involved to some degree—we do not suffer to the same extent.
Much has been made of the Government's action on inflation. There is not the slightest doubt that that has so far proved to be successful. I, for one, am very pleased, although I know that this view is not generally shared by some others, that that has been achieved by close co-operation with the Bank of England, which is now playing a major role in partnership with the Government in achieving that result.
However, the real test of containing inflation will come when inflation starts rising elsewhere, because for the moment, as was rightly pointed out, our European partners are all keeping inflation reasonably under control. In fact, the example of France was given, where they have now achieved an inflation rate of 1.6 per cent. So the test will come when this changes. Will we be able to hold our inflation at low levels when it is creeping up elsewhere? We have much to do to prepare for that possible eventuality.
Of course dealing with inflation is just one side of the coin. If we want to have non-inflationary growth, something else has to be done to stimulate the growth. We can have, for example, a very low inflationary situation and have no growth at all and suffer in consequence. Therefore, containing inflation cannot be an end in itself; it must be a means, in combination with other measures, to achieve the required objective.
Many have referred to investment. We have been given varied statistics to show that investment has been falling, or investment has been increasing, or investment has not been changing very much. What I think most people agree on is that the long-term trend of investment in this country has compared unfavourably with most of our major competitors. It compares very unfavourably indeed with the emerging Far Eastern countries, whose rate of investment over the past two decades has been

457
nearly double ours, and their rates of growth correspondingly large. Therefore it seems clear that the stimulus of investment is something to which we must attach as much importance as we do to the containment of inflation.
An illustration of the problems we have as a result of lack of sufficient investment in the past is that there is evidence that a number of firms in certain sectors are reaching capacity limits. Again there is much argument about this. However, the result of past cuts in capacity and present increases in demand have nonetheless created certain difficult areas. A survey carried out by Trade Indemnity, the credit management group, which was reported in the Financial Times on 22nd November—so it is very recent—showed that 42 per cent. of the firms in the sample taken in the third quarter were operating near optimum capacity and 7 per cent. said they were already overstretched.
We are, I believe, at a fairly early stage of recovery. These recovery cycles last, fortunately, a number of years. If we are already touching capacity in certain sectors and in the number of firms that I have indicated—if the sample is a valid one—this is a matter for grave concern. We are, as has rightly been pointed out, doing much better on our trade balance. That is excellent but, if we start running out of capacity and if we cannot produce the goods that the increased demand requires, that positive situation will soon turn the other way.
Of course, as we know, the lack of investment is not only in the industrial sector but is also in the built infrastructure in the public sector. I should like to give two examples of ways in which I think that investment in the infrastructure in the public sector has not been handled as effectively as it should have been. There could well be many other examples. I choose the example of the London Underground on which I have recently been corresponding with the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. The London Underground some time ago put forward a plan relating to its core activity—not to any new lines—which requires some £700 million of investment per annum. The Government accepted that plan and in the expenditure estimates in 1991 said they would go ahead with it. The Underground generates about £150 million out of its own operations and therefore the plan required a grant of £550 million if it was to succeed. In the first year that was more or less achieved. Subsequently, I regret to say, there have been progressive cuts until at present the grant has been reduced to £350 million.
As a result the Underground system will continue to suffer from failures of track, signals and earthworks. Indeed, at the station which I use, which happens to be Sloane Square, there is a girder which has not been seen to for the past century or so which is in danger of collapse. If that happens, the whole of that line will be put out of action. Leaving such dire possibilities aside, there are frequent speed restrictions to avoid danger. With another £200 million, the situation could be put right. London Underground, which is doing a remarkably good job in my opinion, could do very much better and we could be served more effectively by that vital service.
458
Another area to which I should like to draw attention is the Post Office. The Government have decided, because of differences of opinion within their own ranks, that they will not go ahead with privatisation, which was their preferred option. In the consultative document which they issued, they indicated that one other option was to relax the financial controls if the Post Office was to remain in the public sector. We ought to be told whether the Government will pursue that option or will leave the Post Office under its present constraints, which make it impossible for it to compete elsewhere.
One aspect of those constraints is the operation of the external financing limits. The Post Office recently made a profit of £280 million, but under the external financing limits it had to pay £220 million back to the Treasury. That is equivalent to a tax on profit of 80 per cent. The rest of us who run companies have to pay between 25 and 30 per cent. Why cannot the same rule apply to the Post Office?
Those are areas of investment in the public sector which raise questions as to whether the right judgments are being applied. As has repeatedly been said in the debate, it is not the quantity of investment that matters but its quality. Is the right quality of investment being applied within the public sector? We are justified in asking that question.
The private sector also needs to be stimulated. The two sectors have been brought together by the private finance initiative, an initiative which I applaud. It is a very desirable one. I believe that it is in line with Labour Party thinking, and certainly it is in line with the thinking on these Benches. However, we have to make sure that it works effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Eden, gave a good illustration of its operation.
I too have been involved in that area. I am concerned with a company which saves energy consumption, installing new boiler plant. We are at the smaller end of the investment programme, but I regret to say that we have found that it takes a very long time to negotiate deals. There is a vast amount of administrative procedure to be gone through. There is also the issue of risk sharing. It seems to us from one or two examples that we are being asked to take the bulk of the risk and we receive very little increased benefit as a result of doing so. Therefore, while it is desirable, the scheme needs to be looked at again. I was heartened by the fact that in a recent speech the Chancellor said that he was determined that it should be developed further.
I believe that there is also a need for direct incentives for investment in the private sector. Much has been made of the need to stimulate small firms. The CBI and the Engineering Employers' Federation have come out with a modest proposal, which has been put to the Chancellor and which I hope he will accept, that the first £200,000 of investment in plant and machinery should gain a 100 per cent. allowance against tax. Clearly, that would be mainly of interest to small firms.
The other form of investment which has been referred to repeatedly today is investment in people. We had the remarkable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, who has so much experience in that area. There is a real problem about our lack of

459
investment in skills. In a recent initiative taken in the construction industry, Sir Clifford Chetwood, a leading member of that industry and formerly chairman of Wimpey's, said that in the UK there was virtually no formal qualification for at least half the workers in the construction industry. In Germany they all have qualifications. It is a major indictment of our lack of interest in providing sufficient instruction in skills. I am told by certain builders that they are already short of bricklayers even though the construction industry has not swept into major recovery. At great expense they are having to bus bricklayers from one site to another—and that is at a time when we have two and a half million people unemployed. That is a matter for serious reflection.
In conclusion, we have had a most important debate today at a crucial time. As my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf rightly said, the time to introduce major structural change in the economy is when the economy is beginning to go right. Making major structural changes when matters are in disarray and in difficulty is almost impossible. There would be enormous resistance.
This has been a timely debate. Many positive suggestions have been made. I very much hope that, in summing up, the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal will tell us that the Government can accept many of the propositions put forward.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, this is an opportunity, I suppose, to discuss the debate that we have had today, and to say something on the debates on the Queen's Speech as a whole.
Perhaps I may start by saying one or two things about the debate today. In many ways it has been an interesting and fascinating debate for those of us who have sat through a fair part of it. In that context, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who dropped in and listened in the course of the day, and made his speech. He had been spotted a little earlier sitting on the steps of the Throne. However, we are glad to know that in the four hours' interval between his being spotted and actually making his speech, he was obviously in rude and good health.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would like some explanation. I apologise to the House that I did have to leave during my noble friend's introductory remarks to go to the Select Committee on European Communities, where I felt I should be present, at least for the first item on the agenda. There then also was a meeting in the Moses Room which many of us were encouraged to go to. I do apologise that I was absent for some of the rest of the debate.
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thought I was being criticised. If I am not being criticised, I have nothing more to say.
Lord Richard: My Lords, this is not the kind of point that I would usually make a great deal of; and I do not.
460
However, I am bound to say to the noble Lord that a situation in which he appears for five minutes sitting on the steps of the Throne at the very beginning of the speech, and then disappears—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, this is not true.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord then breezes back in and makes a speech—a fairly predictable one, if I may say so. I do not believe, with respect, that that is in accordance with the best traditions of the House. He has choices the same as the rest of us. Quite clearly he should not have come in and made the speech that he did.
Perhaps I may say one or two things about some other speakers in the debate. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, is present. I always enjoy listening to the noble Lord. He reinforces my tendency to sit on this side of the House as opposed to the noble Lord's side of the House. After two minutes of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I know where my loyalties and affections are and indeed should be.
We had an interesting duo. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, wanted to abolish PAYE. The noble Viscount, Lord Hood, wanted to abolish capital gains tax. Both speeches were notable contributions to our debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, blamed it all on economists. It was interesting because I looked up the noble Baroness's history in that terrible book that we have in front of us called Dod. I shall not embarrass her by reading it out but there is a long string of companies to which she was attached as a qualified economist. I have often heard of people repenting of their past misdeeds, but it is somewhat rare to have a renunciation quite so comprehensive and all-embracing as that of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
The most notable features of today's debate were the two maiden speeches: first, the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, and then my noble friend Lord Gladwin. Interposed between those two speeches was that of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown. Listening to the three, what struck me was the amount of agreement between the industrialist, the trade unionist and the central banker on the analysis of the situation, particularly regarding the labour market and the nature of work. I should like to say a word on that in a moment.
Secondly, to a fair extent at any rate there was agreement as to what might be done about it. Both maiden speeches were remarkable, in the real sense of the word. They were memorable. I do not wish to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, but after he sat down my noble friend Lord Eatwell turned to me and said: "I agreed with almost all of that. Why is he on that side of the House?" I shall not ask him to answer that, but his was a speech made from deep experience and I greatly enjoyed it. I hope he will make similar speeches often in the future and that we shall be able to agree with them just as much. My noble friend Lord Gladwin spoke from massive experience of the trade union movement and industry.

461
I thought it was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, my noble friend Lord Gladwin and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, clearly agreed that the nature of work has changed. The one thing that people can no longer expect to do is obtain a qualification at the age of 20 or 21 and then pursue the field in which they have qualified for perhaps 40 years until they retire full of honours and with a gold watch. It will not happen in the future and I think everyone agrees about that.
We must have a workforce now which is adaptable, flexible and capable of changing. It may well be that people will do two, three or perhaps more jobs in the course of their working life. Therefore, the type of education they receive in their early years must be such that it is capable of being adapted to various occupations as they come along. That was one of the main points that emerged from the speeches to which I have just referred.
One of the other themes in the debate today was investment. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made quite optimistic noises about the level of investment regarding the recent past. I think it is worth giving the figures which I have in front of me to the House. Investment is still 8 per cent. below the level before the recession. If one looks at investment as a percentage of GDP between 1980 and 1990—the whole decade during which the Government were in office—we find that it is the worst record of any country in the G7. That is the legacy we have. If noble Lords would like the figures, I can give them. The United States and the United Kingdom come sixth and seventh on the list with an investment as a percentage of GDP of 17.6. The United States achieved a growth rate of 2.2 per cent. and the United Kingdom unfortunately only achieved a growth rate of 1.7 per cent. That is the background against which a large part of the economic debate now has to take place. I shall have certain political points to make in a moment, but leaving those aside for this part of what I have to say, however one looks at it certain things must be done. First, the manufacturing base of the country must be restored, one way or another. Secondly, our workforce must be better trained, better equipped to deal with the new conditions we shall have to meet. The country lacks social cohesion at the moment. The cracks are beginning to appear and deepen. It is no good the Government coming along and saying, "Oh well, the way in which we deal with that is to cut public expenditure". The fact is that for many people in this country society is now less fair, more difficult and poorer. They now have a poorer life and standard of living than they had when this Government came to power in 1979. You have to deal with that. You cannot just push it to one side and pretend that if we get the investment and the training right, there will be some sort of "trickle down" effect and everybody will be happy thereafter. That is not going to happen. Positive steps have to be taken by the Government to try to deal with the unfairnesses that exist.
We have now nearly reached the end of our debate on the gracious Speech as a whole. We have heard views from all sides of the House on the nature of the Government's legislative programme in the Session ahead. Much has been said; there are in this House many experts in many fields, and we have benefited from their
462
expertise. But these matters—jobs; safety on the streets and in people's homes; the opportunity that their children have; the time that they have to wait for a hospital appointment—touch ordinary people very closely indeed.
The point that struck me most when listening to government spokesmen in this debate is the quite extraordinary gap that must exist, if they are right, between what they say is happening and how it is perceived by the rest of the populace. Indeed, today we have been told on a number of occasions how well the country is doing and how prosperous we are all becoming. The old dichotomy between reality on the one hand and perception on the other is here, and in a somewhat extreme form.
It is perhaps time that the voice of the people who are most affected by government policy was heard. What story would middle-income people—perhaps those who have in the past supported this Government—tell now if we asked them their views on the state of the nation? They would surely identify a feeling of powerlessness; of insecurity about jobs and housing; about the health service; business; family values; and crime. They would surely say—would they not?—that there is no vision of where the Government are heading. What would they say about the recent news of a 75 per cent. pay-rise for the chairman of a privatised utility, while at the same time the London division of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—I put this at the other side of the balance because it seems to me to be important—finds that wages have now fallen as low as £1 an hour in some catering jobs since the abolition of the Wages Council? What on earth are ordinary people in this country to make of that? I wonder what the reaction would be. With respect, it is no answer to say that world-class companies like British Gas operate in the global market place and have to pay accordingly (whatever "accordingly" may be). The basic boardroom increase in salary in the UK is 7.4 per cent., not 75 per cent. Most people have to content themselves with increases at the rate of inflation or less. That 7.4 per cent. in the boardroom of British companies is in itself ahead of foreign-owned enterprises, where the figure is 5.2 per cent. The going rate of increase for British directors is twice that of their foreign counterparts when extras such as stock bonuses are included. What is important about that increase for the chairman and chief executive of British Gas is that we have not heard one word of condemnation of it from the Government. Their spokesmen come along in the Queen's Speech debate and elsewhere and tell us how well we are all doing, and how much fairer and better society is becoming. I have not heard a word of condemnation. With great respect, I should have thought that that is something that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House could do when he responds to this debate as a whole.
If we asked a group of ordinary people what they thought of all this, might they not feel that, although in the 1980s the Conservatives seemed perhaps to promote a classless society of opportunity, the reality now is that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest of us, who are getting poorer. I should have thought that that would be a fairly common reaction.

463
Surely there is some hope for the Government—is there? —on the issues that they have made their own. What about privatisation? It is supposed to place power over public utilities in the hands of the person in the street. What do we hear about that? The fact is that privatisation has not been popular. Small businesses in particular feel let down. Again, is that perhaps due to a perception of unfairness? Perhaps it has something to do with increases in disconnections from essential services, soaring water rates or the enrichment of managers who claim higher salaries, bonuses and stock options while thousands of people have lost their jobs. State monopolies, whose motivation was to provide at least a public service or to try to do so, have now been turned into private monopolies. Ordinary people and small businesses have not shared in that privatisation lottery prize.
One could go on. Noble Lords will have realised that the quotes I have been giving are not mine. They come from the vice-chairman of the Conservative Party in the document that was published last Monday. Let me give one more so that noble Lords can get the full flavour of the analysis made by the vice-chairman of the Conservative Party of where the party opposite now stands:
"Very few people think we are out of recession. While the Conservatives trumpet the recovery, the voters do not think the recession has ended. They still fear unemployment. They have no more money in their pockets because of tax increases. Real take-home pay is falling this year and will fall again in 1995–96. We will have had four or even five years of recovery with no rise in living standards. People feel that employees now have little or no protection against employers and that they need more".
The truth is that this is a Government which has run out of ideas. Even those who supported them in the past recognise their failure and the poverty of their attempts to cover it up. But perhaps we should allow Mr. Maples and his ordinary voters to have the final word. He said:
"What the Conservatives are saying is at odds with voters' experience which leads them to conclude that the Conservatives are out of touch, lying or that they do not care".
That seems to me to sum it up pretty well.
10.7 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate. Before I come to some of the specific questions raised, I should like to offer my congratulations to two particularly notable maiden speakers. I know that sometimes such compliments take on a rather ritual flavour. All noble Lords who listened to the contributions of my noble friend Lord Nickson and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, will agree that ritual plaudits of the kind that are sometimes delivered in the wake of maiden speeches are wholly inappropriate. In the short time that I have spent in your Lordships' House, I have seldom heard two maiden speeches delivered with such authority which have added so much to the quality of our debate. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we greatly look forward to the contributions of both noble Lords during the course of the months and years to come.
464
I shall try to pick up a number of points made in a long debate. However, I hope that noble Lords, and in particular my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, will forgive me if, because of the lateness of the hour, some of the points made are answered by letter rather than during the course of these remarks. I say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that VAT rates are clearly matters for my right honourable friend. Despite the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, I can only point out to both noble Lords that they will not have very long to wait before they find out what my right honourable friend will deliver for us in that respect.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers set out in his opening remarks the remarkably favourable economic situation in which the country now finds itself. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, could not bring himself even to give one small acknowledgement of the justice of what my noble friend said. I do not intend to repeat his remarks. It is far too late and he said it better than I could. However, I feel that it is important to stress that the Government's object is to promote sustained economic growth with lower inflation. I noted particularly the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, when he spoke with such authority on the matter, as well as the words of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
This is a prerequisite for the achievement of higher living standards for the British people. It is also a prerequisite for looking after those who need help and for enabling the Government to finance their other expenditure. With the greatest respect to the Opposition—and with the honourable exception, if I may say so, of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, but, sadly again, not with the honourable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Richard—I sometimes feel that the Labour Party's rhetoric suggests that there is no connection between the two; that hospitals, schools, teachers and training can be magicked into existence without creating the wealth to pay for them. I particularly listened to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Nickson on that subject.
Today, the first of those objectives is well within our grasp. My noble friend Lord Tugendhat made that perfectly clear. The economy is growing; it has been growing for two-and-a-half years and output has risen to a record high —over 4 per cent.—in the past 12 months. This recovery has not been financed by a housing boom and consumer credit. What we are now seeing is something different. Although consumer spending has been rising, this is a recovery increasingly based on low inflation and led by exports, as many noble Lords remarked—up by 12 per cent. in volume in the past 12 months. I was delighted again, particularly in view of the remarks made later by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to see that my noble friend Lord Nickson pointed out that 70 per cent. of those exports come from the manufacturing sector.
We have entered that virtuous circle the key to which has eluded governments of all complexions since the war. We see evidence in many places and perhaps, above all, in falling unemployment—455,000

465
below its peak. However, as many noble Lords remarked, that is far too high. Nevertheless, the remarkable record on strikes and a much improved balance of payments will begin to make a further impact on what we have begun to achieve.
In short, for the first time it looks as though we have a chance of breaking out of the boom and bust cycle of the past four decades. I listened with particular care to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and a number of other noble Lords who referred to the difficulty of that particular phenomenon. I deliberately put this cautiously. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is right. It could so easily be blown away in an inflationary spiral. That was reason enough for my right honourable friend to raise interest rates by 0.5 per cent. when he did, as so rightly noted by my noble friend Lord Tugendhat.
It is the habit of politicians, particularly when in office, to claim credit for things that go right. Some even try and blame others when things go wrong. For instance, I seem to remember many years ago in my youth the rather insultingly named "gnomes of Zurich" coming in for a good lot of stick in that respect. Perhaps rather surprisingly therefore, I am not this evening going to try to take all the credit for this encouraging state of affairs on behalf of Her Majesty's Government—but I am going to take a good deal, and rightly so, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter kindly acknowledged. After all, we are witnessing a world-wide recovery and a substantial expansion in world trade, which has undoubtedly helped to boost our exports. Nevertheless, underlying export volumes to the European Union have risen by 17 per cent. in the past 12 months, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, pointed out, although the market has only grown by 5 per cent. That is perhaps the difference between 1994 and the situation the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, left to my noble friend Lord Barber at the Treasury following what, by any standards if I may say so, was a most distinguished tenure, even though it may have proved a contributory factor to his party losing the election in 1970.
However, without this Government's reforms and determination to control inflation and public spending, we would never have been able to take advantage of the opportunities on offer. How right again was my noble friend Lord Tugendhat to draw attention to that. After all, the world economy has boomed more than once since 1945. The United Kingdom has benefited, it is true, from good times like that, but until now it has always lagged behind its main competitors. It is only fair to ask what has changed. It is equally fair to say—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel—that we are now in a position to compete strongly again in the cut-throat markets of the world. I was very pleased to hear the word "competition" on the noble Lord's lips, particularly from someone of his extraordinary technical knowledge on these matters.
We are entitled to ask why this has arisen. What has changed? The answer, to any dispassionate observer, is clear. There has been a sustained programme of reform by governments led by my noble friend Lady Thatcher and by my right
466
honourable friend the Prime Minister. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers pointed out, all kinds of things can be attributed to these initiatives. The deregulation initiative is beginning to bear fruit. Nearly 900 regulations are already earmarked for repeal or reform. Indeed, at the very time that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was speaking on deregulation and allied matters, the deregulation procedure Motion was being debated in another place. We have denationalised swathes of British industry, we have transformed the country's strike record, and we have the lowest non-wage labour costs of any of the major countries in the European Union. In spite of what noble Lords have said, that is indeed an incentive for people to come and invest here. I shall have a word to say about investment in a moment.
We have secured in that respect an opt-out from restrictive social measures which will help to preserve the United Kingdom's flexible employment condition. We have reformed our education and training to improve the quality of our workforce. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, the nature of work has changed. So perhaps education and training are as important as anything we have had to discuss today. The noble Lord and I can at least agree on that. However, I think he was less than fair to the Government. We have, after all, given a high priority to education and training. As he himself said, and as other noble Lords have pointed out, education does not stop when one leaves school. The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Gladwin, drew our attention to that very fact. We are extremely keen to encourage life-time learning and training among the workforce. The responsibility is shared by industry, and rightly so, for industry must involve itself in education. Employers must have the opportunity to influence the curriculum. That is why we have worked so hard to foster education and business links.
I do not want to weary the House for too long at this late hour, but we are beginning to see results. For instance, some 73 per cent. of 16 year-olds are opting to stay in full-time education. It is not nearly enough. The great majority of the rest, nevertheless, are opting to continue with part-time education or training courses. There are now more than 80 TECs in the country and 15 city technology colleges. We are promoting co-operation between colleges of further education and TECs, with a new £300 million package set out in the competitiveness White Paper, which will help provide both the young and adults with the skills that they need.
There has been a great deal of bandying of figures about skill shortages and about investment. I could produce a set of figures which would tend to contradict many of the figures produced by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I would only do so if he insisted that I should. I would merely say that, on skill shortages, the latest CBI survey reported that they are a far more minor constraint on output than they were at a similar stage in the last recovery from recession. Only 10 per cent. of manufacturers cited it as a

467
constraint. I would merely point out that in a similar survey, conducted in April 1978, the figure was as high as 20 per cent.
I cannot let the question of investment go by without referring to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Eden in a remarkable and detailed speech about public and private investment projects. I wholly agree with my noble friend's support for the greater partnership between the public and private sectors. Since the launch of the private finance initiative in November 1992, I can confirm to him that £500 million will have been invested by the end of the current financial year across projects in fields ranging from health to transport to information technology. Private finance is set to become the main source of growth in investment projects in the public sector. I was delighted to hear that there was support for this initiative from all sides of the House this evening.
I have tried to correct a little some of the knocking copy which we have heard from noble Lords in parts of the House this evening. But I would like to underline that, unless these things had happened and unless my noble friend Lady Thatcher, the Prime Minister and their governments had acted as they did, the genius of the British people would have continued to languish as it has done for most of the past four decades, stifled by bureaucracy, drift and discord.
Of course the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Dahrendorf, were right. There is still much to be done. As somebody observed this evening, productivity is still far too low compared to that of many of our competitors, although I have to observe that it is beginning to improve fast. The measures which were announced in the gracious Speech will, I suspect, make a substantial contribution to the continuing process of reform both on the supply side of the economy and in the social security system. The gracious Speech included the gas competition Bill and that is a good example of a measure which will bring competition to the whole of the gas market.
I cannot help asking myself how these changes have been brought about. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, talked of discredited policies. I seem to remember that at one time he was a distinguished co-editor of a volume known as Palgrave's Dictionary of Economics. I do not know whether the noble Lord can confirm that. It was interesting when a noble kinsman of mine whom I believe to have been partly responsible for publishing that particular volume, described the noble Lord's product as "the last gasp of neo-Marxism". I therefore could not help wondering whether the charges of inconsistency coming from the noble Lord in his opening speech were not in the category of "It takes one to know one".
When our reforms were introduced, were they introduced to universal acclaim from the Opposition, at least in principle, with the political argument being confined to the ways and means? Not a bit of it. The Opposition denounced every single government measure that has contributed to the transformation of our prospects; any measure of any importance as described by my noble friend Lord Ferrers or myself.
468
There was deregulation, denationalisation, industrial relations legislation, education reforms, our opt-out from the Social Chapter, our war against high taxation—a war, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Richard, would like to point out as I say it, that is still to be won—our battle against high government spending and even joining the European Community. As we have heard during questions following today's Statement on Railtrack, they are still at it. They are the Bourbons of the nationalised industries. I shall have to send them a white cockade because, like the Bourbons, they have clearly neither forgotten anything nor learnt anything. It will no doubt make a nice change substituting that for the red one which they have worn until now.
All these things and many more the Labour Party has opposed root and branch. In the light of all that, I believe that the call of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for a stable, long-term policy seems all the more remarkable. Indeed, consistency is not always a strong point with the Labour Party. It is not always as strong a point as it clearly is over Railtrack. In some areas they are beginning to see their errors. There was yet another U-turn—on school league tables—this week, which I was happy to see, as indeed were all my noble friends.
I was pleased, as I said, that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, saw fit to praise the virtues of competition—the bedrock, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers pointed out, of much of our own policy. I heard, despite the attack of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, no promises to renationalise. There were no promises to leave the Community. On Europe, the Opposition have changed their views to such a degree that they want, with the honourable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to sign up to all the things that have ensured that Europe created only 6 million jobs between 1970 and 1992, whereas, over the same period, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, pointed out, 40 million were created in the USA.
That is the kind of vacillation that will not deliver the economic performance that this country needs. It is the sustained long distance running which has delivered the reforms of the past 15 years, and which will continue to do so in a world that is changing and one where flexibility and skills will deliver prosperity more effectively than will bureaucracy and big government.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: He believes it!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I do indeed believe it, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, points out from a sedentary position. The Opposition seem to find it difficult to decide whether this Session's legislative programme is a lion or a mouse, unlike my noble friend Lord Oxfuird, who thought that it was a jug. I would say only that there is a simple test that we could apply to see who is right. If it is a mouse, our labours during the coming Session will be short, and we shall get to bed—delightful prospect—by eight and pack our buckets and spades no doubt by the beginning of June. If it is a lion, we shall still be here by mid-July. It is in the hands of noble Lords

469
opposite, but I have to say that were I a betting man my money would not be on the mouse, and I would therefore have to invite the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to reconsider his position when the time comes. I therefore look forward to a constructive and lively Session.
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, made a speech on the Motion for the Adjournment last week that I much enjoyed. He paid elegant compliments to my noble friends who had proposed and seconded the humble Address and poked, as indeed is only his right, a little gentle fun at Her Majesty's Government. He even took advantage of the status of my noble friend Lord Wade as a cheesemaster to accuse the Government's policies of being blue and mouldy. The noble Lord might care to reflect before he retires to
470
his bed that, as a cheese matures, discriminating consumers appreciate its greater quality. I have to say to him that this cheese is indeed maturing nicely. Those who are eating it will increasingly appreciate its quality.
Lord Richard: It is smelling a bit.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, why should they throw it away in favour of an alternative which is vaguely imitative in parts and wholly ersatz and bland everywhere?
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past ten o'clock.

  DISCRIMINATION CONVENTION
  DISCRIMINATION CONVENTION
  GUY'S AND ST. THOMAS' HOSPITAL RATIONALISATION OF SERVICES
  GUY'S AND ST. THOMAS' HOSPITAL RATIONALISATION OF SERVICES
  VAUXHALL CROSS
  VAUXHALL CROSS
  CONTAMINATED LAND
  CONTAMINATED LAND
  HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT: DRAFT SUBSIDY DETERMINATIONS
  HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT: DRAFT SUBSIDY DETERMINATIONS