Sitting of 3 April 1995

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

    Cycle Paths
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent consultations he has had over the routing of cycle paths within London. [15688]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): My Department attends regular meetings with London borough councils and representatives of cycling groups to discuss development of the 1,200 mile London cycle network.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Admirable though it certainly is to provide and extend cycling facilities in London, is it not absolute nonsense in a Labour-controlled borough such as mine for more than £300,000 to be spent on a new track which has brought chaos to residents, car drivers and bus drivers, dismay to the police and, above all, danger to cyclists? Should not Merton council have ensured proper consultation and worked towards practical pedalling rather than posture politics?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend forwarded to me correspondence from Councillor Margaret Brierly, who expressed on behalf of residents in Raynes Park in my hon. Friend's constituency concern about the way in which that particular part of the cycle route had been implemented. The case underlines the fact that, however desirable cycling may be—I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement of the principle—it is vital that local authorities proceed on the basis of proper consultation with residents so that we get sensible value for money out of the exercise.

    Airline Subsidies
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the amount of subsidy from national Governments to their national airlines within the EC; and if he will list the latest available figures for each member state. [15690]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Since 1991, the European Commission has approved £5.3 billion of state aid from member states to their national airlines. Almost half this aid was awarded to Air France. The UK Government have opposed all these subsidies.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that figure is outrageous, not least because half of it goes to one airline? Will he undertake to publish the
    1372
    details of the subsidies to every other airline in Europe? Does he agree that, apart from being worried about the record of fraud and mismanagement that go on in the Community, many people in Britain will be dismayed to think that others whose livelihoods and jobs depend on the free market which we are supposed to have joined will seriously question the purpose of what they are in unless that free market is established?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, since 1991, Sabena has received £450 million, Iberia almost £600 million, Aer Lingus £170 million, TAP of Portugal £710 million, Olympic Airways about £1 billion and Air France about £2.4 billion. All that distorts the single market, as my hon. Friend says. All of it is unfair to British Airways and other British carriers, which compete without the benefit of state aid and do so much more effectively than most of the airlines that receive state aid. It is also unfair to the passengers. For all those reasons, the Government have opposed all those state aids. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to be robust in the future, as we have been in the past.

    Railways, London
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to promote greater usage of London's surface railways. [15691]
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): In London, as elsewhere, giving the private sector the opportunity to operate existing services and introduce new ones is the best way to bring about the further improvements to services which passengers clearly want to see and to attract more passengers.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister not recognise that imaginative management of London's railways would provide far greater passenger opportunities on many underused freight lines or underused passenger lines, such as the Barking to Gospel Oak line? Is he aware that the principles of the internal market mean that, to save Railtrack from paying penalties, re-routed freight trains are sent down the Barking to Gospel Oak line, passenger trains are cancelled and passengers are taken off the trains and told to take a bus? Railtrack does not therefore lose any money from its freight income, but it inconveniences the passengers, who receive no compensation because that line is not included in the compensation package.
    Mr. Watts: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that £300,000 has been contributed towards refurbishment of stations on the Gospel Oak to Barking line. As for rail freight, he will be pleased to learn that the freight companies were vested successfully this weekend. I believe that in the private sector they will offer greater innovation and better marketing and secure an increasing share of traffic for rail freight at the expense of road freight.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I recently travelled from West Ealing to Greenford and back using British Rail. Many passengers travelling in both directions to whom I spoke said that the service was extremely good and comfortable. Will my hon. Friend make absolutely sure, however, that the service from Ealing to Paddington is maintained at all times?
    Mr. Watts: The franchise for the Thames services is not in the first eight, but I am pleased to hear what my

    1373
    hon. Friend's constituents think. I am sure that he shares my confidence that, as franchises are offered in the private sector, we can expect improvements in the standard even of those services that people already find satisfactory.
    Mr. Meacher: Is it not clear that, although the Government have a so-called national roads programme, they have no national rail programme whatever—unlike every other major European country? When will the Minister understand that the private sector will not stump up capital for either crossrail or Thameslink 2000 until the Government give a lead by being prepared to invest public money in them?
    Is it not also clear that the Minister has been forced to cut the roads programme, but he is still not prepared to invest in alternative public transport systems because the Tory party retains a deep visceral hostility to investment in the public sector?
    Mr. Watts: Railtrack has oversight of the entire rail network, rather as the Highways Agency has oversight of the trunk road and motorway network.
    I note the hon. Gentleman's scepticism about Thameslink—a scepticism that I do not expect to be borne out by the results of the feasibility study conducted recently by Railtrack and British Rail. The hon. Gentleman is so welded—I mean wedded—[Laughter.] That was a slip of the tongue, but perhaps my tongue found a better word. The hon. Gentleman is welded to the idea that nothing is worth while unless it is subsidised by the taxpayer. He seems to ignore the great successes of the private finance initiative, which is delivering more important rail and other transport infrastructure than the public purse could ever deliver. He continually wishes to place further burdens on taxpayers, rather than using the skills and finance of the private sector.
    Dr. Twinn: I thank the Government for their commitment to London's surface railways. Is my hon. Friend aware that in constituencies such as mine, in Enfield and Edmonton, surface rail is very important because we have no tube services? Does he agree that private investment in British Rail provides the best opportunity of guaranteeing an improved service for my constituents in the future?
    Mr. Watts: I entirely agree that opening up rail services to investment and management by the private sector provides the best guarantee of improved services well into the future.

    Railway Works Compensation
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department has given to proposing changes to the laws on compensation for people and businesses affected by (a) underground and (b) overground railway works; and if he will make a statement. [15693]
    Mr. Watts: The relevant legislative framework—which was most recently extended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991—is kept under review.
    Mr. Hughes: When the review is next considered—and the matter is urgent—will the Minister take account of two specific problems? They arise from the Jubilee line works, welcome though those are.
    1374
    First, a change of plan has meant that people who invested on the basis of an undertaking that they would not suffer disruption have suffered such disruption. Secondly, and more important, some small businesses—such as those in Borough high street, by London bridge—are on the verge of bankruptcy, not because of a reduction in the value of their premises but because the works surrounding them have caused trade almost to disappear. Will the Minister examine the problem as a matter of urgency? It is affecting many businesses and individuals.
    Mr. Watts: As the hon. Gentleman will realise, compensation arrangements for particular schemes such as the Jubilee line extension are a matter for discussion between London Transport and those who consider that they have been adversely affected. I understand that some traders are negotiating with London Transport about compensation in connection with the construction works, and I am sure that that is the right way for them to proceed. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London is present, and has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Brooke: Given that all the new underground routes planned pass through the constituency of City of London and Westminster, South and as those who are sited above them, either commercially or residentially, suffer blight in general and personal disruption in particular, will my hon. Friend bear constantly in mind the fact that the routes of those lines are more likely to be smooth if there is a sensible system of compensation that everyone recognises?
    Mr. Watts: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Gerrard: Will the Minister consider the position of people who are faced with compulsory purchase and who have negative equity on their properties, particularly commercial properties? Such people are forced to sell their properties at a time when, given the opportunity, they would not have sold but would have waited so as to recover their investment. Will the hon. Gentleman look at that serious problem?
    Mr. Watts: Yes. The hon. Gentleman raises a difficult point which we will look at sympathetically when there is a further review.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my hon. Friend please consider extending compensation to farmers and market gardeners in Kent whose crops will be damaged and visually destroyed by chalk dust emanating from the construction of the channel tunnel rail link?
    Mr. Watts: I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents who feel that they may be so affected will make full use of the statutory provisions available to them.

    Car Safety
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that standards higher than the European Union crash standards for cars are promptly introduced. [15695]
    Mr. Norris: No. It is vital that crash test standards are set within the context of the European Union.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Does the Minister not realise that more improved, stringent tests could save up to 90,000 lives

    1375
    across Europe and 9,000 lives in the United Kingdom and that the motoring organisations are concerned about the recommendations being too loose?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is right. When we reach the stage 2 standards, they will offer the prospect of substantial life saving. Of course these test standards have to be introduced on a sensible time scale which allows the manufacturers to develop products that are set to the stringent standards. I underline that I think there is general agreement throughout the House that the construction standards must be properly set within the framework of the European Union. They offer British manufacturers the opportunity of knowing the standard to which they build so that they can sell their products throughout the Union.

    Commuter Trains
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to increase the number of regional commuter train services. [15696]
    Dr. Mawhinney: Privatisation can be expected to bring improvements to regional commuter train services as well as to passenger services generally. The Government also welcome the support that local authorities have given to developing local services in their areas.
    Mrs. Knight: My right hon. Friend will be aware that among the proposals of the Greater Nottingham rail strategy is one for a line that crosses the county boundary into Derbyshire and for additional small commuter stations at Ilkeston, Sandiacre and Long Eaton in my constituency. What action can his Department take to forward that proposal, as it utilises better the existing midland main railway line, to the benefit of commuters?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Yes, I am aware of the proposal and of my hon. Friend's support for it. Any application to the Department for funding would need to be accompanied by a full appraisal that demonstrates that the scheme would provide value for money and better prospects for relieving traffic congestion, perhaps by encouraging transfer from private cars, rather than having, say, an express bus service. We are open to such a proposal and would look carefully at it should it emerge.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State reflect on what would happen to commuter services into Edinburgh from Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy if rust were to take hold on the Forth bridge? If that happened, one impregnated lattice structure would make it impossible to use that bridge, which is vital to the area north of the Forth. It is also the greatest monument to British engineering of the 19th century and is the picture postcard image of Britain. What are the Secretary of State's responsibilities in this matter?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Certainly, the hon. Gentleman is right. I share his appreciation of the engineering feat that the bridge represents. It was part of the best of 19th century engineering in Britain. I have no reason to believe that any of the hon. Gentleman's concerns are well founded. As he will recall from evidence that I gave to the Select Committee on Transport, we are asking some experts to have another look at the bridge.
    Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend will know that the chairman of one of the main banks has said that he
    1376
    expects there to be 50,000 redundancies in the banking world. There has been a host of similar developments during recent years. Will my right hon. Friend share with the House, either now or on a subsequent occasion, the Government's latest thinking on the effect that technological change will have on commuter patterns over the next few years?
    Dr. Mawhinney: First, I have no responsibility for banks. Secondly, the technological change to which my hon. Friend referred will not happen just in the future; it is happening now and it is being reflected in our policies as we seek to develop the railway industry in the private sector and to make the best use of developing technology in this country's other transport infrastructure.

    Rail Modernisation
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long Railtrack's feasibility study team has been analysing whether to modernise the rail network. [15697]
    Mr. Watts: At any time, Railtrack will be assessing the merits of a range of investment projects.
    Mr. Cunningham: Given the shambles since November on the Euston-Coventry-Birmingham line, and in view of what happened today, will the Minister give an undertaking that he will speed up the modernisation proposals, that he will investigate what has been happening on that line since November and that he will abandon the privatisation proposals? Although the staff give of their best, they are demoralised by the privatisation proposals and, consequently, the railway line between Euston and Birmingham is a shambles.
    Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman's comments about the effects of privatisation are total rubbish. However, I shall reflect on what he has said about the problems on the line to which he referred.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is an urgent examination of the west coast main line? Is he aware that many of us would like to use it regularly but do not because it is so unreliable? I happened to use it this morning for the first time in months and I was delayed by two hours. There was total chaos. It is a wholly unacceptable position.
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the upgrading of the west coast main line is probably the biggest of the upgrading projects being considered. The first phase project study was completed in December. A couple of weeks ago, I announced that the Government had given approval for the letting of the contract for the development of a new signalling system, which is at the heart of the upgrading proposals. The release of funds that will follow will provide funding for the core investment programme that the line most urgently requires.
    Mr. Tyler: Is the Minister aware that whenever Members of Parliament raise questions about services at risk, especially services to the peripheral, more remote areas—for example, sleeper services—Railtrack or the franchising director says that their future is a political decision? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the buck must eventually stop with the Department of Transport in respect of those services and the costings on which their future is to be based?

    1377
    Does the Minister agree with the announcement by the director of Railtrack Scotland that should the sleeper services be axed in any part of the country, that would reflect badly on and tarnish the privatisation exercise?
    Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman should stop arousing unnecessary fears in the minds of his constituents and those of hon. Members who represent Scotland. He well knows that sleeper services to the west country and to Scotland will be safeguarded, for the very first time, by their inclusion in passenger service requirements.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend remind those scaremongers who complain about the potential consequences of privatisation that wherever industry has been privatised, that has resulted in much greater investment and much better quality of service? That will be as true with the railways as it is elsewhere.
    Mr. Watts: Yes, indeed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred earlier to the contrast between British Airways in the private sector and the nationalised airlines of some of our continental partners.
    Mr. Meacher: Does it not show the Government's priorities that they still refuse to fund a penny of the £1 billion required for the desperately needed modernisation of the west coast main line, while at the same time they are quite prepared to shell out £5 billion sweeteners in debt write-offs and capital allowances to ease the privatisation of the railways? Is it not absolutely clear that the Government are far more interested in funding their dogma than in providing higher-quality services for passengers?
    Mr. Watts: What it shows is that the hon. Gentleman does not think that any investment is worth while unless it is paid for by taxpayers. The first stage of the upgrading of the west coast main line can be funded in the private sector, so I find no reason why he continues to argue that taxpayers should pay for the upgrading. It can be funded without dipping into taxpayers' pockets.

    Airspace Restrictions
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the use by EU countries of restricting airspace as a means of restricting competition. [15698]
    Dr. Mawhinney: It is the Government's policy to oppose any measure that unduly restricts competition in the air transport single market.
    Mr. Steen: When British Midland was given enough slots to become the second British carrier to fly to Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels, fares dropped by about a third and the percentage share of passengers using those services went up from about 40 to 60 per cent. Will the Minister therefore consider using, if not public money, then money raised from the private sector, to invest in the necessary technology to provide new and additional slots out of London? In that way, additional British carriers could fly on the other trunk routes—which have only British Airways here and the state airline at the other end in Europe—and so provide increased competition and reduced fare prices to the consumer.
    Dr. Mawhinney: If my hon. Friend is talking about flights in Europe, he will be pleased to remember that the
    1378
    1993 liberalisation package, behind which we were a major moving force, has provided opportunities precisely to enable greater competition and greater access for British carriers to the transfer of passengers in other European countries. If he is talking about services beyond Europe, I assure him that, as we pursue bilateral liberalisation arrangements with other countries, we always seek to enhance British carriers' prospects.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does not the Secretary of State agree that one of the greatest restrictions on airspace is its reservation for military use both in this country and in the European Union? Does that not restrict commercial carriers in obtaining the additional slots that they require? Has he assessed that position recently? If he has, will he advise us on the outcome of that assessment? If he has not, is he about to assess the position?
    Dr. Mawhinney: There we go again: anything to reduce the country's defence capabilities finds an echo on the Labour Benches. But perhaps that is not surprising from the party that has just brought forward a new rewording of clause IV, which inadvertently happened to omit NATO from its words.

    Air Services
    Mr. Spring: To ask Secretary of State for Transport what efforts are being made to liberalise air services to and from the United Kingdom. [15699]
    Dr. Mawhinney: The United Kingdom played a lead role in bringing about the liberalisation of air services in the European Community, which came into effect on 1 January 1993, and about which I have just spoken. Outside the Community, we shall continue to seek to liberalise air service agreements on a bilateral basis.
    Mr. Spring: Although I welcome the discussions between the UK and the United States of America, does my right hon. Friend hope that new practical and liberalised arrangements will emerge that are of benefit to both countries?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I appreciate my hon. Friend's question and I am encouraged by the progress that has been made in those discussions between the United States and the UK. I pay tribute to Secretary Peña who, with me, agreed an agenda for those discussions. We have made good progress. They have been genuine negotiations. The talks will recommence in Washington on 10 April and continue until 12 April. I am hopeful that an arrangement will eventually emerge that will benefit the travelling public both in the United States and in the UK.

    Channel Tunnel Rail Link
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of the objective for the channel tunnel rail link announced by the former Secretary of State in 1991, with special reference to economic regeneration in east London. [15700]
    Mr. Watts: In selecting the easterly route for the channel tunnel rail link, the Government recognised the potential that it offered to encourage regeneration in the

    1379
    east Thames corridor, now known as the Thames gateway. Such regeneration remains an important objective for the rail link project.
    Mr. Timms: May I remind the Minister that when the former Secretary of State made the announcement in 1991, he was explicit that his commitment was to regeneration in east London, where it is most needed and where, as the Government's own figures confirm, the levels of urban deprivation are highest? Do the Government remain committed to regeneration specifically in east London, as announced in 1991, through the rail link project?
    Mr. Watts: I am confident that the whole of the Thames gateway will benefit from the rail link project. I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for inviting me to view the proposed site of the Stratford station, which I did recently on a very wet day—it was probably the only time that anyone has described me as a wet. However, the enthusiasm of the promoter group was undiminished by the weather. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the question of the station at Stratford is still open and we shall reassess it in the light of the bids from the four consortiums, which are undergoing assessment.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I remind my hon. Friend that the reference was to the east Thames corridor and that we in north-west Kent are therefore grateful for the decision immediately to proceed with the Ebbsfleet station, which will bring considerable regeneration and also make more viable any opportunities that Opposition Members see in respect of east London?
    Mr. Watts: It is gratifying that hon. Friends and hon. Members representing both sides of the Thames recognise the value of this project to regeneration prospects.

    Cyclists and Pedestrians
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to improve provision for cyclists and pedestrians. [15701]
    Mr. Norris: The responsibility for making safe provision for cyclists and pedestrians rests principally with local highway authorities. They are able to bid for appropriate funding in their annual transport policies and programmes submission to the Department of Transport.
    Mrs. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that three quarters of all journeys are less than five miles long and that, at present, only 1 per cent. of them are made by bicycle? What is he doing to ensure safe networks on which parents are prepared to let their children travel and to encourage more people to cycle?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady is right, although it is about 2.5 per cent. of all journeys in this country that are made by cycle. That compares with an average throughout Europe of about 15 per cent. Although our road safety record generally is excellent, the prospects of being injured as a cyclist are substantially higher in this country than in some countries where cycling is more central to local transport provision. The hon. Lady is on to a very good point which I have strongly endorsed myself. The mechanisms for delivering what she seeks are the TPP submissions from local authorities which are being guided by the Department in its transport supplementary grant
    1380
    guidance to ensure that, when packages are put together by local authorities, they include a significant cycling element.
    Mr. Robathan: I am delighted that my hon. Friend supports cycling, but will he hold discussions with his colleagues at the Department of Health and the Department for Education to encourage schoolchildren to bicycle or walk to school? We are told that children are getting fat and unfit because they sit on their backsides too much and do not take exercise; we are told that they are getting unhealthy and developing asthma because of air pollution; and we can all see the congestion for ourselves. This is a very serious issue, and I hope that my hon. Friend will respond accordingly.
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is right. Cycling is environmentally sound and healthy and it is a thoroughly desirable form of transport, but most people would not exactly relish the prospect of challenging a 40 ft articulated lorry for priority on the road. The reality is that we have to create conditions in which thoroughly un-lycra people such as me might be tempted to improve their health substantially by cycling. My hon. Friend's enthusiasm is legendary and much to be welcomed.

    Manchester Airport
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the future ownership and funding of Manchester airport; and if he will make a statement. [15702]
    Dr. Mawhinney: I have received a number of representations about the future ownership and funding of Manchester airport from hon. Friends and others. I believe that the airport's future would be better served in the private sector.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities should allow pension funds to pay for tarmacking the second runway at Manchester airport so that councils are free to spend more on schools and caring for the vulnerable?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend will understand that I am not in a position to comment about the second runway for obvious reasons, but I strongly endorse his view that the flexibility and investment that Manchester airport needs and of which, on the basis of its past history, it could make good use, is much more likely to come effectively from the private sector, thereby freeing up resources for the council to use in other ways as my hon. Friend pointed out.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I think that the Secretary of State made a mistake because Manchester is a highly efficient airport, which is growing every year and is not only providing high-quality management but contributing to the very best in the region. I thought that the Secretary of State was in the business of trying to sell off those broken-down bits of British Rail that his friends want for other reasons.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to confirm that Manchester is indeed a good airport, but I believe that it can be even better—and it is much more likely to be better and to provide the increasing range of international services that people want if it is given the opportunity to

    1381
    be in the private sector. I point the hon. Lady to the British Airports Authority. No doubt when the Airports Bill was going through the House she was against that as well.
    Mr. Fabricant: While I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that Manchester airport is very efficient—I often fly there and enjoy the facilities—does my right hon. Friend agree with the comments made by Samuel Goldwyn junior when the Select Committee on National Heritage visited him in Los Angeles in a very unpublicised trip last year, when he said that public subsidies make for lazy film-makers? Is that not also the case with airports?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am pleased that we have agreement across the Floor of the House that Manchester is a good airport. I think that we also have agreement across the House that it can be an even better and more significant airport. Unquestionably, that will happen if it gets into the private sector. I hope that that decision will be taken locally because I am sure that that is the best place for it to be taken, but I would not rule out the possibility that that decision might have to be taken centrally at some time in the future, on the basis of legislation.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State accept that Manchester airport's success is due to the fact that for 50 years it has been an example of municipal enterprise and that politicians of all political parties in Greater Manchester have nurtured it and built it up? Having achieved such a success, which even the Minister concedes, why spoil it now by taking it away from the local authorities?
    Dr. Mawhinney: It is encouraging to know that the Labour party, despite all its warm words and clich's, has not changed its instinct for the public sector over the private sector, irrespective of the benefits that the latter can provide. We have heard that view from the Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), and from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on the Back Bench. All we need now is for it to be confirmed by the Leader of the Opposition and we shall have a clean slate.

    Roads (Environmental Impact)
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress to reduce the environmental impact of road transport. [15703]
    Dr. Mawhinney: A wide range of measures has been introduced to reduce the environmental impact of road transport, within the Government's overall aim of sustainable development.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State confirm that included in that statement there is a genuine interest on the part of Government to reduce the development of asthma in children and in the population in general? Will he give an assurance that new motorways will not be built near infant and junior schools? Does he agree that there has to be a distance of half a mile, or a mile, between a motorway and a school to ensure the health and safety of children in our schools?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I understand the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to clean air. I hope that he will accept that, in the nine months that I have been in this
    1382
    job, I have tightened vehicle emission standards on two occasions and have paid particular attention to putting in place arrangements that will add to those already in place as regards cleaning the air. As to new roads, I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a genuine concern about the A1 (M) and proposals for new routes, the effect that those might have on the Ferrybridge-Pontefract corridor and whether the route ought to go to the east of Knottingley. He will appreciate that a variety of issues have to be taken into account in making such a judgment. He has made one of those points very eloquently today. I hope that he will accept that a number of others have to be borne in mind before a final decision is reached.
    Mr. James Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the M3 has been an outstanding success, as its use by the public has cut out many huge traffic jams of the past? None the less, the environmental side needs some attention. As a result of the sheer construction of the gap, almost 1,000 contractors' caravans are still in place. Should not a little environmental detail now be approached to make the M3 a real success?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with my hon. Friend that the M3 and the whole motorway network have been a success. Some motorways have been a little controversial at the time of construction but, as people reflect on what we now have in place, they agree that the system is to the great advantage of the travelling public, business and industry. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the environmental aspects of the M3 and I will report his concern to the Highways Agency.
    Ms Walley: In view of the measures which the Secretary of State says are so important, when will he take full account of the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment and the report of the royal commission? When will environmental appraisal be at the root of all road schemes and transport policies? When will he introduce air quality monitoring, both nationally and as a requirement for local authorities?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I should have hoped that the hon. Lady would know that, since 1985, environmental assessments have been at the heart of decisions on whether new roads should be built. The SACTRA report made it clear that induced traffic consequences of road building happen only on some roads but could not say in advance which roads those would be. It recommended that we should do more research to pursue that matter further and I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that we shall do so.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many economists are employed by the National Audit Office. [15738]
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office employs some 550 staff, who either have accountancy qualifications or are training for them. Of those, 60 have degrees in economics, although none are full-time professional

    1383
    economists. The office conducts a wide range of studies. When specialised advice is needed on relevant economic issues, the NAO uses external experts.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend ask one of those highly trained individuals to discover why we have computer-readable passports but inadequate computers at ports of entry?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am familiar with the report to which my hon. Friend refers and I understand that the Public Accounts Commission has already considered it. It shows the good work which the National Audit Office does for the House and for Parliament generally in inquiring into administration rather than policy. It has also revealed that the index of suspects, which has some 340,000 names on it, is held in a manual that is updated by hand every day. It is hoped to move to a computer index soon, though some hon. Members may consider that that should have been done before.

  TRANSPORT

    Airline Subsidies
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking within the EU to resist the payment of illicit subsidies to (a) Air France, (b) Iberia and (c) Olympic Airlines. [15704]
    Mr. Norris: The UK has opposed the granting of state aid by national Governments to Air France, Iberia and Olympic Airlines, and we have applied to the European Court of Justice to annul the Air France decision.
    Mr. Waterson: Will my hon. Friend take an early opportunity to remind his opposite numbers in Europe that, to use Lord King's words, within less than a decade British Airways went from awful to awesome as a result of privatisation, cutting overmanning and achieving more efficient management, and that if their national airlines cannot achieve that without massive subsidies they should be allowed to go out of business?
    Mr. Norris: I listened closely to what my hon. Friend said and I think that his words will resonate throughout the House and outside. State aid merely shores up inefficiency, distorts competition and undermines European airlines' ability to compete in world markets.

    Channel Tunnel Rail Link
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the public subsidy likely to be required to (a) construct the channel tunnel rail link and (b) operate services on it. [15710]
    Mr. Watts: The level of public sector support for the construction of the channel tunnel rail link will be determined by the competition currently under way to select a private sector promoter for the rail link. The Government do not intend to subsidise the private sector operation of international services.
    Mr. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that Eurorail, whose chairman is Lord Parkinson, has put in a bid to construct the rail link? Is that not strange and remarkable
    1384
    behaviour from the noble Lord, given that he spiked the project five years ago, when he said that it should receive no public subsidy whatever?
    Mr. Watts: I do not find it in the least strange that any one of the four consortiums should have put in bids to build the link.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Bearing in mind the fact that the north Kent line is subsidised, along with the other commuter services in the London area, is not one advantage of the channel tunnel rail link that it will cut commuting speeds from Gravesend from 50 minutes to 19 minutes on the high-speed rail link?
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend has pointed out one of the important domestic benefits that flow from the construction of that link.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Visitors' Refreshment Facilities
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what plans he has to make refreshment facilities available for visitors. [15718]
    Mr. Paul Channon (Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee): In its first report of 1992–93, "Refreshment Provision for Line of Route Visitors", the Catering Committee recommended that the area currently occupied by the Westminster Hall cafeteria should he converted to a visitor centre, but that that should take place only when a suitable alternative has been found for the present lunchtime users of that cafeteria. The House agreed the report on 12 July 1994.
    Mrs. Campbell: I thank the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee for that reply. I am glad to hear that some progress has been made. Is he confident that when I am visited by children in the future, as I was recently by 80 children from Arbury county primary school of Cambridge, those children will be able to sit and eat their sandwiches inside instead of having to go outside and eat them in the rain?
    Mr. Channon: I entirely agree that that is very much to be desired. The Director of Works is currently preparing design options, which will have to be considered by the various Committees of the House. The serious problem is that between 400 and 450 people already have meals in the Westminster Hall cafeteria. Some suitable alternative must be found for them before much else can be done.
    Mr. Dunn: As one of the bars to extending facilities in the House is the lack of space, is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of rooms are currently used by policy advisers to the Labour party and are therefore now redundant?
    Mr. Channon: Perhaps my hon. Friend would be kind enough to refer that matter to the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee.

    Dining Room Bookings
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make

    1385
    financial provision for the publication at monthly intervals of a list of dining room bookings, giving the names of organisations and hon. Members. [15719]
    Mr. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The provision of such information is a matter for the Catering Committee, following the implementation of the structure set out in the Ibbs report.
    Mr. Prentice: May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to make suitable representations to the Catering Committee? As the Nolan committee is examining the interests of Members of Parliament, their parliamentary consultancies, and so on—about which there has been tremendous public concern—is there not a case for greater transparency and openness, so that people outside know exactly which Members of Parliament are booking how many rooms for outside organisations?
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman can urge the Catering Committee, as no doubt he did before it gave a parliamentary written answer on that very subject on 1 February at columns 671–72. He has also no doubt urged his hon. Friends on the Committee, on which the Opposition are well represented by the hon. Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan).

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Steen: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what has been the cost of energy efficiency measures in the parliamentary estate in the last three years. [15720]
    Mr. Beith: The amounts spent specifically on such measures were £32,000, £168,000 and £130,000 in 1992–93, 1993–94 and the current financial year.
    Mr. Steen: I just wonder whether enough is being done to reduce the burning of fossil fuels and whether the House is doing enough by setting an example of how we behave in that respect. Bearing in mind the fact that we have a tremendous predominance of staff—many people think that we are overstaffed—in the Palace and its surrounding accommodation, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it should be possible to get some of those employees to go round turning the radiators down, so that rooms like mine do not reach a temperature of 82 deg F, as it did last week, which is more suitable for a sauna than for an office?
    Mr. Beith: I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman has to say. The House has already achieved a saving of 7 per cent. in gas and electricity consumption and is on course for a target of 15 per cent. by 1996. It hopes to achieve a major reduction in fossil fuel burning by installing a combined heat and power plant in the Norman Shaw buildings and has various technical devices by which it seeks to avoid excess heat being produced. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right that Members and staff can draw attention to practical means of cutting energy waste.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear it in mind that brilliant toys which somehow or other do not work are very dangerous, and that at present the House has a great tendency to have a series of lights which click on very effectively after one has passed out
    1386
    of the corridor that they are meant to illuminate? That is not only exceedingly dangerous, but will cost a fortune in compensation when someone is hurt as a result.
    Mr. Beith: I understand that automatic sensors can lead to considerable energy savings and that they are used in the House in places where it is thought safe to do so—not, for example, where there are steps or stairs. However, if the hon. Lady or other hon. Members know of places where their use could lead to danger, they should refer them to the appropriate authorities.

    Services
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee how much it is planned to spend on House of Commons services in the coming year; upon which main projects; and if he will make a statement. [15721]
    Mr. Channon: The estimates for the House of Commons administration and works services for 1995–96 were laid before the House on 23 March 1995, making provision of £73.3 million and £49.9 million respectively for the two votes. Major projects are identified in the annual reports of the Commission.
    Mr. Greenway: May I ask my right hon. Friend to find room in that £82 million of expenditure to apply for planning permission for the Terrace marquee, so that it may be open all the year round instead of only eight months a year? [Interruption.] Is my right hon. Friend aware, and is the House aware [Interruption.]—perhaps the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is not—that that facility is popular, and that it can be used all the year round because there is heating in it? Might it he used to accommodate the children and other people who want to eat their sandwiches at some times of the day?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend's interesting suggestion has met with a mixed reception from the House. He may like to refer the matter to the Chairman of the Catering Committee who, I am sure, will be only too anxious to consider it carefully.
    Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this year is the 700th anniversary of the summoning of the first Parliament by Edward I, on 27 November 1295? If there is money available for projects, should it not he devoted to improving the facilities for those who visit the House? We still call them "strangers" rather than "electors", so we have not even caught up with 1832, and we still allow them to freeze in the streets when they come to visit Members of Parliament.
    There are facilities in Westminster Hall. The security arguments are much less compelling than they were, with the end of the cold war and with the ceasefire in Northern Ireland. We really should treat the people who come to see Members with a lot more care and respect, over and above the changes that the right hon. Gentleman announced today for some eating facilities in the Westminster Hall annexe.
    Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and several other hon. Members earlier raised points akin to his. The Director of Works is preparing proposals. I should be misleading the House if

    1387
    I suggested that that will happen quickly, but I take note of the fact that an influential and large number of Members wish to press ahead with it at the earliest date.

    Disabled People (Access)
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what further representations the Commission has received about financial provision for access for the disabled to the Palace of Westminster. [15722]
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps he is taking to improve financial provision for disabled access to the Palace of Westminster. [15724]
    Mr. Beith: Following the comprehensive review of disabled access carried out by the Accommodation and Works Committee, projects have been included in the works programme shared between both Houses. Provision of about £240,000 was made in the previous financial year and £372,000 has been approved for the current year. A list of the completed and planned items of work has been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this building is an obstacle course for the disabled, and that it is high time that it was improved?
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is right. When the building was designed, thought was not given to the way in which disabled people might obtain access to it, and much work is going into discovering ways in which that can now be achieved. The expenditures that I have described are part of that process, but there will be much more as the Accommodation and Works Committee considers the matter further.
    Mr. Corbyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, when that money has finally been spent, the whole building will he fully accessible to all the people who come here who suffer from any type of disability?
    Last week, when there was a large lobby for the Disability Discrimination Bill, the staff in the building were helpful to those who came. Nevertheless, it is humiliating that someone who comes in a special vehicle has to get special permission to park it and someone to take them from their car up to the Lobby, and then they have to go up in a goods lift to get into the Gallery, where there is limited space for them.
    Frankly, the manner in which we treat people who come to this House belongs in the 18th century or earlier. I have been a Member for 12 years, during which the question has been raised time and time again. Yet there are still no proper facilities for people who suffer from disabilities. They are grossly discriminated against by this House.
    Mr. Beith: The sums that I have already described will be only part of the process. I have already indicated that more proposals will be needed to achieve the objective described by the hon. Gentleman—if, indeed, we can ever achieve perfection in a building which was not purpose-built with the concerns of the disabled in mind, as I believe our new building over the way will be. The staff of the House have made every effort, not so much
    1388
    to provide special permission as to give special and appropriate assistance. A variety of measures is being considered to ensure that disabled people may have access to all parts of the building.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Lockerbie
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will set up a Select Committee on the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [15728]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have no plans to propose the setting up of such a Committee.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is not the appalling truth that the highest echelons of the United States Government and the Crown Office simply do not want to confront the truth about Lockerbie? Had they done so, would they not have been far more assiduous in carrying out their duty under Scottish law to investigate any leads which might result in the exculpation of the two Libyan suspects or, indeed, any other suspects? They simply have not carried out their legal duty under Scottish law in following the leads. I will not say that they have been bone idle, but they have not carried out their duty. In those circumstances, will the Lord President tell us what wretched excuse is now being given for not going ahead with the second best, which is a Select Committee of this House?
    Mr. Newton: On the first point, I can only say that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate remains satisfied that the evidence supports the charges against the two accused and against no other individuals. On the second point, I shall simply say that there have already been numerous inquiries into the Lockerbie disaster and it seems to me that the appropriate course is to seek to pursue the case which is to be mounted against the two people who have been accused, rather than to engage in further inquiries.

    Parliamentary Broadcasting
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the current level of parliamentary broadcasting. [15729]
    Mr. Newton: Parliament makes available coverage of all the proceedings from the Chambers of both Houses and some Committees. The use made of that material is a matter for editorial and scheduling decisions by the broadcasters. Most viewers see coverage of Parliament in daily, national or regional news programmes. There is also some live coverage and a number of daily or weekly programmes using parliamentary material.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that there has been a fall in the amount of coverage given by television to proceedings in this Chamber? Is it not partly because of the restrictions placed on broadcasters, which prevent panning shots and reaction shots—for instance, to the comments that I am making now—and the need for greater access and editorial freedom to enable broadcasters to show the totality of the proceedings in this Chamber, rather than just the person who is speaking? Will he also bear it in mind that the Committee Rooms in which a number of important Committees sit do not have

    1389
    cameras? Those Committees should be reported on television, but it is not possible because the technology is not there.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that some relaxations in the rules covering the use of reaction shots were introduced in 1991. The Select Committee on Broadcasting, which I chair, took a further look at the rules recently and felt that the necessary consensus did not exist, either in the Committee or in the House, to justify further changes at this stage. Given the amount of coverage that is devoted to occasions when the rules are at their most restrictive, I rather doubt the hon. Gentleman's assumption that such rules inhibit coverage.
    Mr. Michael Brown: What powers has the Broadcasting Committee to take action against broadcasting organisations when they flagrantly break the rules that this House has set? For instance, in an incident not long ago Channel 4 News used slow-motion shots of this House when a Division was taking place. What action can be taken when the rules are broken?
    Mr. Newton: The Broadcasting Committee could propose a range of actions to the House. In that case, the matter was taken up with the television companies concerned; they have said that they accept that what happened was outside the rules and I would not expect it to recur.

    Business Questions
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Lord President of the Council what new proposals he has to improve business questions and answers. [15730]
    Mr. Newton: It is not, alas, in my power to improve the questions. I continue to work on the answers.
    Mr. Flynn: As a third of the time devoted to business questions is wasted on the meaningless ritual of asking for debates and then having them refused, and as a large amount of the time for points of order is equally wasted, when Members try unsuccessfully to persuade Madam Speaker that their patently bogus points of order are genuine, should we not follow the example of the Indian Parliament, which has introduced a period known as "zero hour" when Members can raise issues of concern without necessarily seeking replies to them, although they sometimes get them? That would avoid wasting time but would still fulfil the function of allowing about a quarter of an hour each day when Members can raise important and urgent matters.
    Mr. Newton: First, I would raise an eyebrow at the hon. Gentleman's nerve in asking that question, as I have with me a list of subjects that he has raised at business questions in the past few weeks. Secondly, as it happens, I have arranged a zero three hours for next Wednesday morning.

London Airports (Transport Links)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about surface links to airports around London. I wish to propose measures designed to promote the imaginative use of rail and other transport infrastructure in a way which will more readily meet the diverse needs of both private and business travellers.
The M11, A1(M), M1, M40, M4, M3 and M23 are the arteries which link some of the country's major regions to the nation's capital. In turn, they are connected by part of the M25. They also serve London's three major airports: Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. In addition, these airports have rail links to the centre of London. Trains run from Stansted to Liverpool Street, and from Gatwick to Victoria. A surface rail link from Heathrow to Paddington is under construction, and the airport is already connected to central London by the Piccadilly line.
Demand on this infrastructure is already heavy, and set to increase. The Government have been considering how best to meet this demand for travel through into the next century. Our position on airport development has been set out already in our response to the runway capacity in the south-east—RUCATSE—report. This envisages further exploratory work being done at Heathrow and Gatwick. The Government also indicated that they would initiate further studies of surface access to the airports. I now wish to tell the House what we have in mind.
It is already clear that there is existing rail infrastructure which, if developed, could provide better access to and between the airports. However, no detailed work has been undertaken; nor has there been any rigorous examination of the opportunities this might provide.
In addition, BAA has announced that it has commissioned a £500,000 study to investigate ways of linking Heathrow airport into existing rail and other public transport networks. In parallel, and subject to legislation and a successful outcome to the tendering process, work will commence on a high-speed rail link to connect the channel tunnel to St. Pancras.
The M25, between junctions 12 and 16, has been extended from a three-lane to a four-lane motorway. Despite this, congestion persists at various times of the day. This circumstance led the Government to decide that the capacity of the road should be expanded further. My predecessor announced, in July 1993, that the Government would take to public inquiry a proposal for link roads between junctions 12 and 15, and would launch a consultation on junctions 15 to 16.
The principle which underlay that judgment has not changed. On this, one of the busiest stretches of motorway in Europe, it is essential that people, goods and services should to be able to move efficiently. This national artery makes a major contribution to the competitiveness of our country, whether it is through the transportation of goods or ease of access to our national airports. I reaffirm that we attach maximum importance to safeguarding this economic interest.
However, a number of factors have changed since my predecessor's announcement. Railway privatisation is now making good progress. Responses to the franchising
1392
director have shown that a significant number of private operators see a genuine commercial opportunity to attract new customers on to the railway.
The success of the private finance initiative, similarly, has released energy and innovation in developing imaginative public-private sector partnerships, with a sharper focus on the customer. I believe that this energy can be harnessed in opening up the possibility of greater and easier interchange between air, road and rail services in the south-east, to the benefit of the travelling public.
There have been other changes. We have a developing understanding of the relationship between road building and road use. Issues arising require further study. Furthermore, the Government have been reflecting on the appropriate balance that should be struck between road building and environmental factors.
I have considered how best to bring together in the medium term the economic imperative with these changed circumstances. In particular, I have examined whether there is an acceptable development, short of building link roads, which would be sufficient to meet all our objectives.
Any such development would need to accommodate projected traffic growth into the medium term and create the opportunities for extending complementary rail and coach services. At certain times of the day, 20 per cent. of the traffic on one stretch of the M25 is airport related. In exploring new interrelationships between surface and air travel, it makes sense to move forward on a measured basis, bearing that in mind.
Taking all these factors into account, I have decided that we should not proceed with the M25 link roads, and I shall be withdrawing the draft orders. Instead, we propose to widen the existing carriageway of the M25 to five lanes in each direction between junctions 12 to 14 and 15 to 16, with six lanes in each direction over what will be the most heavily used stretch, between junctions 14 and 15. That widening would occur mainly within the existing highway boundaries, thus minimising the need for extra land purchase.
That proposal, together with new traffic management arrangements, would accommodate projected traffic growth, on the basis of existing assumptions, for at least the next 15 years. We shall publish environmental statements on the proposal, together with an assessment summarising the technical and economic analysis.
In addition, I shall set up an interdepartmental group of officials chaired by the Minister for Transport in London, drawing on expert advice as necessary and including BAA and key rail operators. It will examine in depth the opportunities for rail services to link the existing rail network with the airports and the airports with one another. It will examine the possibility of privately financed intermediate road and rail interchange on the arterial motorways, which might include airport check-in facilities, and will consider whether the interaction between road, rail and airport infrastructure might provide scope for expanding services.
The study will have the following terms of reference: to examine the opportunities for improvements, in particular privately financed improvements, in access to and between London's main airports by rail and through road traffic management measures, assessing in particular the extent to which they could relieve future pressures on the M25 and associated radial motorways beyond the capacity of the new dual-five/dual-six-lane proposals.

1393
The public inquiry on terminal 5 is due to start on 16 May. The decision to proceed with widening the M25, rather than with link roads, will enable the inquiry to start work with complete clarity about my Department's intentions.
Hon. Members will wish to know what effect the decision will have on access from the M25 to the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow. My Department has published orders for a spur from the link roads giving direct access to terminal 5. The arrangement will need some modification in the light of the decision that I have announced: subject to more detailed design work, I expect access to the proposed fifth terminal still to be by a spur from the widened M25.
I hope that the House will accept that my statement represents a new, exciting and important step towards providing rail, coach, road and air services in ways that are designed to enhance opportunities and that are more closely tailored to the needs of individuals, business and industry.
The artificial separation of roads, airports and public transport in this context could inhibit the imaginative and far-reaching options that may be available to assist travellers and promote our economy. That is especially so when the private sector stands ready to join us in partnership.
The decisions that I have described present us with an unparalleled opportunity to reshape transport provision in this part of the country for the 21st century. We intend to grasp it. I believe that such action will be widely welcomed.
Mr. Michael Meacher: I say immediately that we welcome the decision by the Secretary of State to abandon the Government's madcap scheme to build a 14-lane M25. This is a monumental U-turn, from a scheme that should never have been envisaged in the first place. But will the Secretary of State recognise that even the partial 10 and 12-lane motorway which he still envisages will be very expensive, and will rapidly fill up with traffic?
As the Government's plans to build link roads around three quarters of the M25 have now been entirely scrapped, why has the Secretary of State said nothing about the knock-on effects on the south-east? Why has he not also announced, on the same criteria, the scrapping of plans to widen the M4 to 12 lanes, and the M3 and M23 to eight lanes? Will he accept that the same logic requires him to reconsider the future of the Birmingham northern relief road, the Birmingham western orbital motorway, and the M62 road widening?
Will the Secretary of State recognise that his statement today leaves the Government's transport policy in tatters, because, while roads are being cut, he still says little or nothing about proposals for alternative public transport systems? Why has he made no commitment to crossrail? Why does his statement contain no mention of any progress on Thameslink 2000? Is he not aware that the Government's dogma about bus deregulation prevents the counties from promoting the buses which could play a major role in reducing congestion on the M25 and elsewhere?
1394
Why does the right hon. Gentleman make no mention of the closure of slip roads at peak traffic times, which is well known to be a major source of increased congestion? Will he also confirm that the Government's own planning procedures in the late 1980s mean that a massive number of traffic-generating developments are still likely to be built around the M25? Is he aware that estate agents estimate that more than 37 million sq ft of offices have been given planning permission in the M25 area? What strengthening of planning policy guidance 13 does he propose to prevent an explosion of traffic generation as a result?
If the right hon. Gentleman really believes in public transport, why has he made no mention of improving orbital rail links to Heathrow and around south-west London in support—[HoN. MEMBERS: "He did."] The right hon. Gentleman is strong on feasibility studies and is always for the future, but there are no concrete proposals in his statement. Why is there nothing about the "swoption" scheme which has been developed by the boroughs precisely for this purpose? Why has he made no commitment to improving orbital public transport, in particular by electrifying the north downs line and by giving buses or coaches priority on the M25?
The right hon. Gentleman stressed linking the rail network to airports, particularly Heathrow, but he made no mention of funding, even though the BAA's airport departure tax for a single year—£315 million—would pay for the rail link to terminal 5 and the west. Why has he given no support to the piggy-back rail freight services, which would allow lorry trailers to travel on road wagons and which would reduce congestion in the south-east and elsewhere? Is he aware that the initial route from Scotland and the north-west midlands to the channel tunnel is already feasible for less than £100 million, and that that is less than the cost of the junctions 12 to 15 road widening?
Is the Secretary of State aware that further big road investment west of London contradicts the south-east planning strategy endorsed by the Department of the Environment, which promotes development east of London? Does he accept that both today's statement and his earlier response to the RUCATSE report lack any proper balance, not only between east and west London but between regional airport development and an over-congested south-east, which simply cannot accommodate market-driven expansion of demand for road and air travel indefinitely?
Today's statement is a thin apology for the market excesses of the 1980s. The Tories had warm words for public transport, but no mechanism for delivering them and no guarantee of adequate Government support, without which private finance will not be forthcoming. Labour will plan public transport and produce a national transport programme based on clear objectives and targets to replace the national roads programme, which has for too long been dictated by the Conservatives' friends in the roads lobby.
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman did not mention cycling. I was waiting for that.
I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome for my statement. That is a good start. After that, he lost the House, hut that was probably understandable. Let me try to pick out some of the bones of the points that the hon. Gentleman made and respond to them.

1395
First, as I made clear in the statement, the proposal to move to D5, with D6 between junctions 14 and 15, will accommodate the projected growth in traffic on the M25 for at least the next 15 years, certainly when coupled with traffic management arrangements. I understand the hon. Gentleman to be telling me that he is against link roads and against the extension of part of the M25 from four lanes to five. I know that he is against the status quo, because he has said that in the past. So he is against seven, against six, against five and against four. The hon. Gentleman did not tell the House what he was in favour of.
The decisions that I have announced today are in the context of the characteristics of the piece of road to which I referred. The hon. Gentleman legitimately mentions the M4 and the M62. As he knows, there has already been public consultation about the M4. We will reflect on the views expressed, and make an announcement shortly. As I suspect the hon. Gentleman knows, further studies have been commissioned of the M62, which will take some time. We will carry them forward, precisely as we said we would. We will examine both those bits of road in the context of their characteristics, just as we have done for this bit of the M25.
All the hon. Gentleman's other comments about motorways were irrelevant to my statement. The House will have noticed again that the hon. Gentleman has been consistent. During questions, he was all in favour of the taxpayer footing the bill and against the private sector making a contribution. That remains his position. However, the opportunities are constantly expanding for the private sector to make a significant contribution to transport infrastructure. We are in favour of that. It provides extra services more quickly for the consumer. The consumer will have noticed that the hon. Gentleman is against it.
Nor did the hon. Gentleman say a single word about the importance of protecting the competitiveness of United Kingdom plc, in competition with other nations' economies. That is important to the Government, even if it is not important to the hon. Gentleman.
I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the statement's stress on traffic management. We may well need to see the speed limit on that part of the road reduced at certain times of the day. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
We shall certainly use variable message signing on the motorway to give drivers more and earlier information. I expected the hon. Gentleman to welcome that, but all he wanted to do was shut slip roads, which would clog local roads even more. My hon. Friends who represent the relevant part of the country will have noted that aspect of Labour policy.
Finally, let me deal with the great unspoken part of the hon. Gentleman's question. For the first time in connection with the M25, we are contemplating the development and extension of railway links between the airports and the existing rail network. We are examining the possibility of using existing rail infrastructure to provide new services that will not only link the network with the airports and the airports with each other, but link the airports and the rail network with the arterial motorways.
In past flights of fancy, the hon. Gentleman has said that that would be a good idea; we are focusing on action—on the back of the private sector's expressed
1396
interest in becoming more involved both in the railway system and in the provision of transport infrastructure. The hon. Gentleman need only look at the Heathrow-Paddington link, which is financed entirely by the private sector, to give weight to my words.
The House will have observed that the Opposition have a policy of moratoriums on road building and a commitment to public ownership, and are prepared to allow both to get in the way of developing the railway, road, coach and airport services that will be fitting for the country in the 21st century.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: My right hon. Friend's statement will be widely welcomed by all communities and groups concerned with the M25, from all parties, that have opposed the 14-lane motorway. It would have caused too much environmental damage and pollution. I also welcome my right hon. Friend's proposal for studies relating to development of the rail network and communications in the south-east.
May I press my right hon. Friend on the important question of the time scale? In particular, will he help to revive the idea of Thameslink—which is currently in limbo—and that of crossrail? Both projects could be financed privately, and the south-east needs such developments to reduce future congestion.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his encouraging words. I believe that he speaks for the vast majority of people in that part of the country—and, indeed, further afield—in welcoming my statement.
Our progress with the study will be as speedy as possible, but in a sense it breaks new ground: for the first time we are considering the possibility of expanding railway services—with private sector funds, but with the co-operation of the public sector—in a way that privatisation and the private finance initiative have uniquely made possible. I suspect that the study will take between a year and a half and two years to complete.
I assure my right hon. Friend that neither Thameslink nor crossrail is in limbo. I have attended meetings on both in the past few days, and progress is being made.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Secretary of State accept that we at least welcome the evidence of his Pauline conversion on the road to Heathrow? Will he also take comfort from the fact that hon. Members in other parties will have listened carefully to what he said about improving rail access not only to Heathrow but to other airports?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the time scale to which he referred in reply to the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) does not preclude the possibility of speedy improvement of rail access from the west, perhaps including a park-and-ride arrangement east of Slough on the M4? It may not he necessary to increase the capacity of the M25 to the extent that the statement anticipates.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the work undertaken by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment has been applied to each section of the M25 that he has mentioned, and indeed to the other motorway proposals to which he has referred?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the connection between increasing capacity and traffic generation—the opportunity for people to use that stretch

1397
of motorway—has been applied to the decisions that he has announced? Does he accept that many hon. Members hope that this is the beginning of the end of motorway madness, and that in future there will be no more speedy driving through the fog of policy indecision?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman added the last bit, which is nonsense. I shall ignore it and get to the meat of his question.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the statement, although I assure him that it is in no way a Pauline conversion on the road, or indeed the rail, to anywhere. I have announced that we shall not proceed with the link roads, and I shall withdraw the orders. We shall go forward on the basis of expanding part of the M25 from four lanes to five lanes, with six between two junctions to facilitate the spur road to the proposed terminal 5.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: It is not agreed yet.
Dr. Mawhinney: The "proposed" terminal 5, I said.
Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister is prejudging it.
Dr. Mawhinney: I assure the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that we have taken into account a whole variety of circumstances, all of them appropriate, in coming to the judgment which I have announced.
While the hon. Gentleman may be right that some aspects of the potential development of rail services may become clear ahead of others, it will be for the committee to offer me advice through my hon. Friend the Minister on whether it is possible or sensible to proceed piecemeal, or whether it would be more sensible to wait until the study is complete before making judgments.
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: My right hon. Friend's decision to scrap the link roads will be widely welcomed in my constituency and in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls), who is ill with bronchitis. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will continue to study carefully the question of noise reduction measures? Many of the proposals that he has announced will generate more noise, and that issue must he kept constantly in mind.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his welcome and his kind words, and for the message that he conveyed about his parliamentary neighbour, whom I am sure the House will wish well in his recovery. I understand precisely the importance of his point about noise. In terms of noise abatement, we plan to ensure that, when the fifth lane has been added to part of the motorway, the overall noise level will not exceed the present level from the four lanes.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: When it is stripped of all verbiage, does not the statement mean that the Minister has committed the House only to a five-lane motorway on part of the M25? All the rest is just marshmallow words.
Dr. Mawhinney: Given the importance which the hon. Gentleman normally attaches to public transport, that is a typically curmudgeonly response to my announcement.
1398
Even if he cannot bring himself now to welcome the prospect of new, better and more consumer and passenger-sensitive transport for the 21st century, I hope that he will do that in future, when it all becomes a reality.
Mr. Tim Smith: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by my constituents and by those of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who did not like the proposals for link roads and will be glad to hear that it is now possible to meet the same traffic demand with a more modest scheme. Is it not clear that, contrary to what is sometimes suggested, the Government have an integrated transport policy and are as much committed to rail as to road?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his warm welcome. The Government have always looked at the possibility of practical arrangements to assist the passenger. The new circumstances for the development of rail services open up opportunities that we must take if we are to discharge our responsibility to the taxpayer, the passenger, business and industry. We shall seek to do that, so that we may offer choice. Choice is a value to which we attach importance, but it does not commend itself to the Opposition.
Mr. Stephen Timms: Will the study take account of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), which represents a consensus on the need to promote development east of London to ease development pressures west of London? Will the study have that concern especially in mind? Following the right hon. Gentleman's welcome remarks about developing the rail links between Stansted, Heathrow and Gatwick, can he confirm that crossrail will be an essential part of a satisfactory rail network between the three airports?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, which I appreciate. I understand and accept the importance of regeneration on the east side. He will accept that this is not the time for me to prejudge what the group will produce, either in suggestions relating to crossrail or on specific parts of the country. However, as was confirmed both at Question Time and in my statement, both the points he has raised are on our agenda.
Mr. David Wilshire: As much of the affected part of the M25 is in my constituency, I welcome the end to the uncertainty. My initial reaction to my right hon. Friend's announcement is that it is a sensible compromise between two equally valid extremes. His new rail initiative opens up exciting possibilities, which I whole-heartedly endorse.
Will my right hon. Friend also accept my welcome for his provisions for a possible terminal 5, which I believe is vital for the future economic prosperity of my constituents? Will he arrange for Highways Agency officials to meet me and affected constituents at an early opportunity? Can he send full details to all those living near the affected route? Will a public inquiry he obligatory?
Dr. Mawhinney: I shall try to recall all my hon. Friend's questions. First, we will notify all those who objected to the link roads proposal about the new arrangements. Secondly, I can confirm that, when the economic assessment for the new proposals is published, the Highways Agency will be available to explain that at

1399
public displays. Thirdly, because my proposals lie essentially within the curtilage of the existing road arrangements, there is no statutory obligation to hold a public inquiry.
Finally, I appreciate my hon. Friend's general welcome. I am grateful for it, because he has been assiduous in representing the interests of his constituents. However, I must tell him that the Secretary of State for the Environment and I are the two people in this country who are not allowed to comment on the question of terminal 5.
Ms Glenda Jackson: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's concern to expand and integrate the rail system in the south-east, may I ask him to give the House some idea of how that will be achieved, as the Government have already spent £1.25 billion of taxpayers' money on privatisation? For many commuters in the south-east, all that that has produced is a deterioration in services, the closure of stations and a rise in rail fares.
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Lady has misread her script—the figure is £240 million, not £1.25 billion. She is only £1 billion out, but I suppose that, for the Opposition, it is not an unreasonable estimate.
Ms Jackson: It is the Department's figure.
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Lady is not reflecting the Department's figures. I shall tell her what I told the Select Committee on Transport—that the figure is £240 million. She simply misleads herself.
On the main issue, I can tell the hon. Lady that we intend to explore the use of the existing rail infrastructure. That is the important point. We are not talking about laying a whole series of new railway lines; they already exist. We need to consider how best to make use of those lines, alongside and complementary to other forms of transport, in the best interests of passengers. We want to give them a degree of choice that currently does not exist. We attach value to that, and I can tell the House that we will carry forward that study as quickly as possible.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks for having listened so carefully to local people's concerns about link roads? Does he agree that his announcement today marks a significant shift in Government thinking, from a demand-led transport planning policy towards a more responsive, perhaps more reflective, approach? Will he reiterate his remarks to our right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) about the importance of restraining noise from motor cars using the M25? As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows, noise is a prime and outstanding concern among my constituents in east Surrey.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. He and I share the understanding that it is important to have an M25 that enables the competitiveness of United Kingdom plc to be maintained. That can be achieved in terms of the announcements that I have made today. In addition, the possibility of providing further complementary services through rail infrastructure development, with a strong eye to the private sector, can produce an added bonus, which the country will generally welcome as it moves into the 21st century.
1400
My hon. Friend is right: every transport initiative affects the lives of a variety of people, some of whom live close to that initiative. We have sought always to be sensitive, especially in relation to the issue of noise. I am happy to repeat what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie): we aim to put noise abatement arrangements in place around the fifth lane, which will ensure that the overall noise level does not exceed the present level.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: As the Secretary of State has now admitted that he will widen the M25 to a combination of 10 and 12 lanes, plus a hard shoulder, and, as the proposals are within the curtilage of existing road arrangements, will avoid a public inquiry into the enormous expansion of the M25, will he take this opportunity to explain to the public how his Department will answer the charge that building and widening motorways, and increasing road capacity, simply attracts and encourages more traffic, which will lead to further pressures for more road widening and yet more road building? Why does he not come off it once and for all, stop road building and seriously put money—yes, public money—into rail infrastructure to improve public transport, rather than encourage one person to drive around the M25 in a car on his own, making it Europe's largest car park?
Dr. Mawhinney: That is not only nonsense, but reflects a deep prejudice on the hon. Gentleman's part, which is unrelated to the reality of what we are talking about. Clearly, his question reflected the fact that he has neither listened to my statement nor read the SACTRA report. I suggest that he goes away and does both.
In his question, or in any other circumstance, the hon. Gentleman has produced no evidence to suggest that, if the road's capacity were not increased, and if rail infrastructure, as he envisages it, were put in place, the UK's competitiveness would not be damaged. Whether he likes it or not, others make individual choices, and some of those choices involve the transportation of goods and services by road. That must be—and is—part of the rationale for the development of that part of the road from four lanes to five. It simply reflects again the fact that we on Conservative Benches have a concern about the UK's competitiveness, which is not shared by the Labour party.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I express my warm appreciation for my right hon. Friend's statement today, which clarifies the strategy that has underlain his wise decisions in response to the RUCATSE report? In particular, may I say how welcome it is that Her Majesty's Government understand how important rail links are for the development and economic well-being of airports, especially Heathrow?
For my constituents, many of whom work at the airport, it is good that the Government understand how essential it is not only that Heathrow should grow and prosper, but that it should have a prospect of effective, well-co-ordinated rail links both to the west to Slough and to the south-east to Waterloo and ultimately, perhaps, through crossrail.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome and encouragement. No doubt he will have noticed that the BAA is embarking on a complementary examination of rail links between Heathrow and the rail network. I think that, as we proceed with the examinations

1401
in what I hope will be a complementary fashion, we shall both recognise that there is extra potential benefit to travellers, and we wish to explore that.
Mr. Jim Dowd: The Secretary of State quite rightly mentioned the three major airports in London, but not London City airport. He will be aware that one of the key links from south-east London to the City and many other places is the Brunel tunnel on the east London line, which is now closed for at least seven months because of work on the Jubilee line.
Has he had time to assess the impact of the curious decision by his colleague at the Department of National Heritage to list not only the portals of the tunnel, which were already listed, but the hole in the ground itself? Is he aware that people in south-east London are keener on having reliable transport links and having them in use as soon as possible than on becoming sightseers in an industrial museum?
Dr. Mawhinney: First, like the hon. Gentleman, I recognise the importance of the line. Secondly, as he knows, the listing is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, but we are looking at ways to move the process forward as quickly as possible.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which shows common sense in taking the brave route to update our plans for an integrated transport system in the south-east, but may I refer him back to his answer to our right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), in which he led us to believe that the time scale would be approximately two years? Will he clarify that in relation to crossrail? Crossrail is very much wanted by my constituents in Chesham and Amersham, but yet again the project looks as if it is being put on the back burner, which will cause them great concern. Will he give me an assurance?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. Crossrail may or may not turn out to be an integral part of what is envisaged in my statement, but work is proceeding independently with crossrail, and I would expect to receive the result of that work before the end of the year.
Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Secretary of State accept that, taken with his recent announcement on the RUCATSE report, his statement will mean a massive concrete funnel heading towards Heathrow, and that that will not satisfy the constituents of Conservative Members who represent Surrey and Middlesex, because they will realise that it will mean a major widening of the M25, which is environmentally unacceptable to them?
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that some of us realise that, in essence, the Government are pre-empting the inquiry into terminal 5? It is indicative of the fact that the Government are craven to the BAA, and British Airways for that matter, and will not recognise that there is a need for a major independent review of aviation and airports policy. Would not such a review, if it were held, point to the advisability of expanding
1402
Stansted and exploiting the great enterprise of Manchester on behalf of United Kingdom Ltd., instead of putting all our eggs in the one basket of Heathrow?
Dr. Mawhinney: The House will have to make its own judgment. On the one hand, I have the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) telling me what the people of Surrey think about the proposal, but on the other I have my hon. Friends who represent the people of Surrey telling me precisely the opposite. I invite the House to make a choice: will it accept the views of my hon. Friends who represent the people of Surrey or those of the hon. Member for Thurrock? I have no doubt that what my hon. Friends who represent those people say is correct, and that what the hon. Gentleman says is wrong. I am sure that the people of Surrey are as pleased as those of Peterborough that the hon. Gentleman does not represent them.
Mr. David Lidington: I offer my warm congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the creative direction in which his statement has taken this country's transport policy, but may I remind him of the importance that my constituents attach to the crossrail project, which would secure their personal convenience as passengers and ensure the economic well-being of Buckinghamshire as a whole? Does he still hope that the promoters of crossrail will be able to bring forward an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 later this year?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I know of his involvement in the crossrail project, and I am happy to reiterate what I told our right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) a moment ago. The time scale is as I set it out.
Sir John Cope: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the study that he described will include improvements to rail links from Heathrow to the west? The Great Western line goes extremely near Heathrow, and it does no one any good if we have to go into Paddington and back out; nor, for that matter, if we have to come to the inside of the M25 by road to get to Heathrow.
Dr. Mawhinney: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the answer is yes.
Mr. David Sumberg: While I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on making exactly the right political and environmental decision on the M25, may I tell him that I and my constituents are angry and disappointed that he has failed to come to the House this afternoon with a similar decision on the M62? As a result of his statement, people who live around the M25 have been relieved of planning blight and inadequate housing management by his Department, but my constituents have not been, which adds insult to injury. Will my right hon. Friend quickly and urgently—not in two years' time—make a similar statement to the House on the M62?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the proposal that I announced for the M25. As I said in an answer to another question, the M62 is the subject of some further studies, as my hon. Friend understands. I know that he wants those studies to progress as quickly as possible, and I can assure him that

1403
I want that, too. When they have done so, and we have been able to form a judgment, I will be happy to convey that to his constituents through him.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents will be delighted at the statement today, especially because it brings together a number of strands of the Government's transport policy? Does he also agree that the need to develop a fourth lane on the other parts of the M25 is paramount, and that those who oppose it are being unrealistic about keeping that road open as an effective artery for British growth and development?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words, for which I thank him. I can confirm that the road is a major artery in the United Kingdom, and needs to be treated as such. We have plans to expand the existing M25 to four lanes for about 70 per cent. of its distance which, added to the already planned four lanes, will mean that about 90 per cent. of it will be at least four lanes. We believe that to be important for precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend identified.
Mr. John Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how quickly he expects the M25 expansion to take place? He said that the move to five and six lanes would not necessitate a public inquiry. When can we expect to drive along the fifth and sixth lanes?
Dr. Mawhinney: I made it clear to the Highways Agency today that I want it to make all deliberate speed in moving ahead with that expansion. An environmental assessment must be made and published, as well as an economic assessment, but we will make measured progress as quickly as possible, for precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend implied.
Mr. James Couchman: In Kent, we are mindful of the fact that we have a unique position as the gateway to and from the continent. Traditionally, the south-east segment of London and the home counties has been the worst served by transport. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the committee that studies these important matters considers transport to and from the airports from the south-east—from Kent, my constituency and the others around it?
Dr. Mawhinney: I understand precisely the point that my hon. Friend makes, and would want the report to be as comprehensive as possible in all the circumstances.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Does my right hon. Friend expect that his welcome announcement will have an effect on non-motorway road schemes such as the A21 and the A259, where progress is needed to strengthen the local economy?
Dr. Mawhinney: While I understand my hon. Friend's point, my announcement was about one particular part of a road, given its particular circumstances. It should not necessarily be extrapolated to any other road.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, with all the winners on Conservative Benches, there is bound to be at least one loser, and that his statement will not be welcomed in my constituency, where we shall continue to grapple with through traffic to Gatwick on our inadequate roads? Is he aware that, from the A3 to the south-west, round to the A2 to the east, there is no decent road in or out of London and we shall continue to suffer congestion and rat-running? Will he at least introduce a feasibility study to address that issue in south London?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am mindful of the point that my hon. Friend makes. I hope that, on reflection, he will not feel quite as depressed as his question implies, not least because I assume that the benefits which I hope and believe will flow from the rail study may assist his constituents also.

WAYS AND MEANS
Ordered,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending section 43 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Ordered,
That provision affecting the charges to income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax may be made about the interest paid on gilt-edged securities and about cases in which, where gilt-edged or other securities are transferred from one person to another, there is—

(a) a contract or arrangement under which a person makes a payment which is, or is treated as, representative of amounts paid or payable in respect of the securities transferred; or

(b) a contract or arrangement under which the transferee is or may be required to transfer securities, or benefits accruing from the redemption of securities, to the transferor, to his nominee or to a person connected with the transferor.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill
  As amended (in the Committee and in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Finance Bill
    New clause 17

      POOL BETTING DUTY
      '.—(1) In section 7(1) of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 (which specifies 37.50 per cent. as the rate of pool betting duty) for "37.50 per cent." there shall be substituted "32.50 per cent."
      (2) This section shall apply in relation to any pool betting duty the requirement to pay which takes effect on or after 6th May 1995.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.20 pm
      The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We debated pool betting duty in Committee. In rejecting a similar new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), I said that we were, nevertheless, in touch with the pools companies and would review the duty in due course. Before I report the outcome of those discussions, I remind the House that, in 1990, pool betting duty was reduced from 42.5 per cent. to 40 per cent., with the difference being donated to the Football Trust. The money was used to update football grounds in line with the Taylor report on the Hillsborough disaster.
      In August 1991, the duty was cut again by 2.5 per cent. to the present 37.5 per cent. The proceeds of that duty cut are paid to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. The pools companies make a further voluntary donation to the FSA of 5p for each pound stake. Hon. Members will know how appreciated that funding for the FSA is and that it supports many excellent projects in all our constituencies.
      Recent discussions with the pools companies have confirmed the scale of the competition that they face from the great success of the national lottery. We do not know how the position will develop in the longer term. The pools companies are responding to the challenge with new schemes and are helped by a number of deregulatory measures introduced as a result of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. In the short term, however, the future of the football pools is threatened and, as a result, the Football Trust and the FSA face declining revenues. The Government have therefore decided on a 5 per cent. cut in pool betting duty. In return, the pools companies have confirmed that they can maintain their contribution to the organisations that I mentioned. That is a good outcome, and I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. Michael Stern: How much will that measure cost in 1995–96 and in future years?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In a full year, it will cost some £40 million.
      Ms Hilary Armstrong: The Opposition welcome this move by the Government, which, in Committee, they were determined not to make. I am sure that the House is aware that the Opposition
      1406
      managed to secure a tied vote in Committee on a similar proposal, so we are pleased that the Government have now recognised the Committee's spirit and will.
      It is important that the Government try to establish a level playing field. It is essential that we ensure fair trade and competition, because the advantages given to Camelot have meant other forms of gambling have enjoyed far from fair opportunities in comparison.
      It is somewhat ironic that I should deal with this issue, because as you know, Madam Speaker, I am inherently uneasy about any form of gambling. I spent part of this weekend undertaking my duties as treasurer of the Methodist Division of Education and Youth. We discussed how we should deal with the fact that funds for some of our charitable work are declining and with the Methodist Church's continuing implacable opposition to the lottery and to receiving funds from it. It is therefore a little difficult for me to speak about the new clause. I welcome, however, the fact that it will ensure that all those involved will be treated fairly, because, to date, the pools industry has not had a fair deal.
      The Government should keep an eye on things, because we are not sure whether the measure will work and whether other forms of raising money for charitable and good causes will continue to survive and prosper. We already know from the charities of their considerable unease about what is happening to other forms of charitable giving. Last week, the problems associated with a charity involved in cancer research were highlighted. Such specific charitable work is outside the current provisions for charitable giving agreed by Camelot.
      The Government should seriously reconsider the terms that they set down for Camelot because it is clear that it is making far more money than I suspect the Government intended or envisaged when they issued the guidelines for the operation of the lottery and accepted its hid. No one knows the precise amount that Camelot has been able to take as profit from the lottery, because the lottery has been running for only a short time and we do not have the company's first-year results. It has been speculated in the press and elsewhere, however, that it has already made a considerable fortune in a relatively short time.
      I hope that the Government now acknowledge that certain problems have arisen that they did not envisage when the national lottery was set up, not least those experienced by particular sectors in society. As yet, no suggestion has been made about how those sectors will be dealt with by Camelot through its charitable committee. How will their problems be sorted out? It is clear that people who buy their lottery ticket see that as their form of charitable giving, but the proceeds from those tickets are not meeting the needs of many charities.
      We know that the pools industry in particular has suffered from the effects of the lottery. One of the pools companies said that, as a result, it intended to pull out of the Football Trust, which has done so much to improve football grounds. I am delighted, therefore, that the Government have acknowledged the importance of acting now and have not waited until the Budget to do so. I hope that the Government will keep a close eye on that. The British public will be horrified if the lottery company makes such excessive profits while charities are seen to he failing as a result of the activities of the lottery.
      Those people who work for, and who obtain their work from, the pools—for example, those in the print industry—have also been severely undermined. Many

      1407
      jobs have gone already. It was important, therefore, that steps were taken to protect the good works arm of the lottery and to protect the pools industry so that it might continue to flourish. It is an important sector of the economy, especially in the north-west.
      For those reasons, we welcome the measure, but we hope that the Government will monitor things carefully and will allow the House to reconsider the position to ensure that all the things that hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted when they agreed to the introduction of the lottery—for example, the protection of other parts of the gambling industry and charities—are properly placed in the framework of fair competition.
      4.30 pm
      Mrs. Jane Kennedy: May I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on tabling a new clause in Committee and say to the Paymaster General how very warmly welcomed the Government new clause is on Merseyside?
      When the vote was tied in Committee, we were deeply disappointed that the two Liberal Democrat Members who should have been present failed to turn up and vote. Given the representations that they make on Merseyside, we felt that that was a significant and serious omission.
      Our preoccupation on Merseyside has broadly been with the number of jobs that we have perceived to be under threat as a result of the introduction of the national lottery. Ninety-five jobs have gone at Vernons Pools and 560 at Littlewoods. Although I accept that those jobs have not been lost entirely as a result of the introduction of the national lottery, its introduction has, in part, had an impact on employment prospects on Merseyside.
      The new clause recognises that the national lottery has been an immense success and that it will continue to go from strength to strength. The number of lottery retail outlets is growing by 1,000 a month, Camelot has just introduced a new scratch card game that I have seen advertised under the name of Instants and a second weekly on-line game is to be introduced in the summer. The improved terms for competitiveness of the pools companies will not pose a threat to the national lottery.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Lady accept that the introduction of scratch cards has had a serious effect on other charities, such as Tenovus, a cancer charity, and that the problem must be considered? I welcome the steps that have been taken today and their significance for people such as the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and the others who will benefit, but that worry remains.
      Mrs. Kennedy: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, if pools companies develop their marketing and new products, that will have an even greater impact on the sales of small lotteries run by charities. That emphasises the need for the Government to keep the matter under review.
      We are witnessing the determination and resilience of pools companies, as demonstrated by the development of new products. I wish to mention one or two aspects of the way in which their determination to succeed despite problems presented to them by the national lottery has been demonstrated recently.
      1408
      Before I do so, I should deal with marketing, which the pools companies are desperately eager to get on with. It is estimated that the national lottery's television advertising campaign has cost between £30 million and £50 million in its first year. No pools company is in a position to compete with such expenditure on television marketing, although the ability to do so is very much welcomed.
      I understand that Littlewoods is considering following Zetters in reverting to an older system of scoring. That will result in smaller prizes overall, but more winners. I understand that Zetters' sales have increased as a result. Perhaps the national lottery will get the message and learn a lesson from that method.
      As I understand it, the reduction in pools betting duty will have an impact on the Football Trust. Since Littlewoods has given notice that it is to reduce its contribution from spot-the-ball by 6 per cent., following the dramatic decline in sales of the game, what does the Paymaster General estimate the impact will be on the Football Trust?
      Vernons pools stated its intention to withdraw its 5p contribution to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts from every coupon sold, but I understand from the Paymaster General's opening that it is to continue that commitment. That is very welcome as many small organisations in my constituency have benefited directly from the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, but it means that the 5 per cent. reduction in pools betting duty is effectively 2.7 per cent, with the consequential overall cost benefits of that lower figure.
      I recognise that the Government's intention is good and I welcome the new clause and the improvement that it makes in allowing pool companies to compete, but if the companies continue to support other organisations they will not benefit from the whole 5 per cent. reduction in betting duty. Clearly, the pools companies were saying that they needed a reduction of 5 per cent. to be able to compete more fairly. I ask the Paymaster General to take that point on board in conducting the overall review of the impact of the national lottery on businesses that are so important to the constituents whom I represent.
      Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly welcome the new clause. It is good news to the pools industry, which has campaigned for such action for some time. Putting £34 million back into their coffers is rather like sending a lifebelt out to a drowning man at sea. The move has given the pools companies a chance to regroup, replan and—we hope—move into more fortunate times.
      The reduction in duty has not come a moment too soon. I am grateful for the fact that the Paymaster General has decided to ensure that it takes effect on or after 6 May 1995—in other words, almost immediately. I appreciate that he now recognises the urgency of the situation.
      As my hon. Friend the Paymaster General knows, I went to see him in private, made an urgent plea for action and moved my new clause in Committee. Indeed, I had been charting the fortune and misfortune of the pools industry ever since the launch of the national lottery. I was a member of the Committee that considered the National Lottery etc. Bill and I recall clearly how we were assured that the pools industry would not run into dire straits as a result of the national lottery. The national lottery has been a staggering success, but its success has plunged the pools industry into deep crisis. As the House has heard, there

      1409
      has been a serious loss of jobs and a crisis of confidence. The most important thing about the new clause is that it offers a chance to move forward.
      It has been very encouraging to speak to all the pools promoters, who were delighted at the news, but they uttered a word of caution. They trusted that this move alone would not close the matter and they hoped that the Government would keep an open ear and, indeed, review the situation as time goes on. They hoped that, if they have to raise the matter again, they will be free to do so. Moreover, they said that they would not again use the issue about good causes and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts as a lever—the foundation has suffered so much during the latest downturn—and they recognised that future judgments would have to be made purely and solely for commercial reasons.
      None the less, the new clause is excellent news. It shows that the Government are listening and that they will respond to companies in trouble. That in turn will be very much appreciated.
      Mr. Stern: I have no desire to he churlish about the proposal. The Foundation for Sport and the Arts does a great deal of useful work and would have been prevented from doing some of it without the new clause. A ballet dancer in my constituency depends on the foundation for the continuation of her training; and a great deal of useful equipment has been provided for a female weightlifting group there.
      I must, however, sound a note of caution—it is, perhaps, inevitable that I should do so when the whole House joins together to welcome a tax cut. I should be grateful if the Minister gave us information about the extent, if any, to which the Government's plans for raising taxation from betting have been changed as a result of this announcement. When the Chancellor made his Budget statement, he will have included, in the balance of tax and expenditure, a certain yield from betting.
      Those of us who follow the industry's progress in the newspapers, or who, like me, invest regularly in the national lottery—[HON. MEMBERS: "Invest?"] That is the technical term. Nevertheless, it is clear that the taxation yield of the national lottery has been higher than expected. I should like my hon. Friend to reassure me that the expected yield, next year and in subsequent years, is sufficiently higher from the national lottery and other forms of betting to allow him to give away this £40 million.
      Without such an assurance the House might want to debate whether such a tax cut would have been more usefully applied in other directions. I do not intend to sound unwelcoming about the tax cut. I have argued in the past and will argue again that all tax cuts are of benefit to the economy, but I hope that my hon. Friend can demonstrate this afternoon that this tax cut will not involve a diminution of yield to the Exchequer and that it is based on something rather more substantial than undue pressure from the pools companies.
      Mr. Wigley: I apologise to the Minister for missing some of his opening remarks.
      An important point has been made about the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. There can be no question hut that it does excellent work. I doubt whether
      1410
      there is a constituency in the land that does not receive some benefit from it—more than 15,000 small clubs and organisations have benefited, and more than £200 million has been paid out, often in small sums, occasionally in larger ones.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) made an important point about how the changes will ensure that Vernons can still pay out adequate sums to maintain the work being done by the FSA. I should like also to take up her point about scratch cards. The Minister will be aware of the severe impact that the lottery scratch cards have had on some charities that depend on scratch cards and other forms of this sort of gambling. I do not criticise the lottery, although it has been much more successful than people expected, but it has had a knock-on effect. Tenovus in Cardiff has been doing vital work in cancer research and it would be unfortunate indeed if, as appeared from last week's announcement, that work were to be undermined. I should like some of the proceeds of the national lottery to be channelled in that direction, especially when no one wins the large prizes. Instead of rolling them over, the moneys should be distributed to good causes—but that is another issue.
      I hope that in this short debate the vital work of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts can be safeguarded, following the Minister's announcement.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful for the support of the House for the new clause—especially for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who tabled the original new clause. To answer the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) I should say that we shall of course keep the matter under review. If there has been a reduction in charitable giving, that does not necessarily follow from the success of the national lottery, but to the extent that it does I agree that the one fifth of the money going to good causes that will be channelled to charities will at least make up, in cash terms, the money that may be forgone in the shorter term.
      The national lottery is a national success. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) almost made that success sound like a failure. The fact is that the lottery will give large sums of money to a wide range of good causes, including charitable causes.
      4.45 pm
      The hon. Member for Durham, North-West sounded critical of Camelot, but that company gained the right to run the lottery in competition with other bidders. It would be quite wrong of us to break its contract just because the lottery has been so successful, but I am sure that she was not asking us to do that. We should all rejoice in the fact that these sums will be available for good causes.
      To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), I should perhaps correct my earlier answer to him. The sum of money forgone in a full year will, I believe, be £30 million, not £40 million. I can confirm that it looks as though the total yield from this area of gaming and betting will remain buoyant overall. I think that he would agree that it is right to look again at pools duty, simply because the pools face direct and evident competition from the success of the national lottery.
      I say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) that the cut in duty will not adversely affect the Football Trust. Quite the reverse: maintaining

      1411
      the viability of the pools companies means that total pools turnover will be kept up, so funding for the Football Trust and for the good work that it does will be enhanced.
      The pools companies have told me that they intend to keep paying not just the 2.5 per cent. to the Football Trust and the FSA but the 5p per coupon that they now voluntarily give the FSA. The 5 per cent. duty cut will help these companies to maintain their overall prize money; that in turn will help them to keep up their profitability, turnover and employment—and hence their giving to the FSA and the Football Trust.
      This seems to be one of those rare occasions when the whole House should welcome what the Government have done, and I am grateful for remarks along those lines.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 14

      GROUPS OF COMPANIES
      '.—(1) Section 43 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (groups of companies) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1A) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to any supply of goods or services by one member of a group to another unless both the body making the supply and the body supplied continue to be members of that group until—

      (a) in the case of a supply of goods which are to be removed in pursuance of the supply, a time after the removal;

      (b) in the case of any other supply of goods, a time after the goods have been made available, in pursuance of the supply, to the body supplied; or

      (c) in the case of a supply of services, a time after the services have been performed.";

      and in subsection ( 1)(b), for "other supply" there shall be substituted "supply which is a supply to which paragraph (a) above does not apply and is a supply".
      (3) In subsection (5) (applications to be treated or to cease to be treated as members of a group etc.), for the words after paragraph (d) there shall be substituted—
      "unless the Commissioners refuse the application under subsection (5A) below."
      (4) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(5A) If it appears to the Commissioners necessary to do so for the protection of the revenue, they may—

      (a) refuse any application made to the effect mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c) of subsection (5) above; or

      (b) refuse any application made to the effect mentioned in paragraph (b) or (d) of that subsection in a case that does not appear to them to fall within subsection (6) below."

      (5) Subsection (2) above has effect in relation to—

      (a) any supply made on or after 1st March 1995, and

      (b) any supply made before that date in the case of which both the body making the supply and the body supplied continued to be members of the group in question until at least that date,

      and subsections (3) and (4) above have effect in relation to applications made on or after the day on which this Act is passed.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Ms Dawn Primarolo: The proposals in the new clause are designed to counter a significant tax
      1412
      avoidance scheme which has come to light. Indeed, in connection with the proposals, the Paymaster General wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on 28 February 1995 as follows:
      "The changes are designed to counter a significant tax avoidance scheme. The scheme exploits … recovery of input tax which would not normally be recoverable".
      The Minister goes on to say that, because of a tribunal ruling,
      "in principle, there is nothing to prevent … the hitherto irrecoverable input tax charged to groups"
      from being recovered and running into several billion pounds. The Minister adds that that, if
      "allowed to flourish unchecked, would constitute an attack on the very integrity of the tax".
      We welcome the proposals that are set out in the new clause but we seek clarification from the Paymaster General. He has written about an attack on the "integrity of the tax" if the clause does not become part of the Bill. Yet the VAT tribunal's decision was made on 21 December 1994. The Government did nothing until the new clause appeared on 28 February 1995. Why was there such a long gap? Has there been a loss of VAT revenue in the interim? If so, how much?
      I hope that the Paymaster General will respond to some brief questions about the operation of the clause. Will Customs and Excise be able to make the VAT due at the time of exit from the group? At present, it does not appear to have the power to make regulations to change the time of supply in the circumstances that I have outlined. If the regulations are ultra vires, the law requires the VAT to be due from the period in which the pre-payment was made. In such a case, the retrospective nature of the law is in principle objectionable. It means that the VAT liability of supply can be changed by an event occurring after the supply is made. There may be arguments that the principle is contrary both to United Kingdom principles and to EC law. I ask the Paymaster General to explain how the Government will counter such arguments.
      In the Minister's letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East, he made it clear that the Government had not expected the VAT legislation to he interpreted in the way that it has been. He explained that that was why it was necessary to act promptly. It is questionable, however, whether the new provisions comply with EC law. There is nothing in article 4(4) of the sixth VAT directive to allow member states to change the time of supply for supplies between group members, or to treat group members as one taxable person in respect of some transactions but not of others. How do the Government intend to deal with that possible challenge?
      The law will catch, perhaps unintentionally, pre-payments between group members where a company is leaving a VAT group because, for example, it has been sold. It will be vital for the group representative member to ensure that all intra-group payments made to and by that company are in respect of supplies that have already been made. Due to joint and several liability, the company leaving the group has a similar interest. Perhaps the Paymaster General will explain how he sees that problem being overcome.
      There is also a problem with continuous supplies. These are normally supplies of services, but also of some goods. For example, when is the service of renting out a property "performed"? The service is not completed until the expiry or termination of the lease. Certainly this is likely

      1413
      to be one sector in which pre-payments are common, rent usually being paid in advance. Customs and Excise may treat rent in particular as being pre-paid to the extent that it is in respect of periods after the degrouping. While not strictly supported by law, that would provide a reasonable solution for that type of pre-payment. However, it is more difficult to apply that principle to other continuous supplies that do not accrue evenly with time—for example, management and administration charges. How will interpretations be made in that respect and how shall we ensure that the new clause works effectively? I hope that the Paymaster General will respond.
      Finally, confirmation is needed from Customs and Excise that a change of representative member does not mean that the group has changed. We presume that it will regard a group as the same group if the VAT registration number is unchanged.
      The purpose behind the clause is to prevent tax avoidance. The Paymaster General has made it clear that if the loophole is not closed, the integrity of the tax and the tax base will be threatened. I hope that he will respond to the points and questions that I have raised.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall gladly outline the reasons for the proposed change. It is undeniably rather complex but I shall describe it as simply as I can. I shall be pleased to go into further detail if any hon. Members of a technical disposition wish me to do so.
      The essence of the new clause is the grouping provisions and their abuse. The House may know that the provisions were introduced when VAT was first introduced to simplify accounting by associated companies. Supplies between members of a VAT group are disregarded for VAT purposes. Only one VAT return has to be submitted by the representative member of the group instead of separate returns for each company. That is a long-standing, deregulatory measure that we would not normally wish to change.
      Unfortunately, some groups—more exactly their professional advisers—believe that they have found a lawful way of manipulating the relevant provisions to avoid VAT, which individual members, if they were not grouped, would otherwise have to incur. That is the subject of litigation. The potential loss to the Exchequer is so serious that the Government have decided to bring forward the proposals that are set out in the clause to ensure that the clear intention of Parliament is respected for the future.
      In the example of the scheme that has reached the VAT tribunal so far, the group concerned, knowing that VAT that is paid on cars is not normally deductible, used two subsidiaries to purchase cars and other goods. It seems that 90 per cent. of the price was paid VAT free in advance to the two companies. They promptly left the VAT group, purchased the cars and other goods and delivered them to a company that remained in the group. Apart from the VAT on the remaining 10 per cent. of the price, which was paid later, the group had obtained the cars tax free. The group freely admitted to the tribunal that the only reason for arranging the purchase in that way was to avoid tax.
      1414
      Other groups have already put similar schemes on the starting blocks. About £50 million-worth of revenue is at stake awaiting the outcome of the current case, which is being appealed by Customs and Excise.
      The new clause will amend the group legislation provision by preventing the type of supply that I have described—this answers the question of the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo)—between members of a group being disregarded for VAT purposes. Therefore, VAT will have to be accounted for on its full value and the group will be able to recover only such part of the VAT as is properly deductible. That, again, was the clear intention of Parliament.
      We are also taking this opportunity to extend the powers of Customs and Excise so that not only schemes of this kind, but any similar schemes which may seek to exploit the ability to move companies in and out of groups, can be rendered ineffective. Only the first change, which is aimed at the specific avoidance measure we found, is retrospective to the day after we announced the changes–1 March this year. The second change is not retrospective, but will give Customs and Excise the additional powers from Royal Assent.
      5 pm
      The hon. Member for Bristol, South asked me why we were introducing the new clause so late. It was only when the VAT tribunal decision was released, just before Christmas, that it was realised that action was necessary. We then had to evaluate precisely what that action should be. We had to take legal advice about whether our action would conflict with EC law; I can confirm to the hon. Lady that it does not. When all those things were done, we introduced the measure. We announced it to the House on 28 February, the draft new clause was made available and a press release was issued. As the hon. Lady has said, I wrote to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). Now, at the first opportunity, the measure is being brought before the House as a whole for confirmation as part of the Finance Bill.
      When an avoidance scheme is admitted as such by the company concerned, the House does not need to ask itself whether it is really dealing with a legitimate business activity in accordance with parliamentary intention, as it is clear that this is not just an avoidance scheme, hut an extremely expensive one which could undermine revenue to a wholly unacceptable extent. Given those remarks, I hope that the House will endorse the Government's decision.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 12

  INTEREST ON GILT-EDGED SECURITIES PAYABLE WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX
  '. After section 51 of the Taxes Act 1988 there shall he inserted the following section—
  "Giltedged securities held under authorised arrangements
  51A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of any regulations under section 51B, where gilt-edged securities of an eligible person are for the time being held under arrangements that satisfy the applicable requirements—

  (a) those securities shall he deemed to have been issued subject to the condition that the interest on them is paid without deduction of income tax; and

  1415

  (b) that interest shall be so paid accordingly, but shall be chargeable under Case III of Schedule D.

  (2) For the purposes of this section gilt-edged securities are securities of an eligible person so long as—

  (a) they are in the beneficial ownership of a company, local authority or local authority association or of any health service body (within the meaning of section 519A) and that company, authority, association or body is beneficially entitled to the interest on them;

  (b) they are in the beneficial ownership of a person who does not fall within paragraph (a) above but is of any such description as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury and that person is beneficially entitled to the interest on those securities;

  (c) the circumstances in which they are held are such that any income from them is eligible for relief from tax by virtue of section 505(1)(c), or would be so eligible but for section 505(3);

  (d) the circumstances in which they are held are such that any income from them is eligible for relief from tax by virtue of section 592(2), 608(2)(a), 613(4), 614(2), (3) or (4), 620(6) or 643(2);

  (e) they are assets of any such trust fund as is referred to in section 83 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 (premiums trust funds of members of Lloyd's); or

  (f) the circumstances in which they are held are such that any income from them falls to be treated as the income of, or of the government of, a sovereign power or of an international organisation.

  (3) For the purposes of this section the arrangements under which any gilt-edged securities are held shall be taken to satisfy the applicable requirements if—

  (a) such conditions as may be imposed by or under any such regulations as may be made by the Treasury are satisfied in relation to those arrangements; and

  (b) a declaration with respect to the satisfaction of those conditions has been made in accordance with any such regulations by such person having an entitlement to or in respect of the securities as may be determined under the regulations.

  (4) The conditions that may, for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) above, be imposed by regulations under this section in relation to arrangements for the holding of any gilt-edged securities shall include—

  (a) conditions as to the accounts in which the securities are to be held under the arrangements and as to the accounts into which interest on the securities is to be paid;

  (b) conditions requiring persons holding the securities, or otherwise having functions under or in connection with the arrangements, to be persons of a description specified in the regulations or to be approved in accordance with the regulations;

  (c) conditions requiring persons who, for purposes connected with the arrangements, act directly or indirectly—

  (i) on behalf of the person beneficially entitled to the securities, or

  (ii) on behalf of the person who holds them,
  to be persons registered with the Board in accordance with the regulations; and

  (d) conditions as to the provision about transfers of securities held under the arrangements that is to be contained in the arrangements.

  (5) Regulations made by the Treasury for the purposes of this section may—

  (a) impose requirements in relation to any such persons as are mentioned in subsection (4)(b) and (c) above with respect to the manner in which their functions under or in connection with the arrangements are exercised;

  1416

  (b) require such persons—

  (i) to consider the accuracy of any declaration made for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) above; and

  (ii) themselves to make declarations as to the extent to which conditions or other requirements imposed for the purposes of this section appear to be, or to have been, satisfied or complied with;

  (c) make provision—

  (i) about the making of applications for approval or registration under any such regulations;

  (ii) for the circumstances in which any approval or registration is to be or may be given or refused;

  (iii) for the withdrawal or cancellation of any approval or registration;

  (iv) for appeals against any refusal to grant an approval or to register any person, or against the withdrawal or cancellation of any approval or registration;

  (d) make provision for the publication of information showing the effect of any determinations in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (c) above;

  (e) make provision for notices to be issued by the Board to such persons as may be described in the regulations where the Board are satisfied that this section has effect, or does not have effect, in relation to any gilt-edged securities;

  (f) impose obligations–

  (i) on persons having any rights in relation to gilt-edged securities held under arrangements described in the regulations,

  (ii) on any such persons as are mentioned in subsection (4)(b) and (c) above, and

  (iii) on persons who are applying to he approved or registered for the purposes of this section.

  as to the provision of information, and the production of documents, to the Board or, on request, to an officer of the Board;
  and

  (g) impose requirements, framed wholly or partly by reference to the opinion of the Board, as to—

  (i) the contents of any declaration to be made in accordance with regulations under this section,

  (ii) the form and manner in which any declaration or information is to be made or provided in accordance with any such regulations, and

  (iii) the keeping and production to, or to an officer of, the Board of any document in which any such declaration or information is contained.

  (6) Any person who—

  (a) contravenes, or fails to comply with, any requirement imposed on him by or under any regulations under this section, or

  (b) fraudulently or negligently makes or produces any incorrect declaration, information or document in pursuance of any such requirement,

  shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £25,000.
  (7) In this section 'gilt-edged securities' means any securities which—

  (a) are gilt-edged securities for the purposes of the 1992 Act; or

  (b) will be such securities on the making of any order under paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 to that Act the making of which is anticipated in the prospectus under which they were issued.

  (8) In this section 'international organisation' means an organisation of which two or more sovereign powers, or the governments of two or more sovereign powers, are members; and if, in any proceedings, any question arises whether a person is an international organisation for the purposes of this section

  1417
  a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Secretary of State stating any fact relevant to that question shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.
  (9) Regulations made by the Treasury for the purposes of this section may—

  (a) make different provision for different cases; and

  (b) contain such supplementary, incidental, consequential and transitional provision as appears to the Treasury to be appropriate.

  (10) This section shall not apply to any interest paid before such day as the Treasury may by order appoint, and different days may be appointed under this subsection for different purposes."'.—[Mr. Nelson.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government new clause 11—Periodic accounting for tax on interest on gilt-edged securities.
  Government new clause 10—Treatment of price differential on sale and repurchase of securities.
  Government new clause 9—Manufactured interest on gilt-edged securities.
  Government new clause 7—Power to make special provision for special cases.
  Government new clause 8—Stock lending: power to modify rules.
  Government amendment No. 15.
  Mr. Nelson: The introduction of these new clauses comes after an informed and thorough debate in Committee on the issue of the gilt repo market. The six new clauses make the tax changes necessary to facilitate the introduction of an open market in the sale and repurchase of Government securities. It may be helpful to the House if I refer briefly to each of the new clauses and say a few words about their intent.
  New clause 12 enables interest on gilt-edged securities, which at present is normally paid after deduction of tax, to be paid gross under arrangements to be set out in Treasury regulations and brought into effect on an appointed day, which is expected to be at the beginning of 1996.
  New clause 11 enables regulations to be made to introduce a system of quarterly accounting for tax on gilt interest received gross. It is to be brought into effect on an appointed day, reflecting the date on which gilt interest first becomes payable gross under the arrangements provided for by new clause 12. This quarterly accounting system is necessary to contain the effect that paying gilt interest gross would otherwise have on the public sector borrowing requirement. The arrangements will reduce the cost from about £1.2 billion over two years to about £100 million in total.
  New clause 10 ensures that the tax rules for the treatment of repos reflect the underlying economic reality of the transaction. It also prevents the risk of tax being lost by repos being used to turn income into capital. Because of the risk of loss of tax, the provisions will come into effect from Royal Assent.
  New clause 9 makes the necessary amendments to existing legislation to enable manufactured payments of gilt interest to be paid gross in all circumstances, which will simplify the position considerably. It should in
  1418
  particular assist the operation of the gilt repo market as participants will be able to make manufactured payments of gilt interest gross, regardless of the circumstances or identity of their counterpart.
  The main purpose of new clause 7 is to provide regulatory powers to enable the operation of legislation affecting repos to take account of the detailed workings of the agreements under which these transactions are carried out. New clause 8 enables regulations to modify the circumstances in which transfers of security under stock lending arrangements are disregarded for tax purposes in computing the profits of the trade or in computing capital gains.
  The new clauses will facilitate the introduction of an open gilt repo market by enabling gilt interest to be paid gross in a much wider range of circumstances than before. The Exchequer will be protected by the auditing regime for the new arrangements and by the new quarterly accounting system. The new clauses also provide for the price differential under a repo to be treated as interest for tax purposes and for consequential adjustments to be made to the capital gains tax rules. The new clauses provide regulatory powers to cater for the technical details of repo transactions and enable the tax rules to be modified in the light of market developments.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: This is a far from satisfactory way in which to legislate on this or any other matter. Although, as we made clear in Committee, the Opposition generally support the introduction of a repo market, we are concerned that the Government have introduced at this late stage some complex new clauses which provide for further regulations to be made to deal with matters which may be technical, but which are crucial to a number of taxpayers. That is not a satisfactory way in which to legislate, especially when one considers that in the next two days we have to consider 28 different groups of amendments and new clauses. Inevitably, the new clauses dealing with the repo market will not get the attention that they would otherwise have had.
  That said, I accept that the Government are anxious to get the market under way at the beginning of next year and we shall not vote against the new clauses. However, the difficulties raised by legislating in this way are perhaps summed up by new clause 12, which provides that anyone who
  "contravenes, or fails to comply with, any requirement … under this section … shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £25,000."
  That is a very stiff penalty. Taxpayers may come to the view that it is not fair for Parliament to pass legislation with little consideration and then expect taxpayers to comply with it, with a penalty of £25,000 if they get it wrong. As was said time and again in Committee, the Government should think long and hard about the approach that they are increasingly adopting towards legislating in areas where there are complications and where far greater consideration should be given to ensuring that the regime is correct.
  Can the Minister tell us whether unit trusts come within the new regime as it is not entirely clear whether they do? Point 7 of the annexe to the Treasury press release makes it clear that bodies which hold gilts but have no intention of entering into repos will he permitted to transfer their gilts to the new regime to obtain a cash flow advantage.

  1419
  If that is right, what will the cost be to the Treasury? There is a suggestion that that might be a generous, perhaps unintended, consequence of the legislation.
  As I have said, we generally support the thrust of what the Government are trying to do, but we believe that they must think long and hard about the way in which they have approached the matter. The introduction of so many complex new clauses and the prospect of complex regulations cannot be happy, especially for all those who will have to make the system operate.
  Mr. Nelson: I am at least grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) for giving what I took to be a welcome for the intent behind the new clauses and, therefore, implicitly for the considerable saving that will arise for the taxpayer who will, we hope, have to pay a far lower amount of interest on the overall amount of the national debt and on the issuance of new gilts. We should not be introducing the new clauses unless we thought—indeed, the market concurs—that there would be very considerable savings for the taxpayer.
  I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman finds the new clauses complex, but we had an opportunity in Committee to discuss in considerable detail the intent behind them. I acknowledge that the translation of that intent into practice, not only in the new clauses but in subsequent regulations, the code of practice and the legal agreements, involve some complexity. That is probably inevitable in a developing, innovative market of this nature where substantial amounts of interest and, therefore, potential tax are involved.
  The consultations on the introduction of an open gilt market did not end until the end of January this year. The Government then needed to consider the responses made and decide whether to go ahead and what changes were needed. By that time, it was too late for the necessary legislation to be introduced during the Committee stage. It is essential that tax changes are made in the Bill if an open repo market in Government securities such as already exists in many other countries is to be introduced early in 1996.
  In answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific point about the £25,000 penalty, the Inland Revenue will have to audit the scheme to ensure that gilt holders make the proper declarations and that they are eligible before the central gilts office member can hold their gilts in a special account. Those holding gilts directly through a CGO member will make their declaration to that CGO member. Otherwise, the declaration is made to a registered intermediary, who in turn makes a declaration to the CGO member.
  The Inland Revenue will audit the scheme to check that only eligible persons are obtaining gilt interest gross and that all the requirements of the scheme have been met. In view of the large amount of interest which may be involved, there will be a mitigable penalty not exceeding £25,000 for any failure to comply with the legislation. I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and his party, which professes concern to defend revenue, prevent loopholes and crack down on those who seek to exploit them, will support a sensible penalty regime which is consistent, commensurate with the size of the transactions taking place and sufficient to provide real deterrence in relation to operation outside the scheme.
  1420
  The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about unit trusts is yes, unit trusts are involved. The hon. Gentleman asked about bodies which could join the repo market to register with starred special accounts in the CGO which did not necessarily intend to participate in the repo market but thereby obtained gross payments purely for cash flow purposes. The answer is that the cash flow cost of that is included in the overall assessment of £100 million made for the cash flow cost of players and non-players in the repo market. The amount of interest or the tax forgone for a short while on interest in respect of non-players and players in the repo market is, frankly, a guesstimate. The figure of £100 million is an estimate rather than a guesstimate, but it will be within the total already announced.
  While I have not provided an exact answer to the last point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I hope that I have reassured him that we have already taken his point into account in the cost. I emphasise that it is a cash flow cost and not a real cost. We hope that at the end of the day the measure will be an extremely positive sum gain for the taxpayer.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 11

  PERIODIC ACCOUNTING FOR TAX ON INTEREST ON GILT-EDGED SECURITIES
  `.—(1) After the section 51A of the Taxes Act 1988 inserted by section (Interest on gilt-edged securities payable without deduction of tax) above there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Periodic accounting for tax on interest on giltedged securities
  51B.—(l) The Treasury may by regulations provide for persons to whom payments of interest on relevant gilt-edged securities are made without deduction of tax to be required to make periodic returns to an officer of the Board of—

  (a) amounts of any payments of such interest made to that person, and

  (b) amounts of tax for which, assuming the payments to bear tax at the basic rate for the relevant year of assessment, that person is to be accountable under the regulations in respect of those payments;

  and any such regulations may further provide for the amounts of tax required to be included in any such return to become due, at the time when the return is required to be made, from the person required to make it.
  (2) Regulations made by the Treasury for the purposes of this section may—

  (a) specify such periods as the Treasury may consider appropriate as the periods for which returns are to be made, and in respect of which any person is to account for tax, under the regulations;

  (b) make provision for enabling returns under the regulations to be combined with returns under Schedule 16 and for requiring particulars of claims and calculations made for the purposes of the regulations to be set out in the returns;

  (c) provide, in respect of any period for which a return is to be made by any person under the regulations, for that person to be obliged, before the end of the period, to make a payment on account of amounts that may become due from him in respect of that period;

  (d) impose a requirement for a special return to he made for the purposes of any obligation imposed by virtue of paragraph (c) above;

  1421

  (e) provide for the amount which, under the regulations, is to be due from any person in respect of any period to be reduced by reference to amounts which—

  (i) are paid by or on behalf of that person under contracts or arrangements relating to transfers of gilt-edged securities; and

  (ii) are or fall to be treated as representative of interest on those securities:

  (f) authorise amounts in respect of which there is an obligation to account for tax under the regulations to be treated for specified purposes of the Tax Acts as payments on which a person has borne income tax by deduction;

  (g) make provision for the assessment of amounts due under the regulations and for the repayment in specified circumstances of amounts paid under the regulations;

  (h) make provision for interest to be payable, at such rate as may be determined by or under the regulations, on amounts that have become due under the regulations but have not been paid;

  (i) make provision, where payments of interest on any relevant gilt-edged securities would be comprised in the income of a member of Lloyd's, for obligations that may be imposed by regulations under this section on the person to whom the interest is paid to be imposed, instead, on such other person as may be described in the regulations.

  (3) Regulations made by the Treasury for the purposes of this section may—

  (a) include provision which for the purposes of the regulations makes any provision corresponding, with or without modifications, to any of the provisions of Schedule 16;

  (b) make provision modifying the operation of Schedule 19AB in relation to cases where payments of interest on relevant gilt-edged securities are made without deduction of tax to companies carrying on pension business;

  (c) include provision which requires obligations and liabilities under the regulations to be treated as obligations and liabilities to which provisions of Schedule 23 to the Finance Act 1995 (UK representatives) apply; and

  (d) include provision which, for any of the purposes of the regulations, applies provisions of sections 118 and 119 of and Schedule 23 to that Act in relation to times before those provisions otherwise come into force.

  (4) Regulations made by the Treasury for the purposes of this section may—

  (a) make different provision for different cases; and

  (b) contain such supplementary, incidental, consequential and transitional provision as appears to the Treasury to be appropriate;

  and subsection (3) of section 178 of the Finance Act 1989 (extent of powers to set rates of interest) shall apply for the purposes of the power conferred by virtue of subsection (2)(h) above as it applies for the purposes of the power to make regulations under that section.
  (5) In this section 'relevant gilt-edged securities' means securities which are gilt-edged securities within the meaning of section 51 A, other than any to which a direction of the Treasury under section 50 relates.
  (6) In this section 'relevant year of assessment'—

  (a) in relation to a manufactured payment, means the year of assessment in which it is received by the person to whom it is paid; and

  (b) in relation to any other payment of interest, means the year of assessment in which the payment is made;

  and in this subsection 'manufactured payment' means any payment which for the purposes of Schedule 23A is a payment of manufactured interest."
  (2) In the Table in section 98 of the Management Act (penalties in respect of certain information provisions), immediately before the entry in the second column relating to section 124(3) of the Taxes Act 1988 there shall be inserted the following entry—
  "regulations under section 51B;".'.—[Mr. Nelson.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 10

  TREATMENT OF PRICE DIFFERENTIAL ON SALE AND REPURCHASE OF SECURITIES
  '.—(1) After section 730 of the Taxes Act 1988 there shall be inserted the following sections—
  "Treatment of price differential on sale and repurchase of securities
  730A.—(1) Subject to subsection (8) below, this section applies where—

  (a) a person ('the original owner') has transferred any securities to another person (`the interim holder') under an agreement to sell them;

  (b) the original owner or a person connected with him is required to buy them back either—

  (i) in pursuance of an obligation to do so imposed by that agreement or by any related agreement, or

  (ii) in consequence of the exercise of an option acquired under that agreement or any related agreement;

  and

  (c) the sale price and the repurchase price are different.

  (2) The difference between the sale price and the repurchase price shall be treated for the purposes of the Tax Acts—

  (a) where the repurchase price is more than the sale price, as a payment of interest made by the repurchaser on a deemed loan from the interim holder of an amount equal to the sale price; and

  (b) where the sale price is more than the repurchase price, as a payment of interest made by the interim holder on a deemed loan from the repurchaser of an amount equal to the repurchase price.

  (3) Where any amount is deemed under subsection (2) above to be a payment of interest, that payment shall be deemed for the purposes of the Tax Acts to be one that becomes due at the time when the repurchase price becomes due and, accordingly, is treated as paid when that price is paid.
  (4) Where any amount is deemed under subsection (2) above to be a payment of interest, the repurchase price shall be treated for the purposes of the Tax Acts (other than this section and sections 737A and 737C) and (in cases where section 263A of the 1992 Act does not apply) for the purposes of the 1992 Act—

  (a) in a case falling within paragraph (a) of that subsection, as reduced by the amount of the deemed payment; and

  (b) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection, as increased by the amount of the deemed payment.

  (5) For the purposes of section 209(2)(d) and (da) any amount which is deemed under subsection (2)(a) above to be a payment of interest shall be deemed to be interest in respect of securities issued by the repurchaser and held by the interim holder.
  (6) Any amount which—

  (a) is deemed under subsection (2) above to he a payment of interest, and

  (b) does not fall (apart from this subsection) to he treated as yearly interest,

  shall be treated for the purposes of section 338 as if the reference to yearly interest in subsection (3)(a) of that section included a reference to that amount.
  (7) The Treasury may by regulations provide for any amount which is deemed under subsection (2) above to be received as a payment of interest to be treated, in such circumstances and to such extent as may be described in the regulations, as comprised in income that is eligible for relief from tax by virtue of section 438, 592(2), 608(2)(a), 613(4), 614(2), (3) or (4), 620(6) or 643(2).
  (8) Except where regulations under section 737E otherwise provide, this section does not apply if—

  (a) the agreement or agreements under which provision is made for the sale and repurchase are not such as would be entered into by persons dealing with each other at arm's length; or

  (b) all of the benefits or risks arising from fluctuations, before the repurchase takes place, in the market value of the securities sold accrue to, or fall on, the interim holder.

  (9) In this section references to the repurchase price are to be construed—

  (a) in cases where section 737A applies, and

  (b) in cases where section 737A would apply if it were in force in relation to the securities in question,

  as references to the repurchase price which is or, as the case may be, would be applicable by virtue of section 737C(3)(b), (9) or (11)(c).

  Interpretation of section 730A
  730B.—(l) For the purposes of section 730A agreements are related if they are entered into in pursuance of the same arrangement (regardless of the date on which either agreement is entered into).
  (2) References in section 730A to buying back securities—

  (a) shall include references to buying similar securities; and

  (b) in relation to a person connected with the original owner, shall include references to buying securities sold by the original owner or similar securities,

  notwithstanding (in each case) that the securities bought have not previously been held by the purchaser; and references in that section to repurchase or to a repurchaser shall be construed accordingly.
  (3) In section 730A and this section 'securities' has the same meaning as in section 737A.
  (4) For the purposes of this section securities are similar if they entitle their holders—

  (a) to the same rights against the same persons as to capital, interest and dividends, and

  (b) to the same remedies for the enforcement of those rights,

  notwithstanding any difference in the total nominal amounts of the respective securities or in the form in which they are held or the manner in which they can be transferred.
  (5) Section 839 (connected persons) applies for the purposes of section 730A."
  (2) In section 729 of that Act (sale and repurchase of securities), after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(5A) This section shall not apply where section 737A applies; and this section shall be disregarded in determining whether the condition in subsection (2)(b) of that section is fulfilled in any case."
  (3) In subsections (3)(b), (9) and (11)(c) of section 737C of that Act (adjustment of repurchase price), for "the Tax Acts other than section 737A and of the 1992 Act" there shall be substituted, in each case "section 730A"; and after subsection (11) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(11A) The deemed increase of the repurchase price which is made for the purposes of section 730A by subsection (3)(b), (9) or (11)(c) above shall also have effect—

  (a) for all the purposes of the Tax Acts, other than section 737A.

  1424

  (b) in cases where section 263A of the 1992 Act does not apply, for the purposes of the 1992 Act,

  wherever in consequence of that increase there is for the purposes of section 730A no difference between the sale price and the repurchase price."
  (4) After section 263 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 there shall be inserted the following section—

  Agreements for sale and repurchase of securities
  263A.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4) below, in any case falling within subsection (1) of section 730A of the Taxes Act (treatment of price differential on sale and repurchase of securities) and in any case which would fall within that subsection if the sale price and the repurchase price were different—

  (a) the acquisition of the securities in question by the interim holder and the disposal of those securities by him to the repurchaser; and

  (b) except where the repurchaser is or may be different from the original owner, the disposal of those securities by the original owner and any acquisition of those securities by the original owner as the repurchaser,

  shall be disregarded for the purposes of capital gains tax.
  (2) Subsection (1) above does not apply in any case where the repurchase price of the securities in question falls to be calculated for the purposes of section 730A of the Taxes Act by reference to provisions of section 737C of that Act that are not in force in relation to those securities when the repurchase price becomes due.
  (3) Subsection (1) above does not apply if—

  (a) the agreement or agreements under which provision is made for the sale and repurchase are not such as would be entered into by persons dealing with each other at arm's length; or

  (b) any of the benefits or risks arising from fluctuations, before the repurchase takes place, in the market value of the securities sold accrues to, or falls on, the interim holder.

  (4) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to any disposal or acquisition of qualifying corporate bonds in a case where the securities disposed of by the original owner or those acquired by him, or by any other person, as the repurchaser are not such bonds.
  (5) Expressions used in this section and in section 730A of the Taxes Act have the same meanings in this section as in that section."
  (5) This section shall have effect where the agreement to sell the securities is entered into on or after the date on which this Act is passed.'.—[Mr. Nelson.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 9

  MANUFACTURED INTEREST ON GILT-EDGED SECURITIES
  '.—(1) In section 737 of the Taxes Act 1988 (manufactured dividends and interest)—

  (a) after subsection (1A) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

  "(1B) Subject to subsection (5AA) below, subsection (1) above shall not apply where the interest in question is interest on gilt-edged securities.";

  (b) at the beginning of subsections (2) and (5), there shall be inserted, in each case, "Subject to subsection (5AA) below,";

  (c) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

  "(5AA) Regulations made by the Treasury may make provision in relation to any such case where the securities in question are gilt-edged securities as may be specified in the regulations—

  1425

  (a) for subsections (1B), (2) and (5) above to be disregarded in determining whether the case is one where subsection (1) above applies; or

  (b) for this section to have effect as if subsections (1B) and (2) above were omitted and the words in subsection (5) from 'unless' to the end of paragraph (b) were modified in such manner as may be set out in the regulations.";

  and

  (d) in subsection (6), after the definition of "foreign income dividend" there shall be inserted the following definition—

  "'gilt-edged securities' has the same meaning as in section 51A;".
  (2) In Schedule 23A to that Act, at the beginning of sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 3, there shall be inserted, in each case, "Subject to paragraph 3A below,"; and after that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "3A.—(1) This paragraph applies, except in so far as dividend manufacturing regulations otherwise provide, in any case where paragraph 3 above applies and the United Kingdom securities in question are gilt-edged securities.

  (2) In a case where this paragraph applies, sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 3 above shall not have effect, but the gross amount of the manufactured interest shall be treated—

  (a) in relation to the interest manufacturer, for all the purposes of the Tax Acts except the determination of whether a deduction of tax is liable to be made on the making of the manufactured payment, and

  (b) in relation to the recipient and all persons claiming title through or under him, for all the purposes of those Acts,

  as if it were the gross amount of a periodical payment of interest on those gilt-edged securities, but made by the interest manufacturer.

  (3) Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 3 above shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that paragraph.

  (4) In this paragraph 'gilt-edged securities' has the same meaning as in section 51A."

  (3) In paragraph 5(6) of that Schedule (construction of references to securities in provisions relating to interest passing through the market), after "United Kingdom securities" there shall be inserted ", other than gilt-edged securities (within the meaning of section 51A),".
  (4) This section shall have effect in relation to any payments made on or after such day as the Treasury may by order appoint, and different days may be appointed under this subsection for different purposes.'.—[Mr. Nelson.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 7

  POWER TO MAKE SPECIAL PROVISION FOR SPECIAL CASES
  '.—(1) Immediately before section 738 of the Taxes Act 1988 there shall be inserted the following sections—
  "Power to provide for manufactured payments to be eligible for relief
  737D.—(1) The Treasury may by regulations provide for any manufactured payment made to any person to be treated, in such circumstances and to such extent as may be described in the regulations, as comprised in income of that person that is eligible for relief from tax by virtue of section 438, 592(2), 608(2)(a), 613(4), 614(2), (3) or (4), 620(6) or 643(2).
  (2) In this section 'manufactured payment' means any manufactured dividend, manufactured interest or manufactured overseas dividend, within the meaning of Schedule 23A.

  Power to modify sections 727A, 730A and 737A to 737C
  737E—(1) The Treasury may by regulations make provision for all or any of sections 727A, 730A and 737A to 737C to have effect with modifications in relation to cases involving any arrangement for the sale and repurchase of securities where—

  (a) the obligation to make the repurchase is not performed or the option to repurchase is not exercised;

  (b) provision is made by or under any agreement for different or additional securities to be treated as, or as included with, securities which, for the purposes of the repurchase, are to represent securities transferred in pursuance of the original sale;

  (c) provision is made by or under any agreement for any securities to be treated as not included with securities which, for the purposes of the repurchase, are to represent securities transferred in pursuance of the original sale;

  (d) provision is made by or under any agreement for the sale price or repurchase price to be determined or varied wholly or partly by reference to fluctuations, occurring in the period after the making of the agreement for the original sale, in the value of securities transferred in pursuance of that sale, or in the value of securities treated as representing those securities; or

  (e) provision is made by or under any agreement for any person to be required, in a case where there are any such fluctuations, to make any payment in the course of that period and before the repurchase price becomes due.

  (2) The Treasury may by regulations make provision for all or any of sections 727A, 730A and 737A to 737C to have effect with modifications in relation to cases where—

  (a) arrangements, corresponding to those made in cases involving an arrangement for the sale and repurchase of securities, are made by any agreement, or by one or more related agreements, in relation to securities that are to be redeemed in the period after their sale; and

  (b) those arrangements are such that the person making the sale or a person connected with him (instead of being required to repurchase the securities or acquiring an option to do so) is granted rights in respect of the benefits that will accrue from their redemption.

  (3) The Treasury may by regulations provide that section 730A is to have effect with modifications in relation to cases involving any arrangement for the sale and repurchase of securities where there is an agreement relating to the sale or repurchase which is not such as would be entered into by persons dealing with each other at arm's length.
  (4) The powers conferred by subsections ( 1 ) and (2) above shall be exercisable in relation to section 263A of the 1992 Act as they are exercisable in relation to section 730A of this Act.
  (5) Regulations made for the purposes of this section may—

  (a) make different provision for different cases; and

  (b) contain such supplementary, incidental, consequential and transitional provision as appears to the Treasury to be appropriate.

  (6) The supplementary, incidental and consequential provision that may be made by regulations under this section shall include—

  (a) in the case of regulations relating to section 730A, provision modifying subsections (3)(b), (9), (11)(c) and (11A) of section 737C; and

  (b) in the case of regulations relating to section 263A of the 1992 Act, provision modifying the operation of that Act in relation to cases where by virtue of the regulations any acquisition or disposal is excluded from those which are to be disregarded for the purposes of capital gains tax.

  (7) In this section 'modifications' includes exceptions and omissions; and any power under this section to provide for an

  1427
  enactment to have effect with modifications in any case shall include power to provide for it not to apply (if it otherwise would do) in that case.
  (8) References in this section to a case involving an arrangement for the sale and repurchase of securities are references to any case where—

  (a) a person makes a sale of any securities under any agreement ('the original sale'); and

  (b) that person or a person connected with him either—

  (i) is required under that agreement or any related agreement to buy them back; or

  (ii) acquires, under that agreement or any related agreement, an option to buy them back.

  (9) Section 730B shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of section 730A."
  (2) In section 182(1) of the Finance Act 1993 and section 229 of the Finance Act 1994 (powers to modify provisions relating to Lloyd's), the following paragraph shall be inserted, in each case, after paragraph (c)—
  "(ca) for modifying the application of this Chapter in relation to cases where assets forming part of a premiums trust fund are the subject of—

  (i) any such arrangement as is mentioned in section 129(1), (2) or (2A) of the Taxes Act 1988 (stock lending etc.); or

  (ii) any such arrangements or agreements as are mentioned in section 737E(2) and (8) of the Taxes Act 1988 (sale and repurchase of securities etc.);".'.—[Mr. Nelson.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

  STOCK LENDING: POWER TO MODIFY RULES
  '.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 129 of the Taxes Act 1988 (description of stock lending arrangements)—

  (a) for "subsection (4)" there shall be substituted "subsections (2B) and (4)"; and

  (b) the words "has contracted to sell securities, and to enable him to fulfil the contract, he" shall be omitted.

  (2) In subsection (2A) of that section, for "A to fulfil his contract" there shall be substituted "B to make the transfer to A or his nominee".
  (3) After subsection (2A) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(2B) Except in so far as the Treasury by regulations otherwise provide, this section applies only if A enters into the arrangement mentioned in subsection (1) above to enable him to fulfil a contract under which he is required to sell securities."
  (4) After subsection (4) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsections—
  "(4A) Regulations under subsection (4) above relating to section 271(9) of the 1992 Act may include provision modifying the operation of that Act in relation to cases where, by virtue of the regulations, any acquisition or disposal is excluded from those which are to be disregarded for the purposes of capital gains tax.
  (4B) In such cases as the Treasury may by regulations provide, this section shall have effect as if references to a transfer of securities of the same kind and amount as those subject to a previous transfer included references to the grant of equivalent rights in respect of benefits accruing from the redemption of securities of the same kind and amount."
  (5) For subsection (9) of section 271 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (exemption for arrangements to which section 129 applies) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(9) Subject to any regulations under subsection (4) of section 129 of the Taxes Act, any disposal and acquisition made in pursuance of an arrangement mentioned in subsection
  (1). (2) or (2A) of that section shall be disregarded for the
  1428
  purposes of capital gains tax unless it is one in the case of which subsection (2B) of that section has the effect of preventing that section from applying.—[Mr. Nelson.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 13

  ANNUITIES PURCHASED WHERE CERTAIN CLAIMS OR ACTIONS ARE SETTLED
  `The following sections shall be inserted after section 329 of the Taxes Act 1988—
  "Annuities purchased for certain persons
  329A.—(l) In a case where—

  (a) an agreement is made settling a claim or action for damages for personal injury,

  (b) under the agreement the damages are to consist wholly or partly of periodical payments, and

  (c) under the agreement the person entitled to the payments is to receive them as the annuitant under one or more annuities purchased for him by the person against whom the claim or action is brought or, if he is insured against the claim concerned, by his insurer,

  the agreement is for the purposes of this section a qualifying agreement.
  (2) In a case where—

  (a) an agreement is made settling a claim or action for damages for personal injury,

  (b) under the agreement the damages are to consist wholly or partly of periodical payments, and

  (c) a later agreement is made under which the person entitled to the payments is from a future date to receive them as the annuitant under one or more annuities purchased for him by the person against whom the claim or action is brought or, if he is insured against the claim concerned, by his insurer,

  the agreement mentioned in paragraph (c) above is for the purposes of this section a qualifying agreement.
  (3) Subsection (4) below applies where—

  (a) a person receives a sum as the annuitant under an annuity purchased for him pursuant to a qualifying agreement, or

  (b) a person receives a sum on behalf of the annuitant under an annuity purchased for the annuitant pursuant to a qualifying agreement.

  (4) Where this subsection applies the sum shall not be regarded as the recipient's or annuitant's income for any purposes of income tax and accordingly shall be paid without any deduction under section 349(1).
  (5) Subsections (6) to (10) below apply for the purposes of subsection (1) above.
  (6) The periodical payments may be for the life of the claimant, for a specified period or of a specified number or minimum number or include payments of more than one of those descriptions.
  (7) The amounts of the periodical payments (which need not be at a uniform rate or payable at uniform intervals) may be—

  (a) specified in the agreement, with or without provision for increases of specified amounts or percentages,

  (b) subject to adjustment in a specified manner so as to preserve their real value, or

  (c) partly specified as mentioned in paragraph (a) and partly subject to adjustment as mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

  (8) The annuity or annuities must be such as to provide sums which as to amount and time of payment correspond to the periodical payments described in the agreement.
  (9) Personal injury includes any disease and any impairment of a person's physical or mental condition.
  (10) A claim or action for personal injury includes—

  1429

  (a) such a claim or action brought by virtue of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934;

  (b) such a claim or action brought by virtue of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1937;

  (c) such a claim or action brought by virtue of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976;

  (d) a claim or action brought by virtue of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976;

  (e) a claim or action brought by virtue of the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977.

  (11) For the purposes of subsection (2) above—

  (a) subsections (6), (9) and (10) above apply;

  (b) subsection (7) above applies as if the reference to the agreement were to that mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above;

  (c) subsection (8) above applies as if the reference to periodical payments described in the agreement were to periodical payments described in the agreement mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above and falling to be made after the later agreement takes effect.

  (12) This section does not apply unless the sum concerned is received after the day on which the Finance Act 1995 is passed, but it is immaterial when—

  (a) the agreement mentioned in subsection (1) above is made or takes effect, or

  (b) either of the agreements mentioned in subsection (2) above is made or takes effect.

  Annuities assigned in favour of certain persons
  329B.—(1) In a case where—

  (a) an agreement is made settling a claim or action for damages for personal injury,

  (b) under the agreement the damages are to consist wholly or partly of periodical payments,

  (c) the person against whom the claim or action is brought (or, if he is insured against the claim concerned, his insurer) purchases one or more annuities, and

  (d) a later agreement is made under which the annuity is, or the annuities are, assigned in favour of the person entitled to the payments so as to secure that from a future date he receives the payments as the annuitant under the annuity or annuities,

  the agreement mentioned in paragraph (d) above is for the purposes of this section a qualifying agreement.
  (2) Subsection (3) below applies where—

  (a) a person receives a sum as the annuitant under an annuity assigned in his favour pursuant to a qualifying agreement, or

  (b) a person receives a sum on behalf of the annuitant under an annuity assigned in the annuitant's favour pursuant to a qualifying agreement.

  (3) Where this subsection applies the sum shall not be regarded as the recipient's or annuitant's income for any purposes of income tax and accordingly shall be paid without any deduction under section 349(1).
  (4) For the purposes of subsection (1) above—

  (a) subsections (6), (9) and (10) of section 329A apply;

  (b) subsections (7) and (8) of section 329A apply as if references to the agreement were to that mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above.

  (5) This section does not apply unless the sum concerned is received after the day on which the Finance Act 1995 is passed, but it is immaterial when either of the agreements mentioned in subsection (1) above is made or takes effect." '—[Sir George Young.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5.15 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The object of this clause is to simplify the administration of the payment of agreed damages in cases of personal injury, where the damages are to be paid to the victim of the injury in instalments over a period or for his or her life. It will make it possible for the victim of the injury to receive the damages as an annuity directly from a life insurance company without turning a non-taxable capital sum into income chargeable to tax.
  The payment of an annuity directly to the victim of the injury will bring the advantage of protection under the Policyholders Protection Act 1975. Uncertainties as to the long-term financial stability of the payer of the damages will no longer be a significant obstacle to the acceptance of damages in a form which meets the long-term financial needs of the victim.
  The clause achieves the objectives of the measure tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) in Committee and will, I know, have the support of the whole House. It also represents a first step towards realising our intention, announced to the House on 23 March, of implementing the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its report on structured settlements and interim and provisional damages.
  Additionally, the clause breaks new ground by making it possible for existing structured settlements to he renegotiated to come within the new framework. This offers the advantages of long-term security for the individual receiving the damages by instalment payments and of administrative savings for the insurance company paying them. The removal of the territorial restrictions from the measures previously proposed will, we hope, make it easier for an individual suffering an injury when overseas to obtain damages payable through life without taxation disadvantages.
  I hope that the measure commends itself to the House.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for acknowledging the role that the Labour party and the Law Commission played in proposing the measure. It is a good measure for all the reasons that the Minister set out, which I do not intend to repeat. It will bring considerable benefit to the victims of accidents and those who suffer injuries. It will stimulate competition in the range of financial instruments which are available to them. It will provide for annuities structured specifically to the varying needs that victims have for the rest of their lives following a severe accident or injury. We welcome the new clause and commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

  DISCRETIONARY SHARE OPTION SCHEMES IN THE PRIVATISED UTILITIES
  '.—(1) The Treasury shall present to Parliament for its approval before the next Budget a report on discretionary share option schemes operated by the privatised utilities which fall within Part IV of Schedule 9 to the Taxes Act 1988 (share options schemes other than savings-related share Option schemes) (-the schemes").
  (2) The Treasury shall report to Parliament on the past and estimated future effects on the public revenues of schemes which are operated by the privatised utilities.
  (3) The report shall differentiate between public revenues raised from:

  (a) members of these schemes and

  (b) the privatised utilities which operate these schemes.

  (4) For the purposes of this section privatised utilities will include all companies which produce or distribute water, gas, or electricity in which HMG has sold shares since 1979 and will include other companies which the Treasury may by order determine.'.—[Mr. Andrew Smith.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I fear that this new clause will not be so uncontentious as the last one. I would be grateful if the Financial Secretary would nod across the Dispatch Box. We would be pleased to move on, once the Government had accepted it. The Minister is not making any such indication.
  The new clause calls for an assessment of the costs to the taxpayer incurred in Government support for discretionary share option schemes in the privatised utilities, and for a report to Parliament before the next Budget. Our case is that such an assessment is long overdue, that the boardroom excesses of the privatised utilities are a national scandal, and that it is high time that the Government took action. I find it difficult to imagine who could possibly disagree with such a reasonable suggestion as that which we are making today—other than perhaps sonic of the beneficiaries, and some right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches.
  Certainly, anyone with an intelligent experience in commerce would be appalled at any enterprise which spent large sums of money without assessing the value created. Yet that is just what the Government are doing. They are underwriting the handouts at the taxpayers' expense. We seek no less prudent supervision of matters involving the public purse.
  As has been especially clear in recent months, the 13ritish people are fed up with the Government's excuses and double standards in regard to share options and the excesses of the privatised utilities. They want not mere words—such as the Prime Minister's admission that he found such abuses "distasteful"—but action. Families with ordinary incomes whose living standards fell last year and are falling now, and must pay an extra £812 in tax this year, are angry ahout the ahuses at the top.
  The Government should deal with these scandals. The chairman of the National Grid Company is set to make £2 million this year; the chief executive of British Gas has been awarded a 75 per cent. increase in his basic annual salary—an extra £205,000. That is on top of the share options, amounting to more than £100 million, taken out in the privatised utilities alone last year.
  The Prime Minister has said that the Government may consider acting after the Greenbury committee has reported—indeed, that they may take legislative action. Even since that statement, however, three directors of Norweb alone have exercised share options netting them a combined benefit of more than £1 million. That will do nothing to make the public feel confident that the Government have any intention of ending the excesses of privatised industries.
  1432
  We have set out the action that needs to he taken. The regulation of water, gas, electricity and telecommuni-cations must be made open: there must be public hearings enabling customers to question the privatised utilities about their service to the public, and about profits and boardroom pay, before the prices are set. Regulators should have the power to cut prices in the event of "top pay" and share option abuses.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the new clause.
  Mr. Smith: I was just coming to the part of the new clause that deals with the effects on revenue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Those effects are considerable. We also want executive share options to be taxed as income to discourage abuse.
  It is high time that the Government listened to the public, and ended the indefensible position in which there is one rule for the few and another for the many. These discretionary share options are very expensive to the public purse: even the Government estimate that the cost to the taxpayer in the financial year that is now ending was some £60 million. That is a large amount, even if it is an underestimate—as we have argued it is, because it does not take account of all the opportunities for tax planning and avoidance.
  Surely it is right to ask, as our new clause does, how such schemes affect the public purse and what public benefits they produce. I look forward to hearing from the Financial Secretary exactly what benefit the public are receiving in return for the huge handouts involved in the tax subsidies for those schemes.
  It is not good enough for the Government to try to subcontract their responsibilities to the Grcenbury committee. Important though that body is, and important though it is that the views of the CBI are taken into account, it cannot stand in for the Government. Paul Foot, writing in The Guardian, provided an amusing insight—although I do not always agree with him politically. Musing on what might have happened if Labour had been in government, he attempted to draw a parallel:
  "Imagine, for instance, that the trade union leaders, in a sudden rush of enthusiasm, pay themselves enormous wage increases. Imagine that Bill Morris or John Edmonds tripled their salaries. Imagine the sustained howl of protest in the newspapers.
  Investigative journalists Would suddenly flourish at the Daily Mail. The union leaders would be pursued by persistent hacks who would describe in detail every morsel of food they consumed at La Gavroche"—
  whatever that is—
  "and every gold tap in their country mansions.
  Imagine, then, the Government being panicked into a response. Imagine the Lord Privy Seal. John Prescott, announcing that his government had decided to suspend all further action on the matter until a committee of trade unionists, previously set up by the TUC, made their recommendations. Imagine. What's more, that the TUC committee was headed by Bill Morris and John Edmonds.
  Can you conjure up the Daily Mail headline: BLAIR'S BACK-SCRATCHING BUDDIES. A portentous leader in the Daily Telegraph would condemn the Government for insulting Parliament. 'What has become a matter of urgent public interest—a matter which threatens the very integrity of our public life—is to he dealt with by a cabal led by the very brothers who stand accused of enriching themselves beyond the dreams of avarice.
  Strangely, there are few such headlines or leaders in the Mail or the Telegraph about the Greenbury committee",
  which, Mr. Foot suggests, comprises

  1433
  "a clutch of millionaires appointed by the Confederation of British Industry to investigate the scandal of, er, millionaires paying themselves grotesque salaries and share options."
  It is a humorous piece, but does it not underline the Government's hypocrisy? This is an issue of vital public interest; there is outrage up and down the land about what the Government are allowing to happen. The Government, however, are happy to propose simply subcontracting their responsibilities to a CBI committee some of whose members are beneficiaries of the very schemes that they are charged with investigating. That is unacceptable to the public, and it should be unacceptable to the House.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that discretionary share option schemes in the privatised utilities should be treated differently, in tax terms, from such schemes generally? I understood that his policy was to subject them all to income tax. If the former is not his policy, what is the point of producing the report?
  Mr. Smith: The point of producing a report that is specially geared to the privatised utilities is twofold. First, those utilities have attracted the most public concern, and have involved the most outrageous abuses. Secondly, there is an interaction, in the fiscal consequences and the consequences for the public purse, between the under-valuation of the assets of the utilities when they were sold and the benefits that the bosses have subsequently been able to extract.
  The hon. Gentleman asks whether, in this as in other matters, the law relating to tax should apply equally to schemes in the privatised utilities and those elsewhere. Of course it should: we have made it clear that we consider it sensible and prudent to tax executive share options as income.
  It would be interesting to hear from the Financial Secretary what reason the Government could possibly adduce for failing to present the report for which we have called. It cannot he that there are too many schemes to assess. Each scheme has to be formally approved, and there are only 5,000 such schemes covering the privatised utilities and others.
  In the case of the privatised utilities, there are 12 regional electricity companies, 10 water companies, two major power generators, one gas company and one telecommunications company. Such a report should not be beyond the Government's resources in the time between now and the Budget. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), who nods agreement.
  Mr. Barry Porter indicated dissent.
  Ms Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is nodding off.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Smith: I assure my hon. Friend that he is not; he is listening attentively, and is vigorously agreeing.
  Mr. Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: I will not give way, because the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his views clear in the debate.
  1434
  Our suggestion is reasonable and feasible, and the Government can have no argument for not accepting the new clause, which is in the public interest. The regulators of the privatised utilities might also find such a report helpful.
  Professor Littlechild of Oftel agreed prices with the regional electricity companies, and was subsequently surprised when Northern Electric found an additional £560 million to defend itself against the bid from Trafalgar House. That shows that the resources were not quite what he expected. Mr. Byatt showed equal surprise when North West Water found an additional £35 million to split between customers and shareholders.
  Against that backdrop, it is sensible and in the public interest, and that of taxpayers and the public purse, to have precisely such a report and information as an essential guide to enlightened policy.
  Mr. Barry Legg: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants to have the regulator involved, or thinks that the regulator will be interested. Share options involve the issue of shares to employees and directors, and have nothing to do with the pricing of gas or any other commodity. The issue is approved in general meeting, when shareholders decide that they are happy to see a dilution of their holding in the best interests of the employees and directors of the company and its good management.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber so recently that he seemed to be out of breath during his intervention. The schemes have not been approved by shareholders: that is precisely the point of one of the main reforms for which we are calling. We say that shareholders should have the opportunity properly to regulate these schemes.
  Mr. Legg: Share option schemes have to he approved by the shareholders in general meeting, and that happens in every company.
  Mr. Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman claim that the amounts that have been paid to these top bosses were agreed by the shareholders, and were subjected to proper scrutiny? They were not, and that is precisely why we want the powers and composition of remuneration committees to be strengthened.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the regulator. It is relevant to pull the regulator into the picture precisely because the top bosses of these firms should not be able to benefit to such an outrageous extent. That benefit is unrelated to their personal performance, or, in many cases, to the performance of the companies of which they are directors.
  As everybody knows, the benefit derives primarily from what happens more generally in the market, and that is precisely what the public find so objectionable about these handouts. They also object to their scale, and to the fact that they arc unrelated to performance. They also find it objectionable that a few individuals get a benefit which is not available to the overwhelming majority of our

  1435
  people. No matter how hard they work, or how much they contribute to their companies, most people would never receive such benefits in a million years.
  Mr. Legg rose—
  Mr. Smith: I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman. I shall allow him to catch his breath, and perhaps give way to him again before I finish.
  It is in the interests of the public and of customers and taxpayers that the report for which the new clause calls should be produced. A Government refusal to accept it would be consistent with the way in which they have mismanaged fiscal policy generally in this area and elsewhere. For example, the cost of profit-related pay went up from £25 million in 1990–91 to £500 million in 1994–95. It has become one of the largest reliefs.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) inquired of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about evidence of the effects of such schemes on companies which operate them and on the economy, he was told:
  "Studies on profit-sharing schemes generally suggest that they are associated with increased employee involvement and increases in productivity."—[Official Report, 22 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 241.]
  The Government should be less vacuous and more specific than that. What studies are they talking about, and what are the changes in productivity? In opening up what has become a bonanza for the privatised utilities and the bosses, the Government must justify themselves and their record to the electorate a good deal better than that.
  The Government could make a start by accepting our new clause. If they refuse to accept it, and our arguments on behalf of the overwhelming majority of the public, it will be further confirmation of their hypocrisy. They would never allow any fully public service to be so profligate in the management of finances as they are in respect of these executive share option schemes and their tax subsidies. They will stand guilty yet again of incompetence, because any enterprise, whether publicly or privately owned, could not prosper if it operated in the way in which the Government operate these schemes. Moreover, they will stand guilty of failing to look after the interests of taxpayers as a whole, because it is they who subsidise the few who benefit from the schemes.
  It is high time that the country had a Government who properly looked after the interests of the many, instead of allowing the few to feather their nests. That is what the privatised utility bosses are doing under the schemes which the Government seem so ready to tolerate, and which they have done so much to encourage. Our new clause makes prudent sense for the public and the taxpayer.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I am sorry that he spoiled his case by using emotive words such as "bosses", and by deploying the envy argument. That is a green argument, not in the environmental sense but in the sense of envy and jealousy. If he had reduced his rhetoric, I might have agreed with him a hit more.
  I shall not vote for the new clause, or abstain. It is not merely the forces of envy and jealousy that have reservations about what has happened in quasi-monopolistic privatised industries, because many people believe in rewards for endeavour. I am not arguing that the managers and chief executives of the privatised
  1436
  utilities are being overpaid; I do not know how we can judge that. It must be a matter for the shareholders, which is what the Government have been arguing.
  However, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will outline the framework of what the Government intend to do about the problem. I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, East that, while the Greenbury committee is of serious importance, the matter cannot be left until we get its report.
  I am sure that Ministers are exercising their little grey cells in that direction. I hope that we will get some specific indication, rather than a broad generalisation, of what the Government intend to do, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister having accepted in principle that something needs to be done. I await with interest the Financial Secretary's reply.
  Mr. David Winnick: It will be interesting to see the Financial Secretary's reaction to the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said, it is very much a test of how concerned the Government really are about the share option scandal, and the outrage felt about it.
  Through no fault of my own, I hope, I have spent more time outside the House than inside it during the past two months. Therefore, I can tell the Financial Secretary that we are not exaggerating the sense of outrage felt by so many people throughout the country—by no means only Labour voters—that so much can accrue to so few people who, at the end of the day, are simply doing precisely the work they did previously, when the utilities were in public ownership.
  Not only have the salaries of those who run the privatised industries increased substantially, but they have been given various perks—altogether almost as though they had won the top prizes in the national lottery a number of times over. In addition, if they were to realise the share options, a great deal more money would accrue to them, which would cause further concern throughout the country.
  I have been studying some of the figures. Based on share prices at 30 March, the value of shares held under option by the directors of the water, electricity and gas companies totals no less than £80 million. The profit that could be made were those shares to be sold would be about £27 million, to be shared by only a few individuals.
  The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) made a fair-minded speech, except that he took my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East to task for using what he called emotive language about bosses. But they are bosses; they run the industries. Almost without exception, those same people were running the industries when they were in public ownership and they were receiving a reasonable salary; but since privatisation, they have received salary increases far, far in excess in percentage terms of anything our constituents could ever get. They have also had various perks, and now they have share options.
  The Government's only response is to say that, although they do not really like it, there is nothing they can do about it. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) said, they think that it is a matter for the shareholders. I can tell the Government that what

  1437
  has been happening with these directors smells as much among the electorate as what happened with Westminster council—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman in his place once again, but I must tell him that we are not debating Westminster council this afternoon.
  Mr. Winnick: I was merely using that council as an illustration, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I cannot help but compare the Government's attitude to bosses' salaries with their attitude towards the shabby way in which nurses and others in the national health service have been treated. However, I will not go any further down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I know that you would rule me out of order.
  5.45 pm
  Tonight, the Government have a test on their hands. If they are truly concerned about what has been happening and about the sense of outrage felt throughout the country, they will accept Labour's very reasonable new clause. After all, it is not in such terms that the Government could say that it ran wholly against their philosophy; it would not return the industries to public ownership. It is a reasonably phrased new clause, which is concerned with public revenues.
  Time and again, the Government say how concerned they are about public revenues, but when it comes to the fat cats, the bosses—I make no apology for using what Conservative Members may consider emotive language—and the need to deal with the scandal of the past few years, the test will be whether the Financial Secretary is prepared to respond positively to the new clause.
  If the Government want to know why they are suffering from such unpopularity throughout the country—more so, perhaps, than any other Government since the war—I can tell them that it is because people believe that they deal differently with the fat cats than they do with the rest of the population. Ordinary employees know that they are likely to get a raw deal from the Government, but they do not believe that the Government will act in the same way towards the fat cats.
  Although Conservative Members may not like what I am saying, and may feel that I am not presenting the picture fairly, the truth is that a great deal of the Government's unpopularity and the way in which, increasingly, they are held in contempt, is a result of the very strong belief that the Government do not give a damn about the ordinary people, be they the nurses or any other group who earn an ordinary living. The Government could not care less about what sort of wage increases—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been absent through illness, and I realise that now that he has returned, he wishes to cover a whole spectrum of issues, but he must not do so under this new clause. His remarks must relate to share option schemes.
  Mr. Winnick: I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was concluding my remarks, and trying to show why people throughout the country feel very strongly that the Government treat ordinary people—even when they lose their jobs—very differently from the way that they treat the fat cats.
  1438
  If the Government want to show a genuine concern about the scandal surrounding the chief executives of the privatised industries, they will accept the new clause. However, Labour Members know full well that they have no intention of doing anything of the sort. That proves the point that we have made repeatedly—that the fat cats can do what they like because it is they whom the Government think should be rewarded in every possible way.
  Mr. Tim Smith: It is good to see the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) back in his place. There is no doubt that there is considerable public disquiet about the matters that he raised.
  I have some sympathy with the proposal of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) that the Treasury should produce a report. Reports are useful, and they provide information on which decisions can be made. He was kind enough to support my proposal that the Inland Revenue should produce a report, which the Committee considering the Bill agreed to.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on his initiative in relation to the tax simplification clause. Does he agree that it would only be right for that clause to be known as the Smith clause?
  Mr. Smith: Certainly. As the hon. Gentleman was good enough to support it, it should undoubtedly be known as the Smith clause.
  In an intervention, the hon. Gentleman told me that he did not think that the tax system should distinguish between private utilities and companies in general. I am doubtful, therefore, about the value of producing the report. The question is how we should respond to the public disquiet that we all accept exists. Should we do so through the tax system, through the regulator, or by trying to persuade shareholders to do something about the matter?
  I think that Paul Foot drew an interesting parallel with trade unions in an article in The Guardian. Clearly, accountability works much better in trade unions. It is obvious that, if trade union officials tried to abuse their position in the way that it has been suggested chairmen and chief executives of some companies have, union members would not stand for it. They would take action to deal with that. A direct relationship exists there between union members, the union council, and the general secretary.
  When it comes to companies, however, clearly something is wrong with the system. We talk about large shareholders and institutional shareholders, but behind those shareholders stand the ordinary people who are so concerned about what is going on.
  Mr. Stephen Timms: Does the difficulty not lie in the fact that customers of those companies are the victims of what is happening? Shareholders may, in a narrow sense, think that they benefit from that activity, hut surely it is the customers who are suffering. They are the ones who need to he given a voice.
  Mr. Smith: I do not accept that customers are suffering. The amounts involving customers are trivial. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade recently gave some figures about British Gas. They

  1439
  showed that, if the director of British Gas were paid nothing, the annual benefit to each customer would be trivial. I do not think that it is a matter for customers.
  The other important point is that, since privatisation, both the customers and shareholders of those companies have benefited. If one takes British Gas, in the past nine years, the price of gas has fallen by 20 per cent. in real terms. At the same time, the business's profitability has increased substantially, because new pressure has been placed on management to become more efficient and to drive costs down. As profitability has risen, so has the share price.
  Mr. Timms: May I give the hon. Gentleman the example of Thames Water? Last week, it was revealed that it had agreed with the regulator that it would invest £2.1 billion, and that it would set its prices according to that agreement. Now it has emerged that, in the next five years, it will invest only £1.75 billion; therefore, it is investing significantly less than had been agreed. Undoubtedly that is boosting the share price and share options, but it is leading to inadequate investment in Thames Water's infrastructure in its region. That is of particular concern to my constituents.
  Thames Water is undertaking major sewer renovation work in my constituency in an extremely penny-pinching way, which is causing enormous difficulties for my constituents. The arrangement whereby Thames Water's objective boosts its share price, and therefore share options, is causing the problems.
  Mr. Smith: I am not familiar with the details of Thames Water. Some of my constituents are customers, so I would be concerned about that matter. The normal effect, however, of reducing investment is to reduce profitability. Last week, North West Water announced that extra dividends would be paid to shareholders, and that there would be extra investment for customers, and a reduction in customers' bills.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
  Mr. SmithM: I am sure that my hon. Friend is pleased about that, because the customers will benefit along with the shareholders. That has been the double benefit of privatisation.
  I still think that the hest way to tackle share option schemes is to try to persuade shareholders to do something about them. The Greenbury committee has been criticised because it consists, or so it is alleged, of the very people who are abusing the system, but they are the people best placed to deal with the matter.
  Behind institutional shareholders stand the millions of people who put money into pension schemes. Every hon. Member has an interest, because our pension scheme has no doubt been invested in British Gas, and in water, electricity and other companies. If we consider the pension scheme's accounts, we shall find that it is no different from any other pension scheme.
  Pension scheme members and people who invest in life policies stand behind institutional shareholders. If those people were able to have more of a say in the matter, something would be done about it.
  Ms Margaret Hodge: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman thinks that shareholders should exert greater pressure. The Government are a substantial
  1440
  shareholder in both PowerGen and National Power. Does he therefore agree that the Government have failed in their duty to protect the public's interest by not exerting their shareholder powers in those companies?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Lady is a few weeks out of date, as the Government sold their remaining shareholding in those companies a few weeks ago. The Government are, of course, a unique shareholder. I am not in favour of the Government using their shareholding to achieve those objectives. The Government used to interfere in nationalised industries for all sorts of nefarious reasons that had nothing to do with providing a decent service. It is down to shareholders. After all, directors will benefit from discretionary share option schemes only if the share price rises; otherwise, they will not.
  Since privatisation, electricity businesses have been far more successful in driving down costs than anyone—including the Treasury and the City—had anticipated. Nobody had understood just how inefficient the electricity companies were when they were owned by the Government. Generally, nationalised industries are inefficient. Costs have been driven down substantially. As a result, profits have risen rapidly. As a consequence, the share price has risen rapidly.
  Perhaps the regulator should have taken a tougher stance; that is another issue. Management has been successful in producing more efficient companies. The share price has risen. Why should not the directors of companies benefit in those circumstances? That is what a share option scheme is about.
  As I said in Committee, it is not widely appreciated that retained profits, and not money borrowed from banks or raised on the stock exchange, arc the main source of investment for companies. Those profits are important. The profitability of industry is extremely important. In any company, the principal people who can determine the profitability level are, of course, the senior management—the directors. That is why it is right that a special discretionary share options scheme should be widely available. It encourages efficiency, more investment and more profitability.
  Particular cases of abuse in privatised utilities have been mentioned. We must move as quickly as we can away from their monopolistic position by injecting more competition into the system. That is what the Government are doing.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Is not the whole point that we are talking about privatised monopolies? That is the base from which directors work. They do not do anything over and above what other shareholders do. Those shareholders take risks, but no risk was involved for those directors. They work in privatised monopolies. Surely the Government should have done something at an early stage.
  Mr. Smith: It is true that those companies have not been subject to the same competition as, for example, major retailers, which face intense competition, but they have been subjected at least to the pressures that come from having shareholders. As a consequence, they have become much more efficient. They have driven their costs down. It is right that management should be rewarded for that.

  1441
  I agree, however, that we need to go further and to remove, as far as we can, those companies' monopolistic status. That is what we are doing with the Gas Bill, which introduces competition at all levels of the gas supply industry. We shall have the same provision for the electricity industry. Such competition will not be introduced in the water industry, which is a natural monopoly, where it is much more difficult to inject competition. I accept that, but it is important to introduce competition into the system so that management are subject to the same pressures as people in other businesses.
  Mr. Timms: How is it possible to introduce competition into the water industry? In reality, cannot costs be cut in that industry only by reducing the level of service to the customers?
  Mr. Smith: I know that it is difficult to introduce competition into the water industry, because I made an inquiry after we passed the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992, which introduces an element of competition into the water industry. I am a customer of the Three Valleys water company, and Thames Water is half a mile down the road, so I wrote to Thames Water to see whether I could change suppliers. It told me that, if I paid £10,000 to have the main extended to my house, I would be welcome to buy its water.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that competition in the supply of water is more difficult to organise, but it can be done on the same basis as it is being done for gas. The pipes could be kept in public ownership, and different suppliers could supply the water. It is possible, but it is much more difficult.
  As far as possible, we need more competition to put the utilities on the same basis as other businesses. These are the right pressures to place on those companies, rather than trying to tackle the problem through the tax system. It is tempting to try to use the tax system to achieve different, social objectives but I do not believe that we should do so in this instance.
  6 pm
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) is no longer in his place because he mentioned greed and envy. I find it interesting that every time we discuss this matter, Conservative Members use those words. That says rather a lot about them and their view of remuneration and not quite so much about Opposition Members.
  The hon. Member for Wirral, South failed to recall that one person who has prosecuted the case for a more equitable means of controlling share options is Mr. Alistair Ross Goobey, chief executive of POSTEL, who is not known for his radical views or support of Labour Members as he was previously a special adviser to a Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Indeed, I am interested in several points made by Conservative Members about share options because they merely highlight the point that the Member for Wirral, South made: we are debating a divided society, a them-and-us society, and most people in the advanced world who are concerned about the operation of industry in the public and private sectors are very much aware of the need to reduce the them-and-us divide.
  1442
  It is extremely difficult to convince people, in this week of all weeks, when they are about to have the 20th increase in taxation since the Government were elected, that those who control the privatised utilities should be treated more favourably by the tax system than those who actually work in those industries and the rest of us, who will face increased taxation from 6 April.
  It beggars belief that Conservative Members can be so naive as not to see the inequities in the system. New clause 1, which I support, gives us a minor opportunity to consider in some detail the difficulties that have arisen as a result of discretionary share options in privatised utilities.
  A debate is being held in this country about the effectiveness of share options. The same debate is taking place in the United States, where there is concern in the private sector about the use of stock options to allow remuneration of senior managers in a way that is not directly affected by the performance of the industries in which they are employed.
  The debate is meaningful because there is considerable evidence to show that granting share options does not so much affect the performance of an industry as the performance of its share price. The share price and the performance of an industry are in many cases not directly related. Indeed, when the time comes for the publication of annual accounts, it is possible through creative accounting to make the operation of a business look much better than it has in fact been.
  I would be much more convinced of the rectitude of those who argue for share option schemes if they were also prepared to build disincentives into the remuneration structure. When a company's share price increases, senior executives benefit. If there is a reduction in the share price or performance of that company, why should not those who run the company be disadvantaged? We should be in a position where true targets are set for businesses in place of the rather bizarre structure of share options that we have at the moment.
  It is only in this country, the United States and France that such tax-attractive schemes tend to be introduced for senior executives. Most other countries recognise the true value of building a structure where employers and employees share together in the destiny of a company and are motivated by the destiny of that company, whether it be in the public or private sector.
  Mr. Legg: Is the hon. Lady aware that 36,000 employees of British Gas benefit from share-related incentive schemes of some sort?
  Mrs. Liddell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that there are different kinds of share option schemes. The 36,000 ordinary employees of British Gas usually benefit from savings-related share schemes and tend to be less able to have an impact on the share price than the senior executives who can directly affect it.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) mentioned the impact that institutional shareholders can have on controlling the excesses of senior management. That was a preposterous suggestion. Part of the argument of Mr. Ross Goobey has been that institutional shareholders are limited in their ability to control the senior management of companies. There is an informal network that operates among institutional shareholders. They are the same people, usually male and usually from

  1443
  the same schools, and they are recycled time and again. They turn up at the same annual meetings, eat the same prawn cocktails and have the same impact on the share remuneration schemes because they benefit from share remuneration schemes.
  I hope that the Financial Secretary will make it clear how it is equitable that the taxation system that applies to the sale of share options should be different from that which applies to other aspects of earned income. That is extremely difficult to explain to members of the public who, like my constituents, see their service from British Gas reduced by the closure of gas showrooms. There are fears about what will happen to assistance for disabled people from the gas industry.
  It is difficult to explain to people why senior executives in the gas industry can choose when to activate their options and can phase in the activation of their options over time to take advantage of allowances that are available through capital gains tax. They can even pass on those share options to their spouse to allow their wife or husband to benefit from those share options and from the capital allowances that are available to them.
  That is manifestly unfair and people are not that gullible. They see that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest of us. The privatised utilities have been seen as basic to the structure of our country. They mainly operate as monopolies or quasi-monopolies. Those who are or have been in a position to benefit from the first tranches of share options—and they were granted options at a rate that was greatly deflated and had been massively underestimated—can now become millionaires, in some cases millionaires many times over.
  The new clause seeks only a rational report and analysis of what is happening and of the impact on the Exchequer of the proposals so that people can make genuine judgments. It was not so very long ago that we were told by the Prime Minister of his commitment to ending inequality. The most fundamental inequality is this system of share options, which is unfair and inefficient. No one can put hand on heart and prove that the existence of share options dramatically improves, or in any way affects, the performance of a company or of an executive. Research published at the weekend suggested that the schemes have a limited impact on improving company performance.
  The Financial Secretary has the opportunity to instigate an examination into the operation of such schemes and their impact on the economy and to consider the structure of the tax system in such a way as to get rid of the inequalities and convince the people that the Government are not prepared just to govern in the interests of the few at the expense of the many.
  Mr. George Stevenson: I think that I am right in saying that the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill had 25 sittings. Obviously, it discussed many issues, but I suspect that this is the one that the public will consider very carefully. It is difficult to identify many of the other issues that we discussed in our number-crunching sittings in Committee as being in the forefront of public consciousness.
  The public will carefully watch the Government's reaction to the new clause, which is not a radical attempt to bring down the Government, much as we would like to do so, but merely asks for a report back to the House. Why do we want such a report? We are talking about the
  1444
  principle of discretionary approved share option schemes, which are of massive public concern, as has been accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  We are also considering the way in which such schemes are taxed. Approved schemes are taxed not as earned income but as a capital gain—I would argue about the concept of earned income, but perhaps that is an argument for another day. As far as I and many members of the public can see, the share option schemes have been established by a relatively small cabal and have enabled executives to freeload on privatized monopolies—Conservative Members have accepted that they are such monopolies—and to gain tremendously.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), who made a considerable contribution to the Standing Committee—some of it was useful and no doubt he would say the same for Opposition Members—was striking, but I gained the feeling that, the longer that he went on, the more desperate he became. Having created the conditions in which abuses—the word that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield used—can take place, the Government are turning their faces steadfastly against any reports to the House on those abuses, which is interesting. The public will be rightly outraged if they perceive that executive share options are being used to line the pockets of people who have done nothing to earn such largesse, while the Government refuse the House the opportunity to study in more detail the effect that the schemes are having on revenue. The new clause is the minimum that the public can expect as regards knowing exactly what is going on.
  6.15 pm
  I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, and the other thing that shocked me about his speech was that he tried to argue that such executive share option schemes are necessary to encourage executive directors to work hard. It is interesting that Mr. Cedric Brown has to have nearly £700,000 worth of share options to work harder, but people in gas showrooms have to have a 3 per cent. pay cut to make them do so. It is a nice philosophical question, with which the Government singularly failed to deal throughout our debates in Committee.
  The Government have also failed to recognise the chronic sense of injustice and unfairness that is felt throughout the country about the way in which executive share option schemes are operating. For some reason that is beyond me, the Government simply refuse to recognise it and the new clause is extremely important in that regard.
  Many of us will be watching with great interest. In reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said that the Government had disposed of their 40 per cent. shareholding in PowerGen and National Power. Another task is coming up, however, and it will be a test of the Government's approach to the issue. What will be their attitude to the give-away of the national grid? It was valued at £1 billion and handed over as the most massive Christmas present in history to the regional electricity companies, which are going to give it away, throw it away, privatise it, or sell it off for £4 billion—and that is the conservative estimate. What have the executive directors of the regional electricity companies done to warrant that massive unearned profit? They have done

  1445
  absolutely nothing. We shall watch extremely carefully how the Government approach the latest instalment of the largesse represented by the executive share option schemes.
  Why should there be a report to the House? I mentioned the fact that the public are extremely concerned about the issue. The House should reflect that concern. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will recognise that it exists and that this is the place to deal with it.
  It appears that the shares of the companies involved have gone up not only because they were undervalued in the first place but because many hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost in the past few years. That is bad enough, but the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) spoke of envy and jealousy. He should speak to my constituents, and to those of every other hon. Member who have lost their jobs as a result of those very same executive directors and ask them what they feel about envy, jealousy and the feel-good factor. He should ask them how they feel about the fact that the privatised utilities seem to be employing a strategy of maintaining or increasing their share value at whatever cost not in the interests of the country or of investment but because they are constantly looking over their shoulders for the next hostile takeover hid. Those issues are not peripheral; they arc fundamental and are rightly reflected in the public's concern.
  The least that the House can do is support the new clause, which proposes that the Government should report to Parliament so that extremely important issues can be examined in more detail. If Conservative Members vote in the Lobby to defeat the new clause, as we expect they will, I do not believe for a moment that the great British public will understand their action.
  Ms Hodge: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on his speech, which was excellent and reasonable. It is difficult to understand how anyone could not be moved by such reason. This would be a sad day if Conservative Members were moved by party interests rather than national interests in rejecting this small move to bring to public account an issue that has caused such outrage in the community at large.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) said, the Prime Minister is on record as saying at Prime Minister's questions that he believes that it is the Government's responsibility to reduce inequality. The new clause strikes at the heart of that obligation.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) reiterated what many other Tory Members have said—that everybody has benefited from the efficiencies gained from privatising public utilities. Were there efficiencies to be gained, there is no reason why they could not have been gained while retaining those utilities in the public sector. If they were not attained, it is because of the Government's inefficiency and it reflects their mismanagement of those important sectors of the economy. It has nothing to do with privatising the public utilities.
  The Labour party wants an economy that is run in the public interest. Two essential features of such an economy are fairness and openness, both of which are severely undermined by the scandal of discretionary share option schemes in the privatised utilities, particularly when
  1446
  low-paid workers are being offered paltry wage increases. We have had considerable interest recently in demonstrations by health service workers about the 1 per cent. pay increase that has been guaranteed nationally. Everybody's sense of social justice—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must address the majority of her speech to discretionary share option schemes. Other allusions are acceptable, but so far the minority of her comments have related to the new clause.
  Ms Hodge: I understand what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to juxtapose the two areas of public interest.
  It adds insult to injury when people cannot even hold those responsible for such huge gains made through discretionary share option schemes to account for their actions. That is the purpose of the new clause.
  We have already witnessed a massive unfair pay explosion among the bosses of the private monopolies. For example, last year the board of National Power awarded itself a 25 per cent. increase in remuneration, which was in stark contrast to the 4 per cent. average increase for its employees. The gap between the pay of people in the boardroom and people on the shop floor is even more stark. A comparison of last year and the year before privatisation shows that the total remuneration package for the highest-paid directors of the privatised utilities rose by an average of 321 per cent. In three of the privatised utilities, the directors gave themselves rises of more than 400 per cent. The boss of North West Water heads what I consider to he the roll of shame with an increase of 619 per cent.
  Share option schemes are another side of the same coin. Some £500 million was paid out to just nine directors of PowerGen and National Power last year alone. That is an average of more than £500,000 each, which would be enough to pay for an extra 30 staff in a hospital or more than 100 full-time places in a good nursery school. Have we got our national priorities right? In addition, a further £18 million is yet to be cashed in by the very same directors and chief executives. Last year alone, the chief executives of PowerGen and National Power earned more than £l million each in pay and share options, and they are set to make a further £1 million each in the coming year. It is a scandal of momentous proportions.
  The greatest scandal of all is National Grid, as this year alone its chairman could make an astounding £2 million, almost £1.8 million of which is immediate share option profits. That is in a company that is yet to trade properly. With such handouts, the Government are giving private ownership a bad name.
  Those are just a selection of the abuses being committed by the private utilities. We object not to rewards for excellence, entrepreneurship or enterprise but to the fact that the bosses of those private monopolies vote themselves handsome packages whereas their employees are forced to tighten their belts and consumers must make ends meet. More often than not, they are not new people who have been attracted into those industries since privatisation but the same old faces who arc making a quick buck because there is nobody around to stop them doing so. That is the unacceptable face of capitalism.
  The new clause simply seeks to make this area a little more transparent and open it up to public scrutiny. Parliament has a duty to monitor the operation of those

  1447
  share option schemes. Furthermore, I cannot see the argument against taxing share options as income. People have a right to know what is happening, how much a small number of very well-paid people are earning and what potential revenues are being lost to the public purse by the Government's refusal to tax share options as income. The new clause simply provides a new opportunity to put that information in the public domain.
  The Government have claimed that those issues are the business of shareholders, and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield seemed to support that view. In a private monopoly that serves a vital public interest, such a contention is wrong. The Government have a responsibility to consider the interests of the general public, consumers and the environment. Shareholders could have greater opportunities to hold their utility bosses to account by electing a remuneration committee, to include people who are not on the board of directors. It could be told the pay and perks of individual board members and could vote on their remuneration.
  The Government have a duty to act to safeguard the interests of taxpayers and consumers. Monopoly industries simply cannot be left to their own devices in the hope that, at some time in the future, some sort of competition will emerge.
  Last week, we were lobbied by users and workers of the health and education services. The contrast between their situation and that of the people whom we are discussing tonight could not be more stark. It is a classic case of private greed against public need; of the interests of the many against the privileges of the few.
  There is widespread public concern that the House and the Government have got their priorities badly wrong. The new clause provides the means of starting to undo that damage. We should start to hold the privatised utilities to public account. New clause 1 provides the foundation for doing so and I commend it to the House.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: I wonder whether Conservative Members will dare to venture out in the next few weeks to canvass during the local government elections. I wonder whether that possibility offers them any great opportunities or is a pleasant prospect to them.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury might like to come to my constituency and knock on one or two doors. Perhaps he could introduce himself with the words, "I am here from the Government. I have come to help you." I am sure that one of the instinctive responses from the people he spoke to would be that they consider that the Government are extremely unfair. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be offered many anecdotes to back up that instinct, but what would come out most strongly is how unfair people consider share option schemes and other pay excesses in the privatised utilities. People feel incensed about that. They feel that it is wrong and that the Government should do something about it.
  People are angry because their basic sense of reasonableness has been offended by such excessive pay increases and share option schemes. They are angry that directors and the like are receiving mega sums of money, which those people could not possibly dream of, unless, perhaps, they won the lottery. People are also angry that
  1448
  the Government either do not want to, or cannot, do anything about those excesses—either way, people are angry.
  People are aggrieved not only because their basic sense of fairness has been offended but because those excesses carry a basic hallmark of the Government and their policies—their inability to act. Week after week, the Prime Minister came to the Chamber and said that such share options were not the Government's responsibility. He said that the Government had merely been responsible for privatising the utilities and introducing the regulations that govern them. He claimed, however, that the Government were not responsible for share option schemes and other pay excesses. Then, suddenly, one Prime Minister's Question Time, in one sentence, the right hon. Gentleman sold a dummy that sent all his hon. Friends the wrong way, when he said that he was concerned about the issue. He had claimed that it was nothing to do with the Government and all to do with the utility companies and their directors, but, suddenly, he accepted that the issue caused him concern. He did not promise any action, however, but said that the Government would await the Greenbury report. That is unacceptable.
  The Greenbury committee, however well intentioned, is equivalent to the captains of industry reporting on themselves. It is no substitute for the Government taking a view and proposing some measures to deal with the matter. It is almost as though a new word has entered the English language. In future, "to Greenbury" may mean to delegate an issue which one feels uncomfortable about and about which one has no real idea what to do, in the basic hope that it will go away.
  That seems to be the Government's attitude. They feel uncomfortable about share options, but they have no idea what to do about them. They hope that if they refer the problem to some committee that will report some months later, the steam will go out of the issue and it will go away. In that way, they hope that they will not have to make any difficult choices.
  That is not the public's reaction to share options. They are angry at the unfairness, because directors vote for such schemes for themselves. Those directors decide how much money they should award themselves. Most people do not feel that that is right, not least because the Government have created the circumstances by which directors can make such decisions. The public also believe that directors are voting themselves pay increases through share option schemes to reward themselves for doing precisely the same job as they did before their companies were privatised. That may not be true of every utility, but it is true of the water industry, whose chairmen and chief executives are doing precisely the same job, with no more competition than that to which they were subject before privatisation. Those individuals have voted pay awards for themselves.
  Share option schemes do not represent an attempt to involve executives in the ownership of a company. They are not the means by which, in the long term, executives will receive genuine rewards for the way in which they have managed their company and because that company has become more efficient. Those share options are one-way tickets, because it is not possible to make a loss. If the share price goes down, the executives suffer no loss; they simply fail to make a windfall gain. That offends people, including many in industry who may have made

  1449
  arrangements in the past whereby they took a stake in a company as managers and directors. They lost as well as gained when share prices went down and up. Those individuals sat on a company board for a number of years and were genuinely responsible for the management and running of their company as part-owners of it. They benefited or lost accordingly. Share option schemes do not operate in the same way. They are one-way bets, which result in winners only and no losers. That offends people greatly.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) is not in his place, but today he repeated the argument he made in Committee about retained profits. I accept that they are an important means of investment, but as the Opposition made clear in Committee, the problem with this country is the low level of retained profits. Share option schemes are an incentive because, although the beneficiaries may not keep them for a long time—usually they sell them quickly to make a profit—executives are keen to pay out dividends to boost share prices in the short term. In that way, those executives make their gains by selling the shares that are part of their share option scheme packages. That is what they are all about. They are not an incentive to retain profits for investment.
  Reasonable people are offended when they hear about cases like that of one of my constituents, whom I saw today. Mrs. Wells, from Darnall in my constituency, lives beside a brook. In the past few months, the river served by that brook has gone into full flow several times due to heavy rainfall, and when that happens, the brook becomes an open sewer. As it flows over my constituent's garden wall, it carries with it raw sewage, which then flows past my constituent's home. That pollutes the river, creates an awful smell and attracts rats, which have even entered her home.
  My constituent has asked Yorkshire Water to invest sufficient money in its next five-year capital programme to deal with the problem, but it has said that it cannot afford to do so. It has told her that it does not have sufficient money from its retained profits to afford that. In the next five years, however, what Yorkshire Water will pay in share option schemes to its directors is more than it would cost it to make a modest investment to deal with the raw sewage that passes the home of someone who lives 50 yd from a major shopping centre. That is unacceptable. It is another reason for people's outrage and why they believe that share option schemes are grievously unfair and action is needed to tackle them.
  The Labour party has made a number of basic proposals to deal with the problem, and that the Government could adopt if they were minded to. We have argued for greater disclosure. It is all right for Conservative Members to say that shareholders are told about share option schemes, but why were we treated to the performance of Cedric Brown before the Select Committee on Employment? He had to have his pay package extracted from him as if having teeth drawn without anaesthetic. He did not want to give that information and others have been embarrassed by what he said, because he was too up front. The name of the game has been to vote pay packages through in such a way that companies hope that no one notices what is going on. Nasty questions will thus be avoided. There must be a better system of disclosure.
  1450
  The Cadbury proposals must be extended, so that separate remuneration committees, made up of those who do not stand to benefit, vote for share option schemes. Basic reasonableness must be introduced into the system. It should be a basic tenet of the operation of such share schemes that the people who benefit from them do not vote for them. Go and ask the public about that. I do not believe that anyone would find one person in a hundred who felt that that proposal was unfair. Why do the Government not do something about that?
  Why are not the schemes taxed as income? Conservative Members say that there is only £6,000 of untaxed income. Many people who live in my constituency do not earn £6,000 a year, let alone £6,000 of untaxed income. For many people, £6,000 is a great deal of money. When Conservative Members say that it is only £6,000, they badly misjudge public opinion.
  Why should the regulator be worried about share option schemes? We have clearly demonstrated that they are linked to prices, profits and investment. They make up one package, and the Government have to adopt an opinion of the whole. The regulator has been given powers, which we believe need to be extended.
  The new clause is fundamentally mild and moderate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) said, it is reasonable and moderate. We have not asked for all the things that we have said need to be done. We ask only that a report be made to the House to let the House know precisely what is going on and what is the impact of those schemes; whether, in total, the Exchequer and the British public gain or lose from those schemes.
  We have already had a clear demonstration that the Government are incapable of acting on the issue. Are they now also incapable of providing information about it? Or is it not their capacity that is in doubt, but their desire to produce a report on that issue? Are they so embarrassed about it that they want to avoid further debate? If that is the case, people will not judge them kindly for their disgraceful attitude towards the issue. The Government should be prepared to produce a report and let the people know precisely what is going on.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: This issue is not about greed, envy or even political advantage, as the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) suggested. It is about fairness and equity. Every Conservative Member who has spoken has recognised that the problem exists, but none has come up with a solution.
  It will be interesting to hear the way in which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replies to the debate. I hope that he will not push us to one side and tell us to wait for the Greenbury recommendations. I hope that he will tackle the issue because, if the regulator cannot consider the matter, the only organisation that can consider it is the Inland Revenue, via the tax system, and that is where the Minister's responsibility lies.
  It is patently unfair that executives of privatised utilities make large sums when they are devoting no more effort to their work than they did when they worked for public utilities that benefited everyone. When those public utilities were privatised, the Government said that they would be privatised for the greater good and that many people would benefit. That was not the case. In that respect, we have witnessed the classic unfairness that has become a trademark of this Government.

  1451
  The Government recognise the problem. They say that the money does not matter, but those people have benefited to the tune of £150 million. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) said that 36,000 people in British Gas also have share option schemes. They do, but those share option schemes are usually "buy one, get one free" schemes, in which people have to invest their own money and take the risks. The executives have taken no risks and made no investment.
  I hope that the Financial Secretary, who is very eloquent and who has been eloquent in Committee, will give the answer for the Government. It is no good the Prime Minister recognising that there is a problem but not suggesting a solution. Lei us have it. Will the Government tell us what they will do about those abuses, or shall we hear nothing from the Government, as we forecast? That is patently unfair. It is not a party political issue. People throughout the spectrum are upset about those abuses, and it is about time that the Government did something about them.
  Mr. Ian Pearson: I extend a warm welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and assure him, as a fellow Member of Parliament for the black country, that the anger and disgust felt about discretionary share option schemes among the private utilities is as strong and severe in Dudley, West as it is in Walsall.
  Let me say at once that the directors of private utilities have done nothing illegal. All that they have done is to join the club, albeit with gathering haste in some cases. I suppose that it is the modern equivalent of the key to the executive washroom. It is the key to the executive dosh room of cosy remuneration committees, offering sybaritic salary perks to directors for what they should be doing anyway, which is acting in the best interests of their companies.
  We have to draw a distinction between legislation pertaining to the privatised utilities and legislation relating to companies that are subject to the full forces of market competition, but what is basically at fault is some very lax legislation as regards Inland Revenue-approved executive share option schemes. Those schemes offer a perk because, rather than income tax, capital gains tax is payable on share options, which can be deferred almost indefinitely. Those schemes also offer an extremely generous treatment whereby share options up to the level of four times inflated salaries can be awarded to directors and senior executives.
  Only the few benefit. We have heard talk about 36,000 people in British Gas who benefit from share-linked option schemes. The directors of British Gas who benefit from share-linked option schemes—they obviously have far greater schemes than any of the individual employees—have benefited to the tune of about 50,000 shares. Contrast that with their discretionary share options, whereby they have been awarded 1.3 million shares. That shows the scale of difference between properly organised share incentive schemes and executive share option schemes, which are a one-way bet and a perk to directors.
  6.45 pm
  One fact that has not been fully discussed in the debate but that has merit is that discretionary share option schemes can provide some benefit to consumers who have
  1452
  pensions that are invested in those companies, and who therefore benefit from the increase in the share price. That has been mentioned by some Conservative Members.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House must recognise that there is tension between the interests of two groups of people. On one hand, consumers whose pensions may be invested in share option schemes may benefit because directors are given an incentive and are focused on improving share performance. On the other, consumers may suffer from the consequences when certain companies are run in an aggressively short-term profit-maximising way in a deliberate attempt to boost the share price and thereby increase directors' income. That is one of the reasons why a report is very much needed, because there are potential benefits as well as the extreme costs of executive share option schemes of which we are all aware.
  It is important to recognise the practical difficulties when Conservative Members speak of the need to enfranchise the people who stand behind shareholders. The shareholders of most of the private utilities are very much the shareholding institutions. I do not know how I, as a personal pension plan holder before I came to the House, could talk to the person who sold me a pension and say, "By the way, can you talk to someone who can talk to someone who can ensure that, at the next annual general meeting, you vote against those discretionary share options?" Similarly, I do not think that the House of Commons Members' pension scheme can exercise any reasonable legitimate influence on those companies at annual general meetings.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has a good idea in trying to enfranchise those who stand behind shareholders, but I can envisage no practicable means by which that can be exercised.
  Mr. Tim Smith: As an example of what already happens, we already have ethical investment and unit trusts. An individual can choose to invest in one of those trusts because it has, for example, made a policy decision not to invest in tobacco companies, drinks companies or whatever.
  Mr. Pearson: I am well aware of ethical investment trusts and I have been pleased to note that their share fund performance has in many instances outperformed those of unit trusts that invest in a broader spectrum of companies without imposing those narrow criteria. I do not think that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is seriously suggesting that shareholder pressure can operate in a broader sense against executive share option schemes, other than in those limited ethical considerations.
  The simple fact is that a report is needed badly to investigate why directors of privatised utilities need executive share options at extremely lucrative levels to do what they should be doing anyway—acting in the best interests of their company—and why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) said, it can be right and reasonable that a director needs a £700,000 package to make him improve his performance when his staff are expected to accept a 3 per cent. wage cut to encourage them to increase their performance. That cannot be right.
  Sir George Young: During the debate on new clause 1, Opposition Members have focused on what they perceive to be excesses resulting from the privatisation of

  1453
  the utilities. That part of the debate has been rather narrow. They have argued that consumers and taxpayers have been disadvantaged. If one stands back and looks at the policy as a whole, that is demonstrably not the case.
  To begin with, let us take, for example, the interests of taxpayers. When we came into office, taxpayers were losing about £50 million a week through funds invested through the nationalised industries. From the industries that we have privatised, we are now getting £50 million a week coming in, so there has been a massive turnaround in the fortunes of the nationalised industries.
  The figures which concern the taxpayer totally dwarf some of the figures mentioned in this debate. Before 1979, by and large, prices for consumers were going up and, by and large, they are now going down. The case on which new clause 1 is founded—that there has been some disadvantage to taxpayers and consumers through privatising the utilities—simply does not stand up to any examination at all.
  What I found more worrying about the speeches of Opposition Members, with the exception of that from the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), was that nobody touched on the principle of whether it was worth trying to link the fortunes of a company and its shareholders with the interests of senior executives. I believe that there is a case for bridging the gap between employers and shareholders by promoting executive option schemes and the hon. Member for Monklands, East recognised it. The whole tone of the debate was critical of the principle of share option schemes for senior executives. To put the matter in some perspective, the average value of shares covered by executive share option schemes is £22,000, not the exorbitant figures mentioned by some hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) began by demanding action. If one looks at new clause 1, one sees that it would not produce any action at all, it would produce a report. I shall say in a moment why I do not believe that that report is necessary. I was pleased to hear that, instead of using the figures that the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has sometimes used, the hon. Member for Oxford, East used the figure of £60 million as the cost of executive share option schemes and abandoned the more extravagant claims which we have sometimes heard. The hon. Gentleman accused the Government of subcontracting their policy on this matter to the Greenbury committee—we are certainly not doing that—and he then subcontracted most of his speech to Paul Foot.
  Our case is that the system has worked well for consumers. Consider what has happened to the caps. The regulators, by and large, have tightened the caps post-privatisation. BT started off at a retail prices index of minus 3 per cent. and it is now minus 7.5 per cent.
  I was grateful for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). His views contrasted with what was said by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who believes that the regulator should intervene and said that he wanted him to interfere, regardless of whether that makes any difference to consumers' bills. The reality is that many Opposition Members are interested only in the politics of envy, regardless of any benefit to the consumer.
  1454
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made two points on which I want to touch. One of them was replicated by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). The hon. Member for Walsall, North alleged that those who now run the privatised utilities are doing the same work as before. That simply is not the case. I speak as someone who once worked for a nationalised industry. When industries are nationalised, Ministers and civil servants take a large number of the decisions, such as those about the size of the investment programme.
  The nationalised industries were overmanned and not particularly well run. They certainly did very little exporting. So it is not the case that those who now run the privatised utilities are doing exactly the same work as those who ran them before. I was delighted, however, to see the hon. Member for Walsall, North back after a spell away. He was looking much better at the end of his speech than at the beginning, so I assume that that is some part of his therapy in which it was a pleasure to take part.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) rightly posed the question of why we should pick out the privatised utilities. Why single them out? They are in the private sector. There is no case in principle why they should have a different regime to other industries in the private sector.
  Mr. David Shaw: My right hon. Friend will have noticed that I tabled an amendment to the new clause. Why does he think that the Opposition are moving this new clause, which hits home at the directors and executives in the privatised utilities, but ignores other directors, especially those in the broadcasting industry, such as the directors of London Weekend Television who had lavish pay-outs on their share options and then donated a large part of them to the Labour leader's leadership campaign? Is there some preference between the Labour leader's election campaign and the fact that executives may be benefiting by helping the nation?
  Sir George Young: If my hon. Friend's amendment had been in order, I would, of course, have been able to answer that question. As it is, the House will just have to guess what the answer might have been.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield also rightly made the point that the shareholders bear the cost of executive share options. It is they who are agreeing to diluting their interest in the company by allowing others to buy shares in the company at a preferential price. He made the point that the consumers benefit. He also said that one should examine the role of competition as an extra dimension in bringing pressure to hear on prices. In the Gas Bill, which is going through the House, we are implementing that principle.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, East implied that the options were transferable to a spouse. They are not. She may have been alluding to the possibility of transferring the shares after the option has been exercised, but that is not what she said.
  The House will not be surprised to hear that I cannot advise hon. Members to accept the new clause. The Inland Revenue publishes annually figures of the Exchequer costs for past years of the various tax-relieved employee financial participation schemes, including executive share option schemes. The Revenue does not break those global cost figures down between particular groups of companies and I see no good policy reason why it should.

  1455
  In any event, there is a considerable amount of relevant information in the public domain. Companies are required by the Companies Act 1985 to maintain a register, which anyone can inspect, in which details of directors' interests in the companies' shares must be recorded. Where the scheme involves the issue of new shares, the register must show the number of shares under option, the period during which the option is exercisable and the exercise price. When options are exercised, it must be also be recorded in the register. The company is also obliged by law to list in its annual report or accounts the interests of its directors in the company's shares.
  The stock exchange listing rules require listed companies to obtain shareholder approval at an annual general meeting for any share option schemes that involve or may involve the issue of new shares. The rules also require companies to give details to the stock exchange of all directors' share option schemes and of directors' interests in the company's shares. Much of the information mentioned in the new clause is already in the public domain. In any event, I see no basis on which the Inland Revenue could be expected to estimate the future cost of those schemes, as is required in the new clause.
  Share option schemes are intended to enable companies to motivate key executives and the aim is to improve company profitability and so to benefit all shareholders, including, as was made clear in the debate, pensioners. As I said when we debated this subject in Committee, we need to remember that the main cost of such schemes falls properly on those who chiefly benefit from them—the companies and their shareholders. They carry the principal cost, not the customer nor, indeed, the taxpayer.
  Tax relief schemes can be designed to link the exercise of options directly with performance. I welcome the fact that it is increasingly recognised as best practice for companies to ensure that the exercise of options depends on the attainment of tough performance targets. A recent survey found that 90 per cent. of companies floated last year intend to set targets. Indeed, the institutional investors, the Association of British Insurers and the National Association of Pension Funds, insist that it is fundamental to the exercise of options that they be subject to a realistic measure of management performance, as that is in the best interests of the company, its shareholders, customers and employees.
  7 pm
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few weeks ago that bonuses and share options should be based on the performance of a company, and that stricter criteria may be required for the price at which shares are issued and for the circumstances in which they are exercised. All those matters are currently being examined by Sir Richard Greenbury's committee, whose report we await.
  We have no quarrel with the idea that executives should be asked to deliver enhanced performance if they are to enjoy the benefits that share options can bring, but it is as well to remember that, unless the people at the top pull their weight and achieve good results, no one wins. If the company does not do well and the share price fails to rise, options deliver no rewards to the executives who hold them.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister noted that the recommendations of the committee would be addressed to companies and shareholders, but he has also said that the Government would be ready to consider any proposals
  1456
  that might require legislative back-up. In short, we shall be considering further the whole question of executive remuneration—including share options—in the light of the committee's findings.
  I conclude by reminding the House that, under the last Labour Government, electricity prices rose by 2 per cent. every six weeks. Under this Government, they have fallen. The House now needs to ask itself: under which management regime do consumers really prosper? Our case is that they prosper under ours. Consequently I invite the House to reject new clause 1.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I should like to acknowledge the powerful arguments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), for Barking (Ms Hodge), for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe). I warmly welcome back to the Chamber our hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). It was good to see him making a characteristically robust contribution to the debate.
  Replying to the debate, the Financial Secretary spent more time attempting to defend privatisation than defending the—admittedly indefensible—abuses of executive share options. In that respect he differed from the hon. Members for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), who at least acknowledged that there was a problem and that something needed to be done. They must have been as disappointed as we were not to hear any promise of Government action.
  The Minister did not deal with the case that my hon. Friends have made. Action is needed on the ground of fairness, and because of our responsibility for taxpayers' money. It is especially needed in the case of the privatised utilities because of their ability to exploit their monopolies and because of the fact that their share options are a one-way bet.
  Having said that the Government were not subcontracting their policy on this matter to the Greenbury committee, the Financial Secretary proceeded to do just that: he said that action would follow Greenbury. That is not good enough. I commend our new clause to the House. Let us show the public that we want to act against these outrageous abuses of share options.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 283.

  Division No. 123]

  [7.03 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ainger, Nick

  Benton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Allen, Graham

  Berry, Roger

  Alton, David

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Blunkett, David

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Boateng, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradley, Keith

  Austin-Walker, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Battle, John

  Burden, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Byers, Stephen

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Caborn, Richard

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Callaghan, Jim

  1457

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Chidgey, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hutton, John

  Church, Judith

  Illsley, Eric

  Clapham, Michael

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jamieson, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Janner, Greville

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jowell, Tessa

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Corston, Jean

  Keen, Alan

  Cousins, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Darling, Alistair

  Lewis, Terry

  Davidson, Ian

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Denham, John

  McAllion, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dixon, Don

  McCartney, Ian

  Dobson, Frank

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McFall, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McKelvey, William

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Maclennan, Robert

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McMaster, Gordon

  Eastham, Ken

  MacShane, Denis

  Etherington, Bill

  McWilliam, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Madden, Max

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Maddock, Diana

  Fisher, Mark

  Mahon, Alice

  Flynn, Paul

  Mandelson, Peter

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  Foster, Don

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fraser, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Martlew, Eric

  Galloway, George

  Maxton, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Meacher, Michael

  Garrett, John

  Meale, Alan

  George, Bruce

  Michael, Alun

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Milburn, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Graham, Thomas

  Morley, Elliot

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Gunnell, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hain, Peter

  Mudie, George

  Hall, Mike

  Mullin, Chris

  Hanson, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Heppell, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Olner, Bill

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hodge, Margaret

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoey, Kate

  Parry, Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pendry, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Pickthall, Colin

  1458

  Pike, Peter L

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Pope, Greg

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Stevenson, George

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stott, Roger

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Straw, Jack

  Purchase, Ken

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Randall, Stuart

  Tipping, Paddy

  Raynsford, Nick

  Turner, Dennis

  Redmond, Martin

  Tyler, Paul

  Reid, Dr John

  Vaz, Keith

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Walley, Joan

  Rogers, Allan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rooney, Terry

  Watson, Mike

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winnick, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wise, Audrey

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wray, Jimmy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. John Cummings and

  Spellar, John

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Alexander, Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ancram, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ashby, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Atkins, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Congdon, David

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Conway, Derek

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Baldry, Tony

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bates, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cran, James

  Bellingham, Henry

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

  Bendall, Vivian

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  Booth, Hartley

  Dicks, Terry

  Boswell, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Duncan, Alan

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bowis, John

  Dunn, Bob

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Elletson, Harold

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Evennett, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Faber, David

  Burns, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Butler, Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Forman, Nigel

  1459

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Luff, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maclean, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gale, Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  Gallie, Phil

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marland, Paul

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Merchant Piers

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mills, Iain

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hague, William

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Norris, Steve

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hawkins, Nick

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hawksley, Warren

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Page, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Paice, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hendry, Charles

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Tom

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knapman, Roger

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, Sir David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shersby, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spring, Richard

  1460

  Sproat, Iain

  Trend, Michael

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Steen, Anthony

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Stephen, Michael

  Walden, George

  Stem, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stewart, Allan

  Waller, Gary

  Streeter, Gary

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sumberg, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sweeney, Walter

  Watts, John

  Sykes, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Wilkinson, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thomason, Roy

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thurnham, Peter

  Townsend, Cyrll D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tracey, Richard

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. David Willetts.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 4

  POSTPONEMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT
  `(1) In subsection (2) of section 199 of the Finance Act 1994, for "1996–97" there shall be substituted "1997–98"
  (2) In subsection (3) of section 199 of the Finance Act 1994, for "1996" there shall be substituted "1997".'.—[Ms Armstrong.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms Armstrong: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in clause 95, page 107, line 37, leave out '1996–97' and insert '1997–98'.
  Ms Armstrong: Once again, we return to self-assessment. We do so because we foresee problems for the Government who are in office when the proposed provisions take effect. The factor dominating many of our debates in Committee was the complexity of taxation legislation. Two of the aims of self-assessment are for the taxation process to be simplified and for it to be made open to taxpayers who will, in a new way, become liable for self-assessment. We remain unconvinced—we take this view because of the way in which the Government have framed the self-assessment procedure and developed the complexity of legislation in general—that self-assessment will work in the interests of taxpayers and will secure the advantages that the Government were trumpeting when they first introduced the principle.
  The Opposition are in favour of the principle of self-assessment but we are wary of the proposed manner of implementation. There was a clear defeat for the Government in Committee—it added to the defeat that the Government suffered on the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel, which took place on the Floor of the House—on an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), which is now known, as I understand it, as the Smith amendment. The amendment was tabled in an endeavour to simplify the mechanism of tax law.

  1461
  Members of the Committee felt so strongly that the Government suffered a defeat. It is clear, however, that although members of the Committee pushed the Government to introduce measures to simplify taxation legislation, we are still a long way from having a mechanism whereby legislation can make taxation simpler.
  This year's Finance Bill is one of the longest in history and is testament to the sheer complexity of British taxation legislation. The Bill was put down by commentators as one that contained little contentious legislation. The Budget was seen as simple, not too contentious and fairly neutral. Even so, in Committee, clause after clause was described as impenetrable and extremely complex. Even hon. Members who, before they came into the House, earned their professional reputations as interpreters of and advisers on tax law, made that point. Indeed, many of the people who have talked to us during the passage of the Bill have said that it is complex and have called for the legislation to be simplified. The Institute of Taxation is one of the many organisations that have made this case.
  We are moving ahead quickly with self-assessment, despite the fact that both sides of the House recognise that taxation legislation has become increasingly complex and that it is increasingly difficult to thread one's way through it. That is the context in which self-assessment is being introduced. We are fearful about the introduction of self-assessment at this stage. We all acknowledge that it will be quite a culture shock for many taxpayers and that it may lead to all sorts of difficulties which will make taxpayers upset and which will make the Government of the day fairly unpopular.
  The Financial Secretary has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn); my hon. Friend is not feeling well today which is why I am dealing with the letter. The Minister was answering questions raised in Committee relating to the introduction of self-assessment. I am especially concerned about two aspects. The first is risk analysis and how the Government intend to pursue that matter. The second is advertising and how the Government intend to ensure that people who will be eligible for self-assessment know what is coming and how to deal with it.
  On the latter point, the Government say that they estimate that they will spend some £25 million over the next three years in a public information campaign, and that on
  "present plans, they expect to spend some £15 million on advertising, mainly television and press. The remaining £10 million is intended to fund supporting activity and materials".
  The letter gives no indication of when the campaign will start and no indication that it has already started. If the Government are serious about their plans, they should be doing work now. The general public and the taxpayers concerned should already be aware of what will hit them next year.
  We propose, through the new clause, simply that the Government should delay the introduction of these measures for a year so that the House can be assured that every possible means has been taken to ensure that taxpayers and Inland Revenue staff know what is expected of them. We also need to be sure that the cultural change, which the Government acknowledge is necessary, has
  1462
  begun, both in terms of the taxpayers involved and Inland Revenue staff. We remain unconvinced that this is happening.
  In his letter the Minister raises the issue of risk analysis and he describes how the Government intend to monitor taxpayers who submit forms. Obviously, each individual form will not be analysed rigorously so the Government will make a risk analysis of the number of forms that should be examined and of what, in terms of an individual taxpayer, should lead Inland Revenue staff to examine the form. The Minister also says:
  "the present assumption, on the basis of research to date, is that following risk analysis something like a third of returns will be considered for enquiry, with enquiries actually being made in something like two thirds of those cases. Of those enquiries, only a small percentage (as now) will involve a detailed examination of technical aspects or a full investigation of the underlying records."
  That is not very reassuring.
  There is to be a wholly new means by which people will fill in their tax liability forms. We want to know to what research the Minister refers. Is it research from the pilot studies on self-assessment currently being undertaken? The risk analysis for existing forms may not be the same as that required for self-assessment.
  The temptations may be different under self-assessment. I want to be reassured that the Government are absolutely sure that they have the right criteria for identifying the forms of taxpayers whom they want to examine rigorously in terms of whether they have submitted the forms properly and in terms of whether they are declaring what needs to be declared. I am not implying that everyone will automatically cheat—far from it—but I am making the point that this is a new means of assessment; we have not experienced this before.
  We do not want to read headlines in the tabloid press about it having uncovered someone who has said on the self-assessment form that he is liable for a small amount of tax, but who has not declared all sorts of things. That would put the whole system into disrepute and would undermine the general public's confidence in it. It is, therefore, important that the Government err on the side of caution in the early years of the process. The Minister says in his letter that the figures are "highly provisional". I hope that they are and I hope that he can reassure us more than he did in the letter.
  If self-assessment is part of the Government's drive to reduce the number of Inland Revenue staff, it will undoubtedly fail. The Inland Revenue currently proposes to reduce staff levels from 54,000 in April 1995 to 48,000 in April 1988 and to 42,000 by April 2001. The latter round of job cuts includes some 3,000 job losses as a result of the introduction of self-assessment. The Inland Revenue Staff Federation and the Opposition are pressing the Government to redeploy staff on the customer service side of simplified assessment as well as on compliance and investigation work instead of making them redundant.
  We maintain our deep concern about the manner of the introduction of what was a sound principle. We back the sound principle, but we remain unconvinced by the Government's determination to introduce the measures in a serious way. Unless the Government can reassure us, we shall call on the House to vote to delay the introduction of the measures for a further year until we can be assured about the manner of implementation of this good principle.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), I am in favour of the principle of self-assessment. We have what has been called a Rolls-Royce system, whereby the Inland Revenue does all the work and taxpayers merely answer a few questions. The system will change fundamentally to one in which the taxpayer is asked to fill in forms on a range of matters in which they have not previously been involved. The United States, which is the model for this sort of thing, has been at it for a long time. Accountants who deal with people with modest tax dues are used to handling such matters. Here we are starting from scratch and there are serious problems.
  The particular problem that I am worried about is the need for simpler legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West was right to draw attention to that. One book in Somerset house contained all the income tax legislation for 1840 to 1855. Now, there is a whole shelf of regulations for each year. So the mass of problems has undoubtedly increased enormously. That means that the ordinary taxpayer has to be guided through. I do not believe that the work has been done sufficiently well until now.
  As my hon. Friend rightly said, we are dealing with a decline in the morale of Inland Revenue staff. The Government cannot improve the staff's morale when they are cutting their jobs. To give them new responsibilities at such a time could be dangerous. So it is right to talk about the risk factor. There is the greater danger that the new system could become a matter of some disrepute. An attempt will be made to separate out fraud from genuine mistakes. There will be a large number of genuine mistakes. However much is spent on advertisements and background, a large number of people will come to self-assessment unprepared and will make mistakes. It will be a serious matter to separate mistakes which arise out of the novelty of the system from those which arise out of less worthy motives.
  The legislation is being rushed. We have to be very careful about that. We have had a large number of pieces of legislation which have not been properly considered. Self-assessment is of such fundamental importance, particularly to a Government who talk about reducing the level of income tax, and especially when there will be further complications, that it needs further careful consideration.
  The letter that the Financial Secretary sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), which my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West quoted, says:
  "These broad figures are highly provisional".
  It is a bit late in the day to have highly provisional assessments. We should be coming to fairly clear conclusions at this stage. For those reasons, a delay such as that proposed in the new clause should be accepted.
  Sir George Young: I am grateful to both hon. Members who have spoken for their support in principle of the move towards self-assessment. I agree with what they both said about the need to move towards a less complex system. I believe that self-assessment will be
  1464
  simpler. I remind the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that those taxpayers who do not want to go the final mile and assess themselves will not need to do so. They will be able to complete the return broadly as they do now and send it in a few months earlier. The Inland Revenue will do the final calculations for them.
  I cannot accept the new clause. It would put back the introduction of self-assessment by one year from 1996–97 to 1997–98. A similar amendment was tabled last year, but was not moved in the Standing Committee.
  I should like to respond to some of the points that were raised in the debate, particularly publicity and compliance. I can confirm that a substantial programme of publicity and education for taxpayers is planned and is already under way. So far, it has covered raising awareness and understanding of the changes among tax advisers through mailings and presentations. As I said in the debates in Standing Committee, a major advertising campaign, aimed directly at the 9 million people who will receive tax returns, using television and national press as well as specialist magazines, is due to be launched before the summer and will continue until well after self-assessment has been introduced. That will be backed by leaflets and video material.
  As for compliance, a number of hon. Members have seen the letter which I wrote to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), whom I am sorry to hear is not well. All tax returns will be checked. They will be subjected to an initial risk analysis which will take account, not only of the information in the taxpayers' return, but of information from third parties, previous history and so on. Following that initial risk analysis, a percentage of returns regarded as potentially presenting a high risk will be reviewed in detail for inquiry. In a percentage of those cases, inquiries will be started.
  The inquiries needed to deal with the risks identified may range from straightforward clarification of individual items to more detailed examination of one or more technical issues, or right through to full investigation of the taxpayer's affairs. In addition, a small percentage of cases may be selected for inquiry on an entirely random basis to increase deterrence and to enable the Revenue to monitor compliance levels and identify new areas of risk. We have already devoted substantial resources to tackling tax evasion. There has been a 20 per cent. increase in compliance resources in the past six years. That will not change under self-assessment.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North-West expressed anxiety about compliance. The Revenue's plans are at least to maintain present coverage levels for the more searching types of inquiry and, indeed, gradually to increase them both by switching resources into compliance work and by improving compliance training, organisation and working methods.
  Let me confirm the good progress that is being made in the move towards self-assessment. Returns for the first year of self-assessment will not be issued until April 1997—still two years away. Nothing that has happened in the past few months has changed the Government's considered view that we should proceed to the planned timetable. Indeed as this year goes by, we are passing a number of milestones which would

  1465
  make it more difficult to adopt the course suggested by the new clause.
  The main legislation was passed last year and more legislation is before the House now. Businesses and tax practitioners are gearing up for the changes in line with the published timetable. We are well on track for the implementation of self-assessment as planned. We have an extensive education and publicity programme. We have been testing the new tax return and the results of this latest consultation are encouraging. Some 90 per cent. of the volunteers completed the return well enough for the Inland Revenue to process it. However, there is still room for improving the tax return so the consultation and testing will continue throughout 1995, starting later this week with the full trial of self-assessment in Leicester, involving some 5,000 taxpayers.
  In conclusion, delaying the start of self-assessment is not sensible in practical terms. It would only cause confusion and add a layer of complexity. Nor is it necessary. I urge the House to reject the new clause.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 277.

  Division No. 124]

  [7.38 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clapham, Michael

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke Eric (Midlothian)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Covty NE)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Allen, Graham

  Clelland, David

  Alton, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Coffey, Ann

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ashton, Joe

  Corbett, Robin

  Austin-Walker, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Corston, Jean

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Darling, Alistair

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davidson, Ian

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Berry, Roger

  Denham, John

  Betts, Clive

  Dewar, Donald

  Blunkett, David

  Dixon, Don

  Boateng, Paul

  Dobson, Frank

  Bradley, Keith

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dowd, Jim

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

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

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Byers, Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Caborn, Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Callaghan, Jim

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cann, Jamie

  Fraser, John

  Chidgey, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Galloway, George

  Church, Judith

  Gapes, Mike

  1466

  Garrett, John

  Meacher, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Meale, Alan

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michael, Alun

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Milburn, Alan

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Miller, Andrew

  Gordon, Mildred

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Graham, Thomas

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morley, Elliot

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hain, Peter

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hall, Mike

  Mudie, George

  Hanson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Harvey, Nick

  Murphy, Paul

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hinchliffe, David

  Olner, Bill

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoey, Kate

  Parry, Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pendry, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Hutton, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Illsley, Eric

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Radice, Giles

  Jamieson, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Janner, Greville

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooney, Terry

  Keen, Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lewis, Terry

  Sheerman, Barry

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Litherland, Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

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

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Snape, Peter

  McCartney, Ian

  Soley, Clive

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Spellar, John

  McFall, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McKelvey, William

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  McMaster, Gordon

  Stott, Roger

  MacShane, Denis

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McWilliam, John

  Straw, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Maddock, Diana

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mahon, Alice

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marek, Dr John

  Turner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Tyler, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Vaz, Keith

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Martlew, Eric

  Walley, Joan

  Maxton, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  1467

  Wareing, Robert N

  Worthington, Tony

  Watson, Mike

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Wise, Audrey

  Mr. John Cummings.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Duncan, Alan

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Alexander, Richard

  Dunn, Bob

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Arbuthnot, James

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Ashby, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evennett, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Faber, David

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bates, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forth, Eric

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Booth, Hartley

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bowis, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gill, Christopher

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorst, Sir John

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butler, Peter

  Hague, William

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hannam, Sir John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clappison, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Congdon, David

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Conway, Derek

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Horam, John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

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

  Cran, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dover, Den

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  1468

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Key, Robert

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sackville, Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knapman, Roger

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, Sir David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shersby, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spring, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclean, David

  Stephen, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stem, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Allan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Streeter, Gary

  Malone, Gerald

  Sumberg, David

  Mans, Keith

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marland, Paul

  Sykes, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mills, Iain

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Norris, Steve

  Walden, George

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waller, Gary

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Page, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Watts, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Wells, Bowen

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Whitney, Ray

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Whittingdale, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pickles, Eric

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wilkinson, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Willetts, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Richards, Rod

  Riddick, Graham

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robathan, Andrew

  Dr. Liam Fox and

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Mr. Simon Burns.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 6

  PREMISES FOR THE PROVISION OF CHILD CARE
  `The following section shall be inserted after section 14 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990—
  "14A (1) Where a building or structure which is not an industrial building or structure is used by a person carrying on a trade for the provision of care for the children of workers employed in that trade, this Part shall apply to that building or structure as if it were an industrial building or structure.
  (2) The writing down allowances within section 3 which are made to a person by reason of subsection (1) above are not to exceed £10 in aggregate for a chargeable period.
  (3) In this section—`care' means any form of care or supervised activity whether or not provided on a regular basis, but excluding supervised activity provided primarily for educational purposes; `children' means person under the age of eighteen.".'.—[Ms Armstrong.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms Armstrong: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The clause has been narrowly drawn because we are trying to deal with an important issue within the confines of what the Opposition can move on a Finance Bill. I have spent many hours trying to work out a method by which the House can respond more effectively to the needs and wishes of millions of families who want to put together the patchwork of care and education which they know is essential for their children. The House has failed to address that issue effectively.
  The clause deals with the narrow issue of the way in which the Government treat employers who seek to provide child care on their premises and with employers whose workplaces are not necessarily factories or industrial buildings. A growing number of employers, especially those in the service sector and shops and supermarkets, want a fair tax regime in relation to the provision of child care and workplace nurseries. Many more who employ mainly women want to provide such facilities for their employees but are unable to do so.
  I admit that even if the clause were accepted and acted upon by the Government it would not fundamentally change the pattern of child care in the way that the Opposition seek to change it. Millions of families want access to high-quality, affordable child care and early years education because they know that that is essential for their children.
  Children are growing up in a dangerous world. The common spaces to which children had access in my day and in which they could play are no longer available. Parents are often afraid to allow their children to play in the street or in the back lane. Whatever type of play young children are involved in, it is important that it is supervised in safe areas by people who know what they are doing. We should be able to check that those people have the proper motives and have received proper training.
  The steps that need to be taken today to protect young children may not have been necessary in earlier generations. For example, children of five and under watch an average of 23 hours of television a week. Whatever the quality of the programmes, that is bound to cause concern. It frequently happens because parents do
  1470
  not have the physical resources to engage their children in active learning and, rather than allow them to be in situations in which they do not know what is happening, parents sometimes stick them in front of the television. The House should not treat that as normal.
  If children are to grow up able to deal with the enormous complexities of 21st century society—many of which we do not yet know—it is essential for them to get the best experiences in their early years. Children learn much more quickly when they are very young and their behaviour and experiences set patterns for later life that are difficult to change. Report after report speaks of the value of high-quality early years education and care. The House has failed to address those needs. That is why we have tabled this modest clause. It gives us the opportunity to raise these issues and to expose the incredible poverty of the Government's response to the needs of children and families.
  8 pm
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) moved a similar clause last year, she drew attention to the changing nature of the work force. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in the House. The largest town in my constituency is Consett, where in 1980–81 the steel works closed, not to reopen. Consett had virtually an exclusively male work force at that time: hardly any women in the town worked. Now more women than men work in Consett and that has happened in an incredibly short time. It has revolutionised community activity, family life and social activity.
  Work has always described family and community life in many areas of the country and that was certainly true of Consett. Life consisted of hard shifts of skilled labour in dirty jobs and that constructed a pattern of life for families. Women spent most of their lives at home caring for the children, but that has totally changed and women have had to find ways to make sure that child care and the raising of children became more than just their preserve. Some have done it gladly, some with caution. Women have had to go out to work to earn an income for the family because of the change in the nature of the jobs available.
  In Consett, the jobs are no longer highly skilled and highly paid. Indeed, according to the Government's latest figures, during the past year the average wage for women in that area has actually dropped by £12 per week. Those women and many others like them throughout the country now have to go out to work to support their families, whether they like it or not. Their wage levels have been squeezed to the point where, as I said, the average wage dropped by £12 a week in one year. I find that staggering.
  It is obvious that the changing pattern of employment will have an incredible effect on the need for affordable, accessible, quality child care and early years education. The need for that is glaring. It is critical for those families to have such a facility. Like it or not, many of them have had to change their family patterns—although I accept that for some it has been a positive move. Nevertheless, overall it has had a devastating effect on family life.
  There is a responsibility on the Government, who made the decision to close the Consett steel works. It is telling to note that the young Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry in 1980 who received a delegation from Consett protesting about the closures was none other than the current Chancellor. One would have thought that the

  1471
  right hon. and learned Gentleman would have remembered that. One would have thought that it might have clicked with him that he met with people from a town that was about to be devastated by the closure of its steel works. That tells us a great deal about the minds of Cabinet Ministers.
  I use Consett merely as an example of what has happened in communities throughout the country, where family life has been radically overturned by the changing patterns of employment. We neglect the effect of that on the children at our peril. The experiences that children have in their early years literally stay with them for the rest of their lives. During the past year, there have been a number of studies—primarily from America, but also from this country—showing the value of high-quality early years education. That should surely lead the House to question how, as a priority, we can provide a pattern of child care sufficiently flexible to allow parents to make real decisions that fit in both with their employment and with what they want for their families. Their children need access to high-quality early years education and care.
  In view of the amazing changes in family life brought about by changes in the pattern of employment, it is nothing short of a scandal that the House has not debated the matter regularly. Indeed, our last serious debate on the importance of early years education was on an Opposition Supply day, following the 1988 Education Select Committee report on nursery education. That is why we wanted to have this debate on the Finance Bill, even though we could table only a very restricted new clause.
  We had hoped to have this debate in Committee because the Liberal Democrat party had tabled new clauses on child care. We do not support the Liberal Democrat suggestion of vouchers because we believe that the first priority for the use of public money must be to expand and develop the pattern of child care and early years education. There is no guarantee that vouchers would achieve that. They might simply ensure that those who already have access to child care take up what money is available. Nevertheless, the new clauses would have given us the opportunity of a debate, but unfortunately that did not happen.
  We have not moved a new clause seeking greater extension of tax relief because, again, that is not how we want to use public money. I know from work that I did before the last election that employers are desperate to find ways to co-operate with the Government so that they can use their commitment and their money to match public sector money and expand provision. In her speech on the Finance Bill last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham quoted Howard Davies of the Confederation of British Industry, who at its conference on child care said how important it was to employers.
  I have met employers and I have worked with employers groups, so I know how much they want to extend partnerships which would link public sector, private sector and voluntary sector money to provide a variety of methods of delivering child care to meet the needs of families. However, the Government have chosen not to act on the enthusiasm of those employers. I recently met some employers, involved in the child care lobby, who told me how extremely disappointed they are at the Government's lack of progress in providing early years education and child care.
  1472
  Last October, at the Tory party conference, the Prime Minister promised nursery education for all four-year-olds. We have heard nothing of how the Government intend to fulfil that promise—yet he said that it would be delivered before the next election. Time is beginning to run out. I know the cost, the time and the energy needed to fulfil that commitment. People will have to be sufficiently well trained to ensure that the children's experiences are of the right quality. Premises will have to be adapted.
  During last week's education debate, the Government criticised the Opposition's attitude to surplus places. Surplus places and a commitment to nursery education could be brought together. The Government could really do something. They could sort out some of the problems that they talk about by bringing those two objectives together and delivering something—and, goodness knows, we all wish that they would do that.
  The Prime Minister's commitment has not been followed up. I suspect that the reason is that the Government do not want local authorities to be involved. The Government's dogma is such that they want any expansion to take place purely in the private sector. That is my suspicion. I hope that I am wrong because the most effective delivery of early years child care and education will be achieved through a partnership approach, bringing together the talent and commitment of the private, public and voluntary sectors to develop the highest quality of opportunity. None of us should rely on dogma or return to it to avoid making the commitment that young people deserve.
  The Government have failed to honour their commitments. The Secretary of State for Education seems to have reneged on them. She said that her Back Benchers should examine local authority education spending that was targeted at non-statutory areas—which include, of course, nursery education. By implication, she was saying that Conservative Members should attack local authorities which spend money on nursery education. She will live to regret that.
  The Secretary of State made those comments because, despite severe financial difficulties, many Labour authorities have fulfilled their commitment to the youngest children and their families. They have ensured that nursery education is available. Nursery education, however, does not solve families' needs or deal with the changes that have taken place in families. For that reason, we want to give the Government the opportunity to return to their commitments, even if they do not go back as far as Baroness Thatcher's commitment in 1972, but simply go back to the Prime Minister's commitment. That will be better than nothing.
  Nobody should kid himself, however, that that commitment will be sufficient to meet families' needs today and in the next century. If the House is really concerned about the chances, opportunities and quality of life of the youngest children and of children yet to be born, it will take far more seriously the issue of how we can unlock the resources and the will that we know is there to develop a child care strategy that will meet children's needs, wherever they live, and whatever their families' decisions about what will best suit them. The new clause would be just a small token effort, but it would be better than nothing. If the Government are not going to accept it, I challenge them to say what they are going to do.

  1473
  Children's needs will not go away. It does not matter what class or group they are in—they have those needs. We know that the quality of child care is inherently enhanced if there is a mixture of children in classes. If child care is available only for the most disadvantaged, children are locked into a culture of disadvantage, and that is the last thing that we want. We want child care to be available much more widely than it is. The Government could make a gesture this evening. I hope that they will.
  The Select Committee on Employment recently issued an important report in which it carefully considered what was happening to women and working mothers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) will catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, as she was a member of that Committee. I do not propose to go into that matter any further.
  8.15 pm
  It is important that the House takes its responsibility to ensure that children grow up with the best opportunities far more seriously. We can achieve that only if we give them the opportunity to have the best early years education. We know that the more parents are involved in their children's experiences at an earlier age, the more they will be involved in their children's education as they go through life, and the more they will feel that they are part of the provision for their children throughout their lives.
  We are talking not just about the under-fives, but about children's opportunities after school and during the school holidays. Schools are not necessarily always open when it is convenient for working parents. We must have a pattern of child care which meets not only providers' but families' needs. It is important that we deal with that issue. The House might have taken more positive steps in relation to that, but that is another issue, which is not before us today.
  I hope that the Government will recognise that the issue cannot be resolved by a dogmatic relationship with one sector. All sectors must be involved. We are talking about the future of all children and of our communities. Dogma must not rule there.
  Ms Hodge: Labour Members have tabled a small amendment. It will make a small contribution to what should be a policy of national importance. We hope that we can encourage Conservative Members to build on a previous U-turn. I think that it was in 1990 that the Government abolished the toddler tax—a tax on employer-subsidised child care. The new clause highlights other discrepancies, not so much in the tax on employer-subsidised child care, but in tax allowances that are available to employers. They need to be dealt with. I hope that Conservative Members will take the small suggestion seriously. It is in line with the stated policy and priority of the Prime Minister, which, I understand, he reinforced again this weekend.
  I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) a deep concern about what is happening to early years services. The Government are leaving them in an unholy mess. In 1972, the then Secretary of State for Education made a commitment that, within 10 years, she would provide free state nursery
  1474
  education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents wanted or needed it. Twenty-three years on—that is nearly a generation of children lost—the Prime Minister stated at the Conservative party conference that he would ensure that, in the lifetime of this Parliament, free nursery education would be provided for all four-year-olds—a lesser policy, but nevertheless an important move forward.
  That was six months ago. Since then, all we have had is clear division among the ranks of various Ministers, aided and abetted by various advisers outside the House, who put their oar in through writing documents for policy think tanks. I am sorry that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is not here because he demonstrated some interest in the subject. Most recently, he gave a speech saying that he would support two propositions. I could not quite work out which he wanted most. First, he wanted vouchers for early years service and, secondly, he suggested a beauty contest involving the public and private sectors and, I suppose, non-statutory providers. They would bid for resources to build on a service that is so essential to the country as a whole.
  Such suggestions, whether a voucher scheme or a beauty contest, seem wholly at odds with what the Secretary of State for Education has been saying recently in a number of speeches. She seems to recognise that statutorily provided nursery education is the best early years service to provide the best start for children in early, and later, life. It is interesting that she often appears to be overridden nowadays in her desire for more resources generally for schools and, more specifically, for children in their early years.
  People like the Chief Secretary are driven by a bigoted loathing of anything to do with the public sector in general and by a more bigoted loathing, if that is possible, of anything to do with local authorities. Whether we have vouchers or beauty contests is irrelevant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West said, vouchers are a diversion. There is such paucity of provision in the United Kingdom—we have one of the lowest levels of publicly provided early years services—that to concentrate the very limited public resources on providing vouchers would mean that we could not direct them towards increasing the quantity of quality services on which we should be focusing. Such people simply reflect a loathing of the public and an applauding of the private at the expense of our young children.
  What this country and what parents need and what young children deserve is proper public investment in early years services for education and child care. The Government are ambivalent about the state's role in providing such services. They do not know who should provide what for whom or how to finance it.
  In some ways, I am pleased that the Minister of State is to reply because he, perhaps more than anyone else in the Treasury team, should recognise how short-sighted the short-termism of the Government's policy is. There is plenty of evidence from local authorities in the United Kingdom, but more especially from America, that any investment made in early years services for children saves public expenditure later.
  The most recent American research revealed that every $1 spent on a child in the early years, especially on a child from a disadvantaged background, saves up to $7 later. It saves money not only on the resourcing of special needs education, but on income support because people who have adequate early years services are more likely to get

  1475
  qualifications and then work. It also saves expenditure on the criminal justice system because, once in work, people are far less likely to become criminals and become a cost to society in that way.
  In other words, investment in the early years pays later. I think members of all parties accept that the key to our economic success is the level of our people's skills. If so, good-quality early years provision makes sense because creating a highly qualified work force starts with investment in children in their very early years.
  There is a substantial body of evidence to show that how young people perform at 16 has a direct correlation, not with their economic background, but with how they performed at seven. Their performance at that age can influence GCSE results by as much as 25 per cent. We also know that how children perform at seven has a direct correlation, not with their socio-economic background, but with whether they enjoyed pre-school education and care.
  Investment in pre-school education and care means better results at seven and at 16 and a better equipped work force who will contribute to the health of the economy in the adult world. I hope that the Minister of State will take that on board. It makes sense for the Government to spend a little money. The new clause would involve a very small sum that would contribute to an increase in early years services of good quality, an issue to which I shall return a little later.
  The provision of early years services is especially important for women in the work force. Today, about 600,000 more mothers go to work than in 1984, and more than half of mothers with children under five are part of the work force. Only 10, 15 or 20 years ago, they used to depend on members of the informal family network to assist with child care. That dependency has slipped, and as many as 80 per cent. of working mothers with children under five may look for formal child care arrangements. The Government have completely failed to meet the needs of working parents and their children, but we know that to meet them would make not only social but economic sense.
  What has happened as working mothers have sought child care solutions? Increasingly, their child care needs are being met by the private sector. In the past few years, the greatest growth in the provision of child care has been among child minders and independent registered nurseries. They accounted for 86 per cent. of the growth in day care services in England between 1982 and 1992. That contrasts with the number of nursery places, which has risen by only 30 per cent. In other words, 86 per cent. of places are provided in the private sector and only 30 per cent. in the public sector.
  The Government would no doubt applaud that, but the truth is that much of that provision is part time and of very poor educational quality. I know because I have visited several such places in the past few months. We often hear Ministers and Government spokespeople say that 90 per cent. of children have a pre-school place of some kind. That may be true, but too often the reality is that children are cared for part time in an extremely poor physical environment where there is absolutely no educational focus to their activities. It is child care on the cheap, not quality nursery education which gives future generations a better start in life.
  1476
  Despite the increase in private sector provision, much of which is of a doubtful standard, the supply has not matched the increasing demand from working women. As many as 19 per cent. of children have lone parents. These parents cannot afford private nurseries or child minders if some form of local authority or other subsidised provision is not available. Even with vouchers, how would the children of such parents have access to quality provision? If we want those children to break out of the cycle of deprivation into which they are often locked, quality early years provision is the key. It is vital if we are to ensure that they have a chance of a better future.
  The Government's figures show that, of the 19 per cent. of lone parents with children under five, as many as 90 per cent. want to go back to work, but they have no access to suitable child care that would enable them to do so. Why should parents in this country have to seek the cheapest or the only available option, especially as employer-based provision remains so patchy?
  8.30 pm
  We should also not lose sight of the fact that we spend a lot of money—although perhaps not enough—on training, but employees with valuable skills are lost to the work force because we do not make effective facilities available for women so that they can return to work after they have had a child. That is a criminal waste of the parent's talent, skill and experience. Let us not forget the small and medium-sized businesses, which are often less able to provide independent child care and, therefore, find it difficult to compete for skilled staff.
  Every other European country apart from the United Kingdom recognises the importance of the early years services of child care and education by putting in much more publicly funded provision. They see that it makes an important social contribution to the well-being of the community and an important business contribution to the well-being of our society. In Britain, we lag behind our competitors as usual. As a country, we have no national strategy, but that is what we desperately require so that we can have accessible, available and affordable child care services for all our young children before they go to school.
  Why have the Government done so little so late, especially in the area with which our new clause deals, which is to encourage employers to invest in provision? The answer lies in their lack of commitment and ambivalence towards those early years services.
  Before the debate, I tried again to look for the figures so that I could form some idea of how much we provide as a nation. Anyone who has delved into the matter—I have asked a number of parliamentary questions about it—finds it impossible to get adequate information, even for how much we spend on public early years services and how many places are provided. The Departments of Health and for Education each calculate the statistics on a separate basis—one talks of pupils and the other of places, which is a further sign of the lack of a coherent child care strategy. Opposition Members believe that such a strategy is key if we are to move forward in this important area of public policy.
  There is also much double counting in the Government's figures of children who could attend both a playgroup and a nursery class in the same day, which massages the statistics. That is terrible provision. Imagine a little child with a lone parent who has to go from her

  1477
  parent to the child minder in the morning, then to the playgroup, back to the child minder, to a nursery class in the afternoon, back to the child minder and finally home at night. Is that the good start that we want to give children in their early years? Is that the sort of start that they deserve if they are to develop their full potential?
  In Britain, child care is a lottery. It depends where one lives, on one's occupation and on whether one's employer provides anything. Another reality is that most parents have little or no choice of the type of service that they use.
  One Labour party objective that lies behind the new clause is that we want to work towards employer-based child care being a realistic choice for working parents—a choice that is based firmly in the context of a strategic and co-ordinated national child care strategy. To achieve that, we must get rid of the existing anomalies in tax treatment that the new clause highlights.
  I shall outline the anomalies and ask the Minister of State whether he believes that they make sense. The 1990 capital allowance tax distinguishes between capital expenditure on plant and equipment, on which all employers can claim capital allowances, and capital expenditure on buildings. That distinction means that one can claim capital allowances against corporation tax on any expenditure on nursery equipment, but expenditure on nursery space in offices and shops—the two categories with which we are concerned—is not allowable.
  Nurseries that are attached to warehouses and factories qualify for an allowance, but those attached to other buildings such as offices and shops do not, yet where are women with young children most likely to work? In offices and shops. How daft and inappropriate. As a result, employers based in shops and offices who want to provide workplace nursery facilities are treated less favourably than those based in factories. Where does that leave the Government's interest in private funding for child care to promote diversity and choice, which we all favour?
  The one exception is for company sports and recreational clubs, which receive an allowance even when they are attached to offices and shops. Why should sports facilities incur benefits that are unavailable to nurseries? What does that say about any professed commitment on the Government's part to take early years services seriously?
  New clause 6 has the support of Employers for Childcare. Obviously, employers have an interest in producing a future generation of highly literate and numerate children to provide a well-educated and well-motivated work force later in life. Employers for Childcare has said that
  "the current tax policy is inconsistent. Many forms of child care are not tax exempt, thus affecting employers' ability to offer parents a genuine choice."
  Our new clause would end that inconsistency by extending the industrial buildings allowance to all companies that invest in workplace nurseries, whether alone or jointly with local authorities. That will provide an incentive to employers to construct their own workplace nurseries, or to enter into partnership with local authorities to extend their provision. That is the road that we must go down if we are to offer parents genuine choice.
  1478
  Labour Members realise that workplace nurseries should supplement and not replace other services that are provided locally. As has been said, partnership with employers is important. Central Government have a leadership role to play in enabling local authorities to develop a mix of provision based on the needs of children and their carers in their locality.
  In conclusion, if we in Britain are to achieve the level of provision that is available in most other European countries, the Government must go beyond merely removing a punitive tax on workplace child care provision. We require a comprehensive child care strategy, together with the funds and the political will to put it into action. New clause 6 is a step in the right direction.
  Ms Angela Eagle: I support new clause 6, which would introduce tax relief for premises used to provide workplace nurseries. As has been said, that is only one aspect of child care provision and it is one that can properly be debated in a Finance Bill. Opposition Members would agree that workplace child care is appropriate only in some instances. We are not trying to make a case for monolithic workplace provision, but believe that, at the least, Government should encourage its provision, as new clause 6 would, by making it clear to employers that the Government expect that, if they are interested, it should be their duty to provide child care for their employees.
  The pattern of employment for women has changed profoundly and permanently, but the Government have been extremely slow to recognise that fact. To date, the fiscal and legislative framework within which we all live has failed to adapt to that significant and profound change. Women are at work despite social policy, Government legislation and the Government's response to change rather than because of it. We could do much to improve women's ability to work, have careers and provide for themselves and their families. As my hon. Friends were quick to point out, the result of making such provision would be that everybody would gain: women at work; children in their early years; and society. The economic efficiency of spending on that provision is proven.
  On 15 February, the Employment Select Committee issued its "Mothers in Employment" report, the first report of this Session. Given the Government's record on this matter, the fact that it was unanimous and signed by all Conservative members of the Committee deserves particular attention as it contains a number of far-reaching proposals that would help women with children who work or wish to work.
  The Committee found that, between 1984 and 1994, economically active women as a proportion of the whole rose from 66 per cent. to 71 per cent. The trend of those women who have children was even more marked, which suggests that social policy should shift to accommodate them. In 1984, 55 per cent. of those with children were economically active, but in 1994 the figure had risen to 64 per cent.
  Some women need particular support and the "Mothers in Employment" report was conscious of the plight of lone parents, 90 per cent. of whom are women. Lone parents formed the only group of women in which, over the same period, the percentage of those who were economically active fell. In 1981, 45 per cent. of lone parents were economically active whereas the figure now is 39 per cent.

  1479
  Lone parents are thus being trapped in a life on benefit, unable to work for a series of complex reasons with which I shall not detain the House tonight. However, that points to the fact that lone parents need a special strategy to help them back into the work force. As the Committee studied that issue, it became abundantly clear that high-quality, affordable child care must be available because the provision of child care is the key to allowing many women to work.
  Although the report deals with other key issues such as maternity pay, family leave and paternity leave, I shall comment purely on aspects relevant to the new clause. The Government should provide various types of help to encourage employers to make provision for their employees and to create more state provision.
  The Committee made a number of recommendations. Child care helps not only women and employers but the development of our children. The report's 13th recommendation is about tax relief on workplace nurseries and concludes that the current restriction on tax relief to workplace nurseries is not effective. It states:
  "The Committee recommends that the tax relief currently available to employers on workplace nurseries be extended to cover all forms of employer-assisted childcare in order to provide the necessary flexibility to suit a greater variety of circumstances."
  Our modest little new clause would be one aspect of that.
  The Committee also realised that Britain's response to the profound change in the nature of the work force and the massive move by women out of the home and into the work force needs a proper strategic response. The report states:
  "We recommend that the Government work to increase the availability and quality of childcare and to reduce its cost throughout the country by the formulation and implementation of a national strategy for childcare."
  As other hon. Friends pointed out tonight, that is long overdue.
  Other hon. Members have referred to the Prime Minister's oft-quoted pledge at last year's Conservative party conference. The Committee welcomed that pledge and recommended
  "that the Government now take action to implement the Prime Minister's pledge."
  We look forward, at long last, to some action in that area because, for women who work, nursery education is as important as early-years education and child care.
  8.45 pm
  The Committee recognised the trend that many women now return to work much earlier after their child's birth because, most often, the household relies on their earnings. We must ensure that appropriate, not informal, child care is available so that those women can return to work.
  We also want the House to put its own house in order and create a reasonable system of child care for the many women who work in this place. We suggest that the House of Commons Commission act as soon as possible to establish a suitable child care scheme for all those who work in the House of Commons. It is not adequate to pontificate and tell other people what they should do while failing to make such provision ourselves. This place should lead in that respect, not embarrassingly trail behind what goes on in some more enlightened areas of the economy.
  1480
  The report mentions the totally unacceptable poverty trap that exists for mothers and some fathers who receive means-tested benefits, which often makes work uneconomic for them. It recommends
  "a review of the benefit system with the aim of removing this poverty trap."
  The provision of child care at an affordable price would open up the world of work to people with caring responsibilities, including those responsible for caring for elderly and disabled people. Such provision can often pay for itself because it encourages people to become economically active when it may not have been practically possible before. Thus we reduce benefit bills and make people generally happier because they contribute to our economy. We cannot understand why the Government have not recognised the logic of that long ago.
  We would welcome the Government's recognition that employers should at least be tipped the wink that they approve of their providing workplace nurseries and seeking different and appropriate ways to provide child care support for their employees. We want the Government to start making those noises.
  The report contains far-reaching recommendations. The Committee was disappointed that, although on its publication it was welcomed widely by such organisations as Women into Business, the Equal Opportunities Commission and, as the Minister might expect, many trade unions, who campaigned long and hard on those issues, the Department of Employment instantly dismissed it. We hope that, at least, those on the Treasury Bench will take a more far-sighted view of the economical realities and the savings that can be made, and will look more kindly on the report's recommendations, which may mark a milestone in the battle to provide a decent, appropriate child care system for working women.
  Women will not go back into the family. They now wish to take their rightful place in the economic and social life of our country. They wish this Parliament of all Parliaments to recognise at long last the social changes that have occurred, to legislate to enable women to make that move permanently and to recognise the pattern of their lives in legislation. I hope that, in responding to this modest proposal tonight, the Minister will show that the Government are listening and say that we can expect some progress soon.
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I support new clause 6, which represents a small piece in the large jigsaw of a national child care strategy that is urgently required. Small though it is, we would like answers to the questions put today, which were also asked last year in a similar debate.
  Why should the capital allowance be available for certain types of building, but not for others, particularly, as it happens, buildings where women are likely to work? Why are the allowances available for sports pavilions and sports facilities in any kind of building, but not for nurseries? That is even more bizarre. We know that the Prime Minister feels strongly about team sports, but why does he not feel as strongly about choice of affordable child care for everyone who wants it?
  The key issue is the supply of affordable child care. The Government's only initiative, the after-school care initiative, is okay as far as it goes, but it will end this year. A recent report by the Kids Club Network says that

  1481
  1,000 after-school clubs will close if that initiative is not continued. Over and above that is the question of affordability. If continuing financial help is not offered to those clubs, many people will be unable to afford to pay for them.
  On the demand side, the Government may talk about the child care disregard for family credit and other benefits, but welcome as that disregard has been, it has many problems. For example, it still does not cover the necessary costs; for some reason it stops when a child reaches the age of 11 and it operates per family rather than per child. Many other problems are associated with it, not least for those on maximum family credit, who receive no help. The use of that disregard must be developed extensively.
  Some Conservative Back Benchers supported the report from the all-party Select Committee on Employment. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) for the key role that she played in producing that report. The Government would do well to consider many of the Committee's recommendations.
  The Government must soon present a report to the European Commission on their implementation of the European child care recommendation, which deals with services, leave arrangements, family-friendly work practices and men and women sharing family responsibilities. The Government have little to put in their report to the Commission, so I suggest that they implement quickly some of the recommendations in the Select Committee's report. The bit of paper that they must fill in would then be slightly bigger than it is now.
  The Government should also consider what many Labour local authorities have done, because they have shown the way. I should just like to mention my local authority of Lothian, which provides a nursery place for all four-year-olds and has guaranteed a nursery place for all three-year-olds as part of its election manifesto for Thursday. Lothian is already providing for 68 per cent. of three and four-year-olds in its nurseries, which is way above the United Kingdom average of 40 per cent. and the Scottish average of 37 per cent. Despite the cuts imposed by the Government, Lothian has not cut its nursery school budget. It must be commended for that. It has appreciated the importance of nursery school education. Its policy for extended nurseries will also be developed once it has won the election on Thursday.
  Lothian and the Labour local authorities of Edinburgh have put £450,000 into a child care centre, which is about to be built in my constituency. We know that existing need is still not being met, because more resources must be provided for nursery education from central Government. The nursery education provided is excellent, but it is not flexible enough to meet the needs of working parents.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. This is not an election platform, but a debate on the provision of child care.
  Mr. Chisholm: We all know about the desperate need for child care from talking to our constituents. I do not think that I am allowed to mention the local elections, but I have been talking to a lot of people around the doors in the past few days. It is absolutely remarkable how many
  1482
  times the issue of child care came up, unsolicited by a politician. It is the great under-recognised issue of politics.
  The stories I have heard are all the same. One woman with three children told me how there is nothing in her area for children under three. She wanted to work, but could not do so because of the lack of child care. Another woman had a good job, but her marriage broke up and she had to give it up because there were no care facilities for her children.
  The problems associated with lack of child care facilities are relayed to us all the time. The Government should recognise that demand, because such facilities are necessary for parents—most frequently for women. Although I do not have time to talk about it now, child care is also necessary for children. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) that the quality of child care is extremely important. As many reports have shown, the provision of child care is also important and necessary for the economy.
  It is time that the Government took that issue on board and offered us a child care strategy instead of the occasional inadequate policy.
  Mr. Nelson: This has been a commendable, albeit brief, debate. I hope to demonstrate both qualities in my response to it.
  I want to assure all hon. Members who took part in the debate that I listened carefully to all their contributions. The Government will reflect on what they said. I was struck by what the hon. Members for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), for Barking (Ms Hodge) and for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said about quality child care. They are right that not only the quantity but the flexibility and quality of education at all levels, particularly at pre-school age, is important. That is not the subject of contention on either side of the House. We should not simply throw money at a problem or extend facilities without regard to quality. The importance of quality has been an extremely significant theme of the debate.
  The new clause seeks to extend industrial buildings allowances to buildings that do not qualify for that relief, but which are used for child care purposes. The clause restricts the allowances available to £10 for each chargeable period so that, in cash terms, a person can save between £2 and £4 a year depending on his marginal rate of tax. That is probably less than the cost of making a claim. That is not, presumably, a serious proposition from the Opposition, as it would be virtually worthless to business.
  Under our current legislation, most day-to-day expenditure incurred by employers in the provision of child care facilities is already given full and immediate relief. That includes money spent on running costs such as staff wages, professional supervision and any incidental expenditure. Much of the capital expenditure by employers will already qualify for capital allowances, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Barking.
  The new clause would extend the scope of capital allowances. It is presumably aimed at facilities within shops, offices and other buildings. They do not generally qualify for relief on the footing that such buildings tend not to depreciate, at least over the medium to long term. An extension of capital allowances for child care facilities would therefore run counter to our policy of keeping to a minimum the number of special reliefs within the tax

  1483
  system. It might also open the door to claims for special treatment for other types of currently non-allowable capital expenditure.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North-West asked about the Prime Minister's commitment to universal infant education provision. The Prime Minister gave that commitment and it remains our policy to meet it. No specific date relating to the time of the next election was mentioned regarding the implementation of that commitment, but we remain pledged to it. A good deal of progress has already been made.
  I note what the hon. Member for Barking said about child care expenditure being an investment. That does not, of course, mean that it does not have an immediate and substantial cash flow cost to the Exchequer and the taxpayer. We are already spending a good deal of money on child care. The hon. Lady said that it is difficult to get the figures for total provision and I rather agree with her. I hope that she will continue to ask parliamentary questions about that. A lot of child care provision is made in the form of tax relief, which is a Treasury matter and in the form of Department for Education grants and expenditure. The Ministry of Defence spends money on child care and a variety of other Departments make allowances and provisions. It is therefore important to tie them all together. I think that the totality will be a good deal more substantial than the hon. Lady may suspect.
  The hon. Member for Barking says that the Government do not have a policy in that respect. We certainly do. We are committed to encouraging the expansion of provision for rising fives and for three-year-olds. However, I disagree with her about part-time education. All the studies appear to show that, although full-time education for four to five-year-olds is extremely worth while—we are responsive to that—part-time education is more beneficial for three to four-year-olds. That does not undermine the thrust of much of what the hon. Lady said.
  The hon. Member for Wallasey, a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Employment, referred to the Committee's report, which has been published. I can tell her that officials are considering that report. The matter will be brought before Ministers early next month, but the Committee's recommendations have a substantial price tag. The key recommendations to extend statutory maternity rights, introduce statutory paternity and family leave arrangements and extend tax relief currently available to workplace nurseries to cover all forms of employer-assisted child care are substantial, so we must consider those carefully.
  9 pm
  The hon. Member for Wallasey will be aware that our right hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) recently made an announcement on behalf of the House of Commons Commission about the voucher scheme, which will take effect, I believe, from the beginning of this month.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) asked why capital allowances were available for some but not all types of property. I think that I swept that point up earlier.
  1484
  In conclusion, I shall say a brief word about the range of provision. I hope to provide some reassurance to hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government take very seriously provision for the education and care of nursery children.
  Employers currently obtain tax relief on direct provision of child care on the premises. They obtain child care revenue cost as an immediate deduction, 25 per cent. capital allowances on equipment and 4 per cent. capital allowances on child care buildings and structures if those are on industrial premises. Incidentally, in the small minority of cases where they are in enterprise zones, they qualify for 100 per cent. relief. There is also tax relief for other child care payments. Employers receive immediate relief on payments direct to employees or to third parties providing child care for employees.
  Employers' cash payments are taxable in the normal way, as are payments made by the employer to defray the employee's pecuniary liability. However, the 1990 scheme that was introduced, the workplace scheme, has been extremely successful.
  The out-of-school initiative by the Department of Employment will cost about £45 million over three years. The child care disregard, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Leith, amounts to about £60 million. The Department of Health is paying £1.3 million a year in grant aid to 10 national voluntary organisations. There is a small grant scheme giving capital grants to local groups. The Government and local authorities are giving £10 million to pre-school playgroup associations, in addition to which about £90 million of parents' contribution adds up to a significant provision.
  Finally, workplace schemes, which allow the benefit in kind of the provision of a workplace scheme not to be taxable, have now encouraged the provision of about 500 schemes. All those amount to well in excess of £100 million of Government support in that area, which has given rise to a profusion of new facilities. We intend to continue to provide those facilities and to build on them, as we have done in recent years.
  The Government have a very creditable record and a very clear policy on the matter. I am afraid that the new clause would do nothing at all to add to that in practice, and appears to demonstrate that the Opposition once again have a good idea but then limit it without putting a price tag on it. Once again, that is uncosted idealism, but this is not a no-cost new clause and I cannot commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 276.

  Division No. 125]

  [9.02 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barron, Kevin

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Battle, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Allen, Graham

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Alton, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Benton, Joe

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Berry, Roger

  Austin-Walker, John

  Betts, Clive

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Blunkett, David

  1485

  Boateng, Paul

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Hodge, Margaret

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hoey, Kate

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Home Robertson, John

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

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Burden, Richard

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Byers, Stephen

  Hoyle, Doug

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hutton, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Illsley, Eric

  Cann, Jamie

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Chidgey, David

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jamieson, David

  Church, Judith

  Janner, Greville

  Clapham, Michael

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Coffey, Ann

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Keen, Alan

  Corbett, Robin

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Corston, Jean

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Lewis, Terry

  Darling, Alistair

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Davidson, Ian

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Denham, John

  McAllion, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dixon, Don

  McCartney, Ian

  Dobson, Frank

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dowd, Jim

  McFall, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McKelvey, William

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Maclennan, Robert

  Etherington, Bill

  McMaster, Gordon

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  MacShane, Denis

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McWilliam, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Madden, Max

  Flynn, Paul

  Maddock, Diana

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mahon, Alice

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fraser, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Galloway, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Garrett, John

  Martlew, Eric

  George, Bruce

  Maxton, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Meale, Alan

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michael, Alun

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Milburn, Alan

  Gordon, Mildred

  Miller, Andrew

  Graham, Thomas

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Moriey, Elliot

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hall, Mike

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hanson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Harvey, Nick

  Murphy, Paul

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  1486

  O'Neill, Martin

  Snape, Peter

  Parry, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Pearson, Ian

  Spellar, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Pike, Peter L

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pope, Greg

  Stevenson, George

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Stott, Roger

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Straw, Jack

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Radice, Giles

  Timms, Stephen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tipping, Paddy

  Redmond, Martin

  Turner, Dennis

  Reid, Dr John

  Tyler, Paul

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Vaz, Keith

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Walley, Joan

  Rogers, Allan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wise, Audrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Worthington, Tony

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wray, Jimmy

  Short, Clare

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Chris (Islton S & F'sbury)

  Mr. John Cummings and

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. George Mudie

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ancram, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ashby, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Atkins, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Congdon, David

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Conway, Derek

  Baldry, Tony

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bates, Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Batiste, Spencer

  Couchman, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cran, James

  Bendall, Vivian

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

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Booth, Hartley

  Day, Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dover, Den

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Bowis, John

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dunn, Bob

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brazier, Julian

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Elletson, Harold

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Faber, David

  Butler, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  1487

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Gale, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Gallie, Phil

  Marland, Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Mates, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Merchant, Piers

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mills, Iain

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hague, William

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Norris, Steve

  Hawkins, Nick

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hawksley, Warren

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayes, Jerry

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Page, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Paice, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Richards, Rod

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Tom

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sims, Roger

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Legg, Barry

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lightbown, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Sproat, Iain

  Luff, Peter

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  1488

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Steen, Anthony

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Stephen, Michael

  Walden, George

  Stem, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stewart, Allan

  Waller, Gary

  Streeter, Gary

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sumberg, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sweeney, Walter

  Watts, John

  Sykes, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thomason, Roy

  Willetts, David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wood, Timothy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tracey, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trend, Michael

  Dr. Liam Fox and

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. Simon Burns.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 16

  REBATE MECHANISM FOR IRRECOVERABLE VAT FOR CHARITIES
  '(1) The Financial Statement and Budget Report for 1995 shall include for the financial years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99, Treasury estimates of—
  (1)(a) the total amount of VAT to be collected;
  (b) the total amount of VAT paid to be paid by charities on—

  (i) business activities; and

  (ii) non-business activities;

  (c) the amount of VAT paid by charities on input tax on expenditure in pursuit of their charitable objectives which cannot be recovered.
  (2) There shall also be included an estimate of the effect on the PSBR of a mechanism to rebate to charities by grants-in-aid a sum equivalent to:

  (i) 25 per cent;

  (ii) 40 per cent; and

  (iii) 50 per cent:

  of the irrecoverable VAT paid by them.'.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause would require the Government to provide information that would enable us to appreciate the scale of the problem of irrecoverable value added tax which faces charities.
  We are asking charities to do more and more. For example, care in the community invites charities to play a new, more formalised and more extensive role in social provision. That is as it should be. Our aspirations for social provision are rising. We know that state agencies, crucial as they are, are insufficient. Of their nature, they tend to be broad-brush in their approach, somewhat clumsy and somewhat insensitive to the infinite variety of human need.
  By contrast, charities at their best reach the parts of society that bureaucracies are unable to reach. Charities have entrepreneurial qualities, and they are cost-effective.

  1489
  It is right that we are seeking to mobilise them in a partnership to enlist all the resources of generosity in our society.
  There is a perversity in our fiscal system, which lies in irrecoverable VAT. Charities are being asked to provide residential homes, day centres and respite care. They are expected to demonstrate cost-effectiveness by tendering against commercial organisations and to demonstrate their effectiveness compared with local authority providers.
  At the same time, local authority providers, providing the same services as charities, do not have to pay VAT. Commercial organisations can reclaim VAT, or, if they are engaged in the provision of exempt services, they can build in a profit factor to offset the cost of irrecoverable VAT. That is not possible for charities for the greater part of their activity.
  The services that charities provide are mostly VAT exempt or outside the scope of VAT. They are unable to recover the VAT that they have paid on necessary supplies to enable them to deliver services. The Charities Tax Reform Group estimates that the cost of irrecoverable VAT to the charitable sector is about £335 million annually. New research by London Economics suggests that the figure may be nearer £550 million.
  I shall give some examples of the burden on particular charities. Methodist Homes for the Aged found itself paying £450,000 in irrecoverable VAT. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children paid £650,000 in a year. Help the Aged paid about £750,000. The Royal National Institute for the Blind paid £1.2 million. Some charities are losing about 10 per cent. of their income in irrecoverable VAT.
  If policy is to be consistent, and if we are to provide for fair competition in the developing market for care, we must redress the balance. The solution is the establishment of a refund scheme whereby charities would be compensated through Treasury grant in aid for a set proportion of the VAT that they incurred on their non-business expenditure. I emphasise that the charities would not keep the money that came back to them as profit; they would plough it back into services.
  Such a scheme works successfully in Canada, where charities are able to reclaim half the amount spent in general services tax at the end of the financial year. The Charities Tax Reform Group has been advised by the European Commission that such a scheme would be permissible within European law.
  The proposal is that the scheme should apply only in relation to non-business expenditure, which would go a long way to safeguard against fraud. Such a scheme would also be flexible, enabling my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to vary the proportion of irrecoverable VAT which would be rebated according to the circumstances of the economy and his judgment of what he could afford.
  Such a scheme ought to be attractive to the Treasury and to my hon. Friends on the right, because they could look forward, if they wished to do so, to some substitution of charitable activity for state activity. Charities also provide excellent value for money. This scheme should also have a broader appeal; it should recommend itself to others of my hon. Friends and to the Opposition, because it would make for a cost-effective increase in social provision.
  1490
  The standard objection advanced against this argument over the years is that it is Government policy to provide fiscal concessions to encourage charitable giving, and that we cannot have it both ways. Speaking as the chair of the all-party group on charities, I know that the increase over many years in tax concessions for charitable giving has been very much appreciated—at least until the March 1993 Budget.
  Until that date, the cumulative value—I speak from memory, and my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will correct me if I am wrong—of tax concessions on charitable giving introduced by this Government amounted to £900 million a year. Since then, however, the Treasury has been somewhat less benign. In the March 1993 Budget, we saw the measure on advance corporation tax for charities and the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel and power. The consequence was that charities lost £100 million net in tax terms.
  Alongside that fiscal setback, charities then and since have suffered from fairly tight restraints on the capacity of central and local government to make grants to them. The recession caused enormous difficulties for them in fund raising with the private sector. Charities have recovered very unevenly from the recession.
  The Government's strategy of switching the emphasis from direct to indirect taxation and the prospect that my right hon. and hon. Friends hold out of progress towards a 20p basic rate of income tax challenge us to a fundamental reconsideration of the tax treatment of charities. We should not, of course, reduce the concessions for charitable giving, but we should recognise that encouragement for giving is insufficient.
  There is, after all, a certain randomness. Although we should respect the wishes of donors to charities and should let them make their own judgments, we should recognise that, in terms of how social need is to be addressed, there is considerable randomness in the pattern of charitable giving. Although the great majority of charities are active, efficient and competent in what they set out to do, we cannot say that of all of them.
  There is a case for a new emphasis on supporting charities that do things—charities that make social provision. It is often provision in unglamorous, unfashionable, but vitally necessary areas. My right hon. and hon. Friends ought seriously to consider how they will remedy the problem that the Government take more away in VAT from some charities that perform extremely valuable social tasks than those charities gain in concessions on charitable giving.
  The Government want charities to play an important part in the pattern of social provision. Charities are strongly placed to do so. They are cost-effective. Their gearing, through their capacity to mobilise voluntary support, means that they have an enormous amount to contribute for the money that they dispose of. They are innovative.
  We ought to be systematic in our encouragement and support of the charitable sector. I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we need a systematic review of the tax treatment of charities and the totality of Government's policy in relation to charity, so that we can do our best to ensure that it is coherent and that charities are consistently supported.
  The ways and means resolution and the money resolution that we have approved mean that it is not possible to table a new clause that would be in order

  1491
  which would provide substantively for the implementation of a compensation scheme such as I have argued for. Therefore, I have tabled new clause 16, which would require the Government to supply information that would illustrate the situation and the need. It is my hope that, in researching and considering the estimates that the new clause would require, my right hon. and hon. Friends will be persuaded of the necessity of a VAT compensation scheme.
  Mr. Tim Smith: In recent years, charities have had to bear an increasing burden of VAT, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) has said. He is right when he says that we should have a comprehensive review of their liability to pay VAT. His new clause has my full support.
  Ms Primarolo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on tabling new clause 16. As he said in his closing remarks, the ways and means and money resolutions are drafted tightly, so it would be difficult, if not impossible, to table an amendment that would be in order. He was right to table a new clause asking for information to identify the scale of the difficulty experienced by charities because of irrecoverable VAT. We support the principle that we should look carefully at the impact of the increasing importance of VAT as the major element in the Government's strategy of shifting from direct to indirect taxes.
  As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon highlighted, charities mostly provide services which are exempt from VAT. Therefore, they are unable to recover VAT where they have paid it on purchases of necessary supplies.
  The director of finance and administration of the National Children's Home has said:
  "The irrecoverable VAT burden of NCH in 1992/93 was £891,000."
  If it had been able to use that money to finance its activities, it would have been able to open and run another 20 family centres. As has been pointed out, examples such as the Canadian tax regime, in which proportions of tax are reclaimed by charities, are worthy of consideration by the Government. It would be important that any scheme limited the recoverable VAT to non-business expenditure only.
  We support the principle of the new clause. I hope that the Paymaster General will tell us that the Government are willing to look closely at the difficulties that charities are experiencing. I hope that he will tell the House how we could introduce a sensible tax regime that did not penalise the charities to the extent that they are penalised now.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I pay tribute to the good work done by the charitable sector, described eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). The Government recognise that work by, for instance, granting tax reliefs, as my hon. Friend mentioned.
  A number of specific VAT reliefs are granted for charitable purchases, which save the sector about £150 million a year—perhaps one third of its potential VAT bill. The reliefs cover purchases of medical research and rescue equipment such as lifeboats, equipment for
  1492
  disabled people, the construction of certain charities' buildings, and advertising to raise funds. Moreover, the sale by charities of donated goods is zero-rated, and admission to fund-raising events such as concerts is exempt. Those reliefs may be worth another £50 million. Direct tax reliefs are worth about £830 million, and exemption from business rates about £240 million.
  It is clear that the charitable sector as a whole has been given a wide range of reliefs to enable it to do the good work that we expect of it. The general VAT rebate scheme outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and others, which would apply to all charities, would be very expensive; it might cost a further £300 million a year—money that would either go straight on to the budget deficit or have to be found elsewhere. Moreover, such a scheme would give most benefit to bodies spending heavily on taxable goods and services, regardless of the aim of the charity or the nature of the expenditure.
  Charitable status is widely granted: there are about 170,000 registered charities in the country. Both this evening and in discussions elsewhere, my hon. Friend has spoken of the importance of social provision by charities, but it would be almost impossible for us to differentiate between charities of that kind and the generality of registered charities—which include universities, providers of private medical care and public schools. We must be cautious about granting another general tax relief by way of a VAT refund scheme; the good it might do would not be particularly narrowly focused.
  I now realise that the new clause was intended as a probing measure; before my hon. Friend made that clear, I was a little worried. The figures requested would be extremely difficult to obtain, certainly on a routine basis: much of the information could not be obtained from VAT returns, for the good reason that most of the activities involved are exempt from VAT or outside its scope, because the charities concerned are not registered.
  Therefore, the information would have to be obtained from surveys, which would not only be administratively expensive for Customs and Excise but would impose on the charities a compliance cost that might not be altogether welcome. If my hon. Friend wishes to obtain further and better information about the sums involved, which is the requirement of the new clause, I should be happy to answer a parliamentary question.
  I think that I said enough earlier to show that, although I am highly sympathetic to the aims of the clause, and genuinely acknowledge the work that is done by charities, especially in filling the gaps that must always exist in state provision and in finding new and innovative ways to respond to human needs, I must resist, without any misunderstanding, the thinking behind the proposal. We do not contemplate a general VAT refund scheme, despite the eloquence of my hon. Friend's pleadings.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: With his usual astuteness, my hon. Friend has perceived that the new clause was probing. I am grateful to him for his sympathetic view of the issue. It is important, and I hope that the debate, which I am glad we have had, will encourage the Government to think systematically not only about this issue but about the totality of Government fiscal policy in relation to charities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Madam Speaker: We now come to new clause 18. The three hon. Members who are eligible to move it are Mr. Knapman, Mr. Alexander and Mr. Rupert Allason. As they are not present, the new clause falls.

Clause 8
  HYDROCARBON OIL: "ROAD VEHICLE"
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 6, line 21, at end insert—
  HYDROCARBON OIL: "ROAD VEHICLE"

    'Vehicles used between different parts of land
    4A. A vehicle is an excepted vehicle if—

    (a) it is used only for purposes relating to agriculture, horticulture or forestry,

    (b) it is used on public roads only in passing between different areas of land occupied by the same person, and

    (c) the distance it travels on public roads in passing between any two such areas does not exceed 1.5 kilometres.'.

    Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment No. 91, in schedule 4, page 169, leave out lines 39 and 40.
    Government amendment No. 69.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are denied an outing on amusement machine licence duty. The amendment relates to vehicle excise duty changes and it might be helpful briefly to remind hon. Members of the reasons for the changes to that duty, which are set out in schedule 4.
    The existing system of VED suffers from a great many faults. It is archaic, in some cases dating back to before the second world war, and as a result it no longer concentrates special treatment and concessions on those who most merit them. It is also extremely complex. There are 132 separate classes for this type of indirect taxation. Consequently, it is bureaucratic and I am afraid that it is also prone to evasion. Therefore, we have used the Bill as an opportunity to push through major reform and restructuring of the vehicle excise duty system.
    Any reform on this scale is not easy and we made a number of consequential changes after discussing the matter during earlier debate on the Bill and with the trades and associations that are affected. The system that is set out in schedule 4 addresses the faults that I have outlined and the 132 classes are reduced to fewer than a dozen. Special treatment is now concentrated on the most deserving, opportunities for evasion are closed and bureaucracy is reduced.
    The amendment relates to farming, horticulture and forestry because it is obvious, especially to hon. Members with agricultural constituencies, that farm operators are frequently obliged to make short journeys between parcels of land in the same ownership. Such limited use of the public roads warrants the continued exemption from VED and entitlement to rebated fuel.
    The old 6-miles-per-week exemption was bureaucratic and virtually impossible to enforce and our original intention was to abolish it. However, I said clearly in Committee that I would listen to representations from hon. Members, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and others on whether we could design an exemption that was less bureaucratic and more
    1494
    enforceable, but which would give relief, where merited, to those farm vehicles making inevitable short trips along public roads.
    Ms Primarolo: I am listening carefully to the Paymaster General. Can he confirm that the proposals before us are not less restrictive than the previous 6-miles-per-week regulation, but are less bureaucratic? Is he saying that, basically, it is the same arrangement but in a less bureaucratic form?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The proposal is certainly less bureaucratic because previously the farmer had to fill out a complex annual form. If he needed to divert from the route laid down in the form because, for example, of a blockage in the road, theoretically he had to write for permission to make the detour.
    The proposal is also more enforceable because, instead of a system based on time and distance—6 miles per week—we have agreed to a scheme that gives exemption to vehicles used for agriculture and similar purposes where no trip on a public road between land in the same occupation exceeds 1.5 km, which is about as near to a mile as the metric system allows. To enforce that, the police officer no longer has to guess how many miles the vehicle has travelled in a week; instead, he can easily judge whether the vehicle is within 1.5 km of the nearest land in that particular ownership or occupation.
    It is a different system and a slightly different category of vehicles will benefit, but the overall intention is the same. In general, it is slightly more generous than the system it replaces. Under the old system, if the limit of 6 miles per week had been used up, in theory the farmer was not entitled to any more trips on a public road. Now, he can make an unlimited number of journeys on a public road, within the overall constraint that they can be no more than 1.5 km in distance. I commend the amendment to the House.
    Mr. Tyler: I want to mention the concerns that the agricultural, horticultural and forestry industries had about the original proposal, from which, to some extent, the Government have now retreated. That is welcome.
    I have two questions for the Paymaster General. First, why was the original proposal ever included in the Bill? Clearly, consultation must have been absolutely minimal if the Government now have to make this major, albeit welcome, change. The only thing that I can think of that might have been the logic behind the original proposal is that Conservative Members who represent agricultural constituencies must have told the Government that such was the scale of current agricultural enterprises that they had so many private roads that the exemption was no longer necessary.
    The other question is why the distance of precisely 1.5 km has been chosen. It is near a mile, but why were not the distances of 1, 1.5 or 2 miles chosen? That restriction does not seem to have any particular logic. No precedent for it exists in similar legislation from the past, or in present restrictions.
    The Government's retreat is welcome. I know that all three industries will be delighted that, at long last, the Government have recognised the problem that they were creating. However, the attempt to reduce bureaucracy could still result in a number of problems. The provision on vehicles that are used only for agriculture, horticulture and forestry purposes might, for example, not catch in its

    1495
    net a pick-up truck that is used for leisure purposes at weekends—not that farmers ever get any leisure time. They may find that, if a tight net were drawn, a vehicle used for leisure purposes would not be captured within the amendment and, therefore, that they would not have the exemption either from fuel or vehicle excise duty.
    I hope that the system will prove simpler than that of the past, and than that which would have resulted from the original proposal. I thank the Paymaster General for listening to hon. Members on both sides of the House at an early stage in Committee. I hope that he will be able to answer those two simple points when he replies to the short debate.
    9.45 pm
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I want to thank my hon. Friend the Paymaster General for the changes. Farmers in Hastings and Rye quickly alerted me to the difficulties with the original proposal. I know that they are pleased about not just the changes in the distance that they can drive, but the reduction in bureaucracy. Every farmer would dearly like to have fewer forms to fill in. The reduction of one will be much welcomed.
    Mr. Robert Key: I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider new section 4A(b), which states that the vehicle should pass between
    "different areas of land occupied by the same person".
    On many occasions, the cost of agricultural machinery is so great that farmers buy machinery jointly, or have a working arrangement to farm each other's land and share the machinery. Although those farmers meet the purposes of new section 4A(a) and (c), the lands that they farm may not technically be occupied by the same person, even though they may be only 1 or 2 km away from each other.
    That is important to farmers in my constituency such as Mr. Sandell and Mr. Crook of Amesbury, who have a river and a bridge between their land. They would not benefit from the clause simply because they do not occupy each other's land.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall be extremely brief, but I want to refer to my amendment No. 91. I accept that amendment No. 68, which stands in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is a massive improvement on the original proposal. The Paymaster General has referred to his desire to reduce bureaucracy and the complexity of forms that farmers must fill out, but I do not believe that the amendment will reduce that complexity. Aspects of it will lead to various arguments being propounded as to what an agricultural vehicle is exactly.
    The amendment is not particularly clear when it states:
    "for purposes relating to agriculture, horticulture or forestry".
    Will that, for example, include a truck that is not defined as a tractor or an agricultural implement? That is one of the concerns that many farmers have about the definition of an agricultural vehicle.
    Has the Paymaster General received any representations recently from the National Farmers Union for Scotland or from Forestry Enterprise on the provision allowing an unlimited number of journeys of 1.5 km? Realistically, that provision is not particularly helpful in regions such as mine, where farms or forestry may cover vast areas of land. Farms may not be especially profitable,
    1496
    but they cover vast areas. I wonder whether there has been any recognition of the particular geography or topography of certain areas.
    I echo the sentiments that have been expressed about co-operation between farmers which may involve moving implements from one farm to another, thereby leading to the 1.5 km provision being exceeded. It is important to clarify the issue so that we do not get into yet another muddle and in order to avoid bureaucracy. Our farmers and foresters are extremely concerned.
    While there has been a general welcome for the amendment, I hope that the Paymaster General will take on board the fact that there are still reservations about it. I hope that we can be provided with a final definition.
    Mr. Peter Griffiths: The Paymaster General referred to "the most deserving case"—I think that that was the phrase—being kept in the revised regulations. I wonder whether he may come to regret that phrase because, although I have no objection to the proposal to reduce the burden on those who operate vehicles for forestry or for agricultural purposes, other groups of people in an almost identical situation do not receive the same sympathetic attention.
    I am thinking of, for example, plant hire companies that provide, for use in construction, vehicles which are often used on the road for only part of the time. They are faced with a great increase in tax in the Budget and, while I accept that the merits of the case for agriculture may be strong, other groups do not benefit from the subsidies received by agriculture and forestry but, as they are involved in the construction industry, face considerable difficulty in passing on the increased tax burden.
    Mr. William Ross: I echo the views expressed by the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Salisbury (Mr. Key) about co-operation among farmers. I think that the House will appreciate that the smaller the farms, the more likely there is to be such co-operation. Indeed, it is not so much common as nearly universal in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will take on board the comments made a few moments ago.
    I draw the House's attention to a matter which has not yet been mentioned, at least not in my hearing—the 1.5 km provision. In Northern Ireland and, no doubt, in slightly different forms throughout the United Kingdom, we have a system of renting land. In Northern Ireland it is called conacre. It involves renting land for a particular crop for one year. It is of considerable value to specialist potato growers and, to a lesser extent, to specialist grain growers and, of course, in respect of grass silage which often has to be grown at a considerable distance from where it is needed.
    The periods of time during which tractors and other vehicles are used to move crops are comparatively short—in some cases, only a few days each year. As the House will know, at such times it is a question of every possible vehicle being put on the road to do the work in the shortest possible time. Crops are sometimes grown on land that is considerably further off than 1.5 km. Indeed, I should have thought that 10 km was a more reasonable distance to include in the legislation. Perhaps the Minister will take that point on board in addition to that made by

    1497
    the hon. Members for Moray and for Salisbury and attend to them next year, as I do not expect that any further changes to the Bill will be made now.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I was asked why the original proposal was to do away with the exemption. It was simply because it was bureaucratic and unworkable and the House should not pass or tolerate laws that are described as such. I made it clear, however, that if agricultural and similar vehicles could be exempted from vehicle excise duty in a way that overcame the problems, I would consider it. Since I said that and since we have had the meetings with the trade representatives, we have found exactly such a way and I commend it to the House.
    I was asked why the amendment sets out a distance of 1.5 km. I own that I would rather have put "1 mile" in the statute, but I am advised that nowadays we are all going metric. I do not know why, but I can guess. It is certainly the case that, from 1999, our statutes have to reflect kilometres and other metric measurements, with a few exceptions that do not cover this case. I went for the nearest length equivalent to a mile and came up with 1.5 km, which is reasonably comprehensible to farmers, even though most of the farmers I know are still in the day of rods, poles and perches—if they are very modern they talk about furlongs. I am afraid that we must all go metric in due course, and so the figure in the statute will be 1.5 km.
    On the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) about construction vehicles, the rationale for the agricultural exemption is the low mileage on roads. Often, farmers simply have to cross a main road—they do nothing more than that—so they do not use the public highway in any real sense of the word, whereas construction vehicles and the like use public roads, which explains the difference in treatment.
    I was also asked about farms that may not be in the same occupation, but use the same vehicles. Contract vehicles frequently travel quite short distances between different farms, but during a year they tend to make significant use of public roads. They would not have benefited under the old exemption of 6 miles per week and it is not right, therefore, that we should design a markedly more generous system to replace the one that we are doing away with.
    Mrs. Ewing: Can the Paymaster General differentiate between a contract vehicle and one that is owned by a co-operative?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, but I think that the general point still applies. If a co-operative's vehicle moved frequently between different farms, it would not have benefited under the old system of 6 miles per week and, typically, would do more than the 1.5 km hops between land, even if we were to change the statute to allow such hops between farms to include movements
    1498
    between land in different ownership. Obviously, we have to draw a line at some point and I think that we have done so in the right place.
    Mr. Tyler rose—
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman spoke earlier and I am trying to answer him, but I will be happy to listen if he has a different point.
    Mr. Tyler: I want to draw the Paymaster General's attention to the words "same person" in paragraph (b) of the amendment. It is not clear to whom that applies—the same as what? In this case, it is extremely important because, as the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, "same person" might mean something in the context of a co-operative. The "same person" is very difficult to define. I think that the hon. Member for Salisbury is agreeing.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The use of "same person" means that it applies to a farm in the same ownership. We are exempting a farm vehicle—a tractor or whatever—when it moves from a field owned by a man or a partnership to a different field in the same ownership. If it involves a journey of less than 1.5 km, the farm vehicle will be exempt from vehicle excise duty. That is reasonably clear and I commend the measure to the House.
    Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14

  RATES OF DUTY
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 10, line 13, after 'State', insert 'or Cyprus or Malta'.
  The amendment deals with the transport by air from this country to two Commonwealth nations that lie within the European geographical area: Cyprus and Malta.
  Some 50 years ago, the air over Malta was full of aeroplanes—those of the Nazi Luftwaffe trying to crush that little island out of existence. Britain owes a debt to Malta and, as we celebrate VE day, the Bill provides the House with an opportunity to give the people of Malta a small present by reducing from £10 to £5 the air passenger duty that British holidaymakers must pay when they fly to Malta.
  10 pm
  As hon. Members may know, we have two rates of air passenger duty: £5 for the European Union and the European Economic Area; and £10 for the rest of the world. The amendment simply proposes that, as Commonwealth countries, Malta and Cyprus should be treated on an equal footing with the European Union in that regard and people travelling by air from the United Kingdom to either Malta or Cyprus should pay only £5 in air passenger duty.
  The sum involved is minimal. Some 500,000 holidaymakers from the UK go to Malta each year and a little under 1 million go to Cyprus, so the Cypriot tourist industry is suffering. To make that concession just to Malta holidaymakers would cost less than the share options to be exercised by the chairman of the National Grid. Given that this is a chance to pay a practical tribute

  1499
  to the Maltese people by encouraging our citizens to go on holiday to Malta, I ask all hon. Members to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Actually, that is not true; I do not mind disappointing the hon. Gentleman because this is not one of his brainier schemes. In Committee, he had the idea of exempting all members of the Council of Europe from the full rate of air passenger duty. That was rejected, and I invite my hon. Friends to do the same to this amendment.
  The £5 rate of duty was originally restricted to European Union countries as they are easily identifiable. That is an important consideration because travel agents and airlines around the world will have to administer the duty and distinguish between the £10 and £5 rates, so we chose the European Union as a readily identifiable group of countries. We then extended the rate to the European Economic Area because, by law, we must extend to it privileges of that nature granted to the European Union. There we must stop, however, because there is no clear case for singling out Malta and Cyprus, brave and plucky though at least one of them may have been during the second world war.
  The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that a relief may come the way of those two countries as both have applied to join the European Union. If and when they succeed in doing so, they will qualify for the £5 rate of air passenger duty. I would rather leave it to the forces of time and history to grant them that privilege than do so this evening in the House.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 42

  CARS:ACCESSORIES FOR THE DISABLED
  Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 35, line 35, leave out
  'designed solely for use by a chronically sick or disabled person".'
  and insert
  'which falls within section 168AA".'.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 1, in page 35, line 36, at end insert
  'and also automatic transmission and power steering where those accessories are required to permit the chronically sick or disabled person to use the car.'.
  Government amendment No. 59.
  Sir George Young: I should like to speak briefly to Government amendment No. 59 and I hope that the Opposition will then not move amendment No. 1.
  The amendments extend the exemptions included in the Finance Bill to exempt accessories for the disabled from an income tax charge when fitted to a company car. The amendments mean that exemptions will apply not just to special accessories designed solely for use by a disabled person, but optional accessories needed to enable a disabled employee to use the car where the employee is an orange badge holder because of his or her disability.
  The original proposal was widely welcomed when we debated the measure in Committee, but there was a general feeling that we should go a little bit further. I have
  1500
  now carefully considered whether we can respond to that feeling without running the risks that the Committee identified of giving relief for non-disabled drivers.
  We have looked again at the scope for widening the range of accessories covered by the exemption while still ensuring that those items are exempt only where they are needed by a disabled person. As a result, we propose amendments Nos. 58 and 59, which will extend exemption to include optional accessories, which a disabled person needs to use the car. That means that if accessories such as automatic transmission, power steering, electric windows, air conditioning or heated seats—all of which were mentioned when we debated the proposal in Committee—are fitted to a company car at extra cost to enable a disabled employee to use that car, the extra cost of those items will not be added to the price of the car in calculating the value of the car benefit. Only those accessories that the particular disabled employee actually needs will be excluded. Where the accessory is no more necessary than for anyone else, the extra tax charge will still be due.
  An employee will be eligible for the exemption if he or she is the current holder of an orange badge because of his or her disability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said, the orange badge scheme was reviewed recently and the eligibility criteria were greatly tightened. The orange badge scheme was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) and it operates under regulations made under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and its Northern Ireland equivalent.
  I believe that amendments Nos. 58 and 59 fully meet the concerns expressed by the Committee. I commend them to the House. I hope that amendment No. 1 will not be moved.
  Ms Primarolo: I support the Government amendments. The proposals cover exactly the points that were discussed in Committee. The exemptions now provided to disabled drivers as a result of the Government's amendments mean that the discrimination that was exercised before will no longer exist.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 59, in page 35, line 36, at end insert—
  `( ) After section 168A of the Taxes Act 1988 there shall be inserted—

  CARS:ACCESSORIES FOR THE DISABLED

    Equipment to enable disabled person to use car
    168AA.—(1) Equipment falls within this section if it is designed solely for use by a chronically sick or disabled person.
    (2) Equipment also falls within this section if—

    (a) at the time when the car is first made available to the employee, the employee holds a disabled person's badge, and

    (b) the equipment is made available for use with the car because the equipment enables him to use the car in spite of the disability entitling him to hold the badge.

    (3) In subsection (2) above "disabled person's badge" means a badge—

    (a) which is issued to a disabled person under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 or section 14 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (or which has effect as if so issued), and

    1501

    (b) which is not required to be returned to the issuing authority under or by virtue of the section in question.

    (4) Subsection (12) of section 168A applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that."'—[Sir George Young.]

Clause 68

  APPROVAL OF COMPANIES AS TRUSTS
  Amendment made: No. 71, in page 60, line 19, leave out '50' and insert `30'.—[Sir George Young.]
  Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr.Bates.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Committee and in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION
  That the draft Asian Development Bank (Extension of Limit on Guarantees) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.
  That the draft Inter-American Development Bank (Eighth General Increase) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.
  That the draft Asian Development Bank (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Council Housing, Southampton
  10.6 pm
  Mr. John Denham: I wish to present a petition signed by 1,000 council tenants in Southampton, which is headed by David and Rashin Bishop of 2 Kenilworth house. They are in their fourth year of waiting for a larger home for themselves and their three children. They cannot understand why they have to wait so long while the city council has £14 million from the sale of council houses, which cannot be used to build new homes.
  The petition reads:
  To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble Petition of residents of Southampton sheweth that:
  Local authorities are prevented from using the money raised from the sale of council housing to build new homes.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your humble House will:
  Urge Her Majesty's Government to enable Southampton and other local councils to use capital receipts to build new homes, improve existing homes and create useful work.
  To lie upon the Table.

Official Report
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
10.9 pm
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this evening's Adjournment debate about Hansard and related issues. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science, for being here to reply to the debate and I look forward very much to hearing what he has to say. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) in the Chamber, and I hope that they will take an interest in the matter.
Hansard is essential to the work of Members of the House. It is also highly important to our constituents, who need to know what right hon. and hon. Members say in Parliament. The dramatic fall in Hansard's circulation in recent years, the decline of parliamentary reporting and the lack of in-depth coverage of the House's proceedings in the press have together significantly weakened the working of democracy in this country.
I am especially pleased to start the debate as a Member for a Norwich constituency. It was in Norwich that Luke Hansard was baptised and where he served his apprenticeship to a printer before coming to London in 1774. Here he became one of the commercial parliamentary printers contracted to Mr. Speaker to publish the papers of the House. Those were straightforward papers—the journal, votes and Bills—necessary for the work of the House. What was said by Members in debates continued to be regarded as confidential and strictly reserved for the ears of other Members. I suspect that there may be occasions nowadays when the thought crosses the minds of some right hon. and hon. Members that it might be better if that continued to be so.
It was not until the first decade of the 19th century that unauthorised verbatim accounts of proceedings by William Cobbett began to appear. From 1807 onwards, those were published by Luke Hansard's son Thomas, who took over the whole operation from 1812. Since that time, the name Hansard has been synonymous with the publication of a clear and independent record of the proceedings in the Chamber and in our Standing Committees. It is a tribute to the achievements of the Hansard family, of Her Majesty's Stationery Office and of its highly proficient staff for many decades that the title Hansard has been adopted for the reports of proceedings in other legislatures throughout the world.
Norwich's historic connection with Hansard was reinforced in 1968, when HMSO transferred its headquarters from Atlantic house in Holborn to Norwich. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of my constituents and others in Norwich who work in the HMSO organisation. I thank also those members of staff at HMSO who have helped me in preparation for the debate.
It is in HMSO's parliamentary data centre that the copy sent from the Hansard editorial staff here is converted from continuous text into columns and pages, scanned for quality control and delivered in hard form to HMSO's parliamentary press for printing, finishing and distribution

1503
the following morning. I do not know whether I am allowed to pay tribute to those who are present taking down the proceedings right now, verbatim, at the same time as I am referring to other people associated with Hansard. Written answers have to be typeset before being converted into columns and paginated, while proceedings in Standing Committees also require typesetting.
Getting Hansard to our breakfast tables is therefore a complicated and costly operation. It is an operation that I believe is essential to the workings of democracy in Britain. The electors who send right hon. and hon. Members to represent them here are entitled to know what decisions we have taken and why. The arguments that we have made to one another, the challenges that we have made to Ministers and their responses, the votes that we have recorded, all belong in the public record. That information makes us truly accountable to one another in the House and should make us accountable to the wider public, beyond these walls.
Unfortunately, access to information about the proceedings in the House and the reasoning behind parliamentary decisions has become more restricted. Sixteen years ago, Hansard had a circulation of 10,500 copies, covering proceedings in both Houses. Now, its daily sales are of about 5,500 copies, and most of those—some 85 per cent.—go to officials and Government Departments, with the remainder going to institutions and corporate bodies. Many public libraries, academic institutions and individuals have ceased to take Hansard altogether.
There can be no doubt that the major reason for the decline in the circulation of Hansard has been its pricing policy. In 1979, Commons Hansard cost 45p. By 1983, that had more than trebled to £1.50. Now it is £7.50. The Hansard for the other place costs £4.20. Few public or academic libraries can afford to pay nearly £12 a day to learn what happens here.
I understand that the decision was taken in 1983 to withdraw the subsidy of £6 million a year which HMSO was then receiving to support the publication of Hansard. That process was completed in 1992. No announcement of that decision was, so far as I can discover, ever made in the House. Right hon. and hon. Members never had the opportunity to express their views on its merits or on its inevitable consequences. It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) tabled a written question on this matter in November 1993. The figures that he obtained confirm the information that I have given in this debate.
It is not acceptable for the citizens of this country to have to pay seven times what Americans and Germans pay for finding out what happens in their legislatures, eight times what Canadians and French people pay and 14 times as much as Australians have to pay.
The fall in the circulation of Hansard has been compounded by the changes in parliamentary coverage in the press. Twenty-five or 30 years ago, the quality broadsheets, if not the tabloid press, gave proceedings in this House much more coverage than they do now. I know that that is true because I took the opportunity to do a certain amount of research into this subject some six months ago. The Times, for example, some years ago, quoted directly from the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members in some detail. It is very rare indeed for it to do so now. The quality press now prefers to produce the
1504
diaries of parliamentary sketch writers. Serious reporting has given way to a preoccupation with knockabout comedy and juvenile witticisms.
Of course I accept that there are programmes on the radio and television which are specifically devoted to covering parliamentary proceedings. That is all to the good, but they cater for people with specialised interests, not for the general run of viewers, whose attention—or perhaps that of news editors seeking spectacular rows—is aroused only for snippets of debates in the House or in Committee which are carried on the main news bulletins.
It is no good complaining of course about the preferences of the broadcasting media or of the newspapers. They have their own agendas and rightly so. The House must make its own views felt, at least on the issue of Hansard, in which we have a locus.
Hansard should be more readily available. That means lowering its price, if necessary by subsidising it from parliamentary rather than Government funds. The House should consider whether copies of Hansard should be supplied to the major public libraries throughout the United Kingdom at a price equivalent to the marginal cost of production. That would make it readily accessible to a very large number of people whenever they needed to discover what the House had heard, decided and done.
Why should Hansard not be available, for example, on the Internet, perhaps at a modest charge to subscribers?
Mr. David Congdon: My hon. Friend was talking earlier about cost, which is an important factor as, indeed, is accessibility. Does he agree that if Hansard were put on the Internet, it could possibly be made available more cheaply and—perhaps even more beneficially—made far more accessible to people?
Mr. Thompson: I certainly accept my hon. Friend's point. I know also that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is particularly interested in the information being available on the Internet, and cheaply. If electronic communication represents the future, the representatives of the people of this country should be among the first, not the last, to use it.
Parliament is the linchpin of democracy in Britain. In this Chamber and in another place, the range and scope of the laws and regulations that people have to obey is continually being extended. Their continuing consent depends on their ability to scrutinise the activities and decisions of their Members of Parliament. That has become harder in recent years. It should—it must—become easier in the future.
10.19 pm
Mr. Nigel Forman: I strongly endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who has put a powerful and well-researched argument to the House. I hope that the Minister will pay particular attention to his implicit suggestion that the subsidy should be restored to Hansard so that it can be made available to the general public, libraries and others at a more competitive price which is more akin to the price in other countries. And if money needs to be found for that purpose—if it is not possible or tenable to find it from Exchequer sources—we should look to Parliament's own revenue-generating capacity. As I understand it, the Kiosk and one or two other places here make a handsome profit;

1505
perhaps we should look to them to find the necessary subsidy that would enable us to bring Hansard to the attention and use of a much wider public.
10.20 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. John Horam): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) for drawing attention to an issue that is of concern to both sides of the House. It was fascinating to hear of the links between Norwich, Hansard and its printer and publisher, HMSO. As we know, Norwich is a fine city, and HMSO is not the least fine of its occupants. Indeed, this very morning I was extolling its excellent recent progress to a conference on pay and grading delegation in the public sector.
My hon. Friend has raised important issues, focusing on the premise, with which I very much agree, that Members of the House must be properly accountable to their constituents; and that the people of this country must have the opportunity of following what goes on here and what Members say in Parliament. That principle is at the heart of our democratic system of government.
I too regret the increasing tendency in the press to trivialise our proceedings, and I believe that Parliament should be covered more thoroughly and seriously by the media. I was impressed by the way my hon. Friend collected his information on that subject.
I also believe that Hansard is an essential and high-quality service. The service provided to the House by the Editor of debates, in collaboration with HMSO, matches the best in the world. Many legislatures manage to issue their record of proceedings only some days after the event. Obviously costs, and therefore the cover price, could be substantially reduced if hon. Members were prepared to contemplate a diminution in the standards to which we have become accustomed. But I do not favour going down that route; nor do I believe that such a move would attract significant support anywhere in the House.
In order to guarantee the breakfast-time delivery of the previous day's proceedings, HMSO has made a heavy investment in plant and equipment in central London, which is costly to maintain. The facilities are fully stretched each night when Parliament is sitting but cannot be used to full capacity at other times, particularly during the recesses.
To deal with this problem the Government are introducing a new arrangement in the 1995–96 estimates, permitting HMSO to seek non-Government work to fill spare capacity. I am hopeful that that will lead to the more effective use of HMSO's facilities and thereby spread the fixed costs of the installation over a wider base. That, I hope, will lead to the lower costs with which my hon. Friend is concerned. It will be one more step in a progressive programme of service improvements and cost reduction.
Following investment authorised by a Committee of the House, for example, the Editor of debates has, for more than a year, been providing copy to HMSO in electronic form, instead of typescript and manuscript. That eliminates the need for typesetting and it has opened the way to substantial savings in production costs.
1506
At the same time, HMSO has subjected its Hansard printing operations to the full rigours of competitive market testing—an exercise which has demonstrated that there are no private sector printers capable of producing Hansard more cheaply or efficiently. The successful in-house bid has led to the rationalisation of production facilities and improvements in productivity.
A second market test—of the keyboarding of written answers—led to another innovative in-house bid by HMSO that resulted in new investment in modern data technology and much greater cost-effectiveness. New proposals for changes in the pattern of working at the Parliamentary Press, that will further improve productivity, are under discussion with union representatives.
The desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North to see an increase in the circulation of Hansard is, I am sure, understandable, strong and widely shared. It is so strong that he is prepared to contemplate the reintroduction of a general Hansard subsidy or wider recourse to differential pricing, with parliamentary and Government users paying a higher price than external purchasers, such as public libraries.
That raises two questions: is subsidy the most desirable way of keeping costs to the customer under control; and would a general subsidy lead to a marked increase in the readership of Hansard among our constituents? My hon. Friend rightly observed that Hansard is no longer heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, as it was until only a few years ago. As my hon. Friend said, at its peak the subsidy was as high as £6 million a year. At that time, circulation was nearly twice what it is now.
I remind the House that the present cover price of £7.50, which finally eliminated the need for general subsidy, was introduced as long ago as November 1991. There has been no increase in the past three years, and I am pleased to tell the House that HMSO has pledged that there will be no increase during the life of the present Parliament. That amounts to a five-year price freeze, which is all the more remarkable given the continuing increases in the price of paper, which alone have added about £1 million to production costs over the period to which I have drawn attention.
Ever since the general subsidy was eliminated, HMSO has been funding from its overall revenues the heavy investments in new equipment, rationalisation and relocation to which I have referred. As a result of these investments and action by the House, there is a real prospect that the publication of Hansard will become profitable in 1996, for the first time ever.
It may therefore be possible to go one better than a price freeze. I am pleased to tell the House that HMSO is discussing with House officials the possibility of a price reduction. These discussions are not sufficiently advanced for me to go into more detail tonight, but I understand that the issues concerned will be brought before the relevant House Committees in the near future.
As you know, Madam Speaker, since April 1992 the House has taken financial responsibility for its stationery and printing needs, including Hansard. The House authorities, principally the Commission, chaired by you, Madam Speaker, and advised by the Administration Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), are therefore actively involved

1507
in any decision on the future pricing of, or distribution policy for, Hansard. That means that the House has a role in the pricing of Hansard.
I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North that the Government still provide a subsidy that enables HMSO to supply Government publications to public libraries at half price. I do not think that that is generally known. That subsidy applies both to Hansard publications, which are already slightly discounted, and to the bulk supply terms offered by HMSO for those who take omnibus collections of publications. That means that members of the public throughout the country are able to consult Hansard and other Government publications in libraries, which have been supplied at prices ranging from only 25 per cent. to 45 per cent. of face value. That can be a reduction of 75 per cent. That is a real public benefit, which makes a practical contribution to promoting open government, and which represents a base on which I would be prepared to build. I think that these arrangements go some way to meeting my hon. Friend's laudable objectives. Indeed, if my hon. Friend takes into account all the discounting that can happen both on the weekly Hansard and on the daily Hansard, he will find that it comes very close to the marginal costs that he mentioned.
I have already mentioned that during the many years when Government provided a substantial subsidy, the circulation of Hansard was, nevertheless, modest. Regrettable though hon. Members may find it, sales of Hansard to the general public have always been extremely small. As my hon. Friend has said, no less than 85 per cent. of sales are to official users—Government Departments and so forth—and the remaining 15 per cent. largely comprise libraries and other institutions and commercial organisations, rather than individual citizens. Circulation among individuals is not very different now, with a price of £7.50, from what it was when the price was 45p. The reduction in sales over the past 10 years or so, to which my hon. Friend referred, has come about mainly as a result of fewer sales to Government Departments. I read nothing into that; that is the fact of the matter.
It is certainly true, as my hon. Friend observed, that many overseas legislatures publish their official report at lower prices—sometimes considerably lower where a subsidy applies. However, despite these lower prices, very few countries manage to sell more copies of their official report than does the United Kingdom. Indeed, one legislature that makes its proceedings available free of charge has almost the lowest public readership of all.
This apparently perverse logic may be explained by the results of some market research which was undertaken by MORI last year, under commission from HMSO. MORI found that although most members of the general public were aware of the existence of Hansard, there was much less interest in reading it in its present form whatever the price might be.
I normally reserve a healthy scepticism for the results of public opinion polls, but I have to confess to an uncomfortable feeling that there may be something in the proposition that although the average citizen no doubt wishes to keep abreast of the main elements of parliamentary business and might well want better newspaper coverage, as my hon. Friend said, he or she may be rather less interested in a verbatim transcript—which is what Hansard is—of our proceedings.
1508
As my hon. Friend said, radio and television programmes devoted to parliamentary proceedings cater for a small and specialised market. I think that most hon. Members will agree that Hansard inevitably falls into the same category.
MORI's other findings included the fact that more than half of present subscribers regarded Hansard as being either "very good" or "fairly good" value for money. In fact, most users of Hansard were less concerned with the cover price than with the cost of employing people to go through its pages to find the issues of interest to them. The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that the presentation of information that follows the exact order of business in the House is, in practice, not very user-friendly—at least for people who are not Members of the House of Commons.
MORI's overall conclusion was that the market for Hansard as a complete publication in its present verbatim form is, therefore, extremely limited, although the market for some of the information it contains is potentially large. What is needed, therefore, is a means of extracting bespoke information relevant to the needs of individual users and presenting it to them either electronically or by printing on demand. Most users would be prepared to pay more for such a service than they pay for the present Hansard. The point is that there would be an opportunity to generate more revenue and, therefore, the possibility of reducing further the price of Hansard if we could achieve such a bespoke information source.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the attractive possibilities now opened up by the Internet with its potential for fast transmission of information to a wide audience. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) also commented on this. HMSO is exploring these possibilities, in conjunction with the House authorities. But it needs to be borne in mind that a continuous stream of undifferentiated data is no more user-friendly on screen than it is on paper so there will be a need for careful presentation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East said, the key is to make the information more accessible. That would require us to put in sophisticated software to make Hansard as user-friendly on the Internet as we would wish it to be.
HMSO now publishes Hansard in CD-ROM form. This enables the proceedings of a complete Session of Parliament, amounting to some 20 million words, to be captured on a 5-in disc. The sophisticated retrieval software of CD-ROM allows users to look up within seconds what any hon. Member has said on any given subject at different points in time and for a long period. That is a sobering thought, but such technology clearly has the potential to meet the needs of Hansard's customers very effectively. I know that HMSO and the House officials will continue to work to develop service improvements to meet those needs and to ensure that Hansard continues to play a central role in the life of parliamentary democracy.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the waiting time for initial interview in Pakistan of applicants seeking settlement here as spouses. [17767]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The waiting time to first interview for spouses applying for entry clearance for settlement in Islamabad was three months at the end of December 1994. Information is not centrally available on waiting times in Karachi but all applicants are expected to receive a first interview within three weeks.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the waiting time for initial interview in India of applicants seeking settlement here as spouses. [17766]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The waiting time to first interview for spouses in Bombay and New Delhi applying for entry clearance for settlement was three months at the end of December 1994. In Madras, all applicants seeking settlement are placed in the same queue with a waiting time to first interview of three quarters of a month at the end of December 1994. There is no queuing system in operation in Calcutta.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising, for each year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since then: and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17624]

  Mr. Howard
  I am accountable for four executive agencies—HM Prison Service, the Forensic Science Service, the UK Passport Agency and the Fire Service College—and for some 38 non-departmental bodies which are listed in "Public Bodies 1994", which is available in the Library.

  Information on spending on advertising and other promotional materials and activities by each agency and non-departmental public body for which I am responsible is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Maastricht
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the information provided by his Department to Select Committees of the House in respect of developments on the third pillar of Maastricht. [17211]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following documents with explanatory notes have been made available to the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on European Legislation.

  Documents

  Explanatory Notes

  ASIM 104

  Council resolution on limitations on admission of third country nationals to the member states for employment. (7139/94)

  ASIM 90

  Guidelines for the harmonized application of the definition of refugee status in article 1A of the Geneva convention. (6675/94)

  ASIM 115

  Council resolution relating to limitations on the admission of third country nationals to the territory of the member states for the purpose of pursuing activities as self-employed persons. (7572/94)

  ASIM 122

  Travel facilities for third-country nationals resident in a member state. (7737/94)

  ASIM 124

  Draft Council resolution on burden sharing with regard to the admission and residence of refugees. (7773/94)

  ASIM 127

  Draft Council resolution on the admission of third-country nationals to the territory of the member states of the European Union for study purposes. (7996/94)

  ASIM 130

  Joint action for a further improvement in security at external borders. (8031/94)

  ASIM 152

  Minimum guarantees for asylum applicants. (8713/94)

  ASIM 242

  Proposal for a joint action on harmonizing means of combating illegal employment and improving the relevant means of control. (12336/94)

  ASIM 244

  Proposal for a joint action on the status of third country nationals residing legally in the Union for a long period. (12338/94)

  Unnumbered

  UK proposal for a joint action by the Council of the European Union regarding the protection of the financial interests of the European Communities.

  Unnumbered

  European Information System (EIS)—draft convention text.

  Unnumbered

  European Police Office (Europol)—draft convention text.

  Unnumbered

  Customs Information System (CIS)—draft convention text.

  CK4 98

  Joint action concerning the Europol Drugs Unit. (12321/1/94)

  JUSTPEN 25

  Council Act drawing up the convention on simplified extradition procedure between the member states of the European Union. (5130/95)

  887
  In addition, a number of documents relating to title VI issues have been made available under normal parliamentary scrutiny procedures with explanatory memoranda:

  Documents

  Explanatory Memoranda

  (15080) 11287/93

  Communication covering:

  a. Draft decision based on article K3 of the treaty on European Union, establishing a convention on the crossing of the external frontiers of the member states: and

  b. Draft regulation based on article 100c of the treaty establishing the European Community determining the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the member states.

  5187/94

  Commission communication on immigration and asylum policies.

  8076/94

  Protection of the Community's financial interests.

  8077/94

  Communication from the Commission on a European Union action plan to combat drugs.

  The outcome of each Justice and Home Affairs Council is reported to Parliament by means of an answer to a parliamentary question. Since the Council held on 20 June 1994 we have also submitted to the Select Committees a memorandum previewing the likely discussion at each Council, and subsequently a memorandum of evidence on the main conclusions reached. All texts adopted at a Justice and Home Affairs Council are deposited in the Library.

  The then Home Secretary gave oral evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 21 April 1993 on intergovernmental co-operation in justice and home affairs. A memorandum of evidence of work carried out under title VI was submitted to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 7 December 1993 in advance of oral evidence by officials on 15 December. On 24 January 1994, my officials provided two further papers on police co-operation and answers to a number of supplementary questions which the Committee did not reach at its oral evidence session.

  Most recently I appeared before the Home Affairs Select Committee on 21 January 1995 to give evidence on criminal justice matters, including organised crime and intergovernmental co-operation in the fields of justice and home affairs.

  Everthorpe Prison
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made on the reports of the disorder at Everthorpe prison; and if his conclusions have changed his policy in respect of illegal drugs in prisons. [17351]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 March 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  888
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 3 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Everthorpe prison.
  A task force has been established to consider and progress the recommendations of the report on the disorder at Everthorpe prison. One of these recommendations is the introduction of a coordinated drug reduction policy at Everthorpe. This policy will be introduced this year.
  There has been no change to the Prison Service's policy on tackling drug misuse in prisons as a result of the disturbances at Everthorpe. A strategy of controlling supply and providing support and treatment is being pursued, underpinned by mandatory drug testing for prisoners.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Armenian Orthodox Church
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government will take to urge the Turkish authorities to withdraw their requirement that, apart from regularly scheduled worship services, the Armenian orthodox church obtains special written permission for any function or meeting held in church facilities with more than 10 people in attendance. [17773]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Turkish public order decrees which require notification in advance of gatherings over a certain size apply generally and are not directed specifically at the Armenian orthodox church.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government will take to urge the Turkish authorities to allow the Armenian orthodox church in Turkey to hold its representative assembly so that it can elect delegates to participate in the election for the Supreme Patriarch in Armenia. [17772]

  Mr. David Davis
  Our consulate-general in Istanbul discussed this with the Turkish authorities and with representatives of the Armenian orthodox church. The church has now decided not to hold the assembly. The views of the Armenian orthodox church in Turkey will be represented at the elections for the Supreme Patriarch by a number of bishops chosen by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Istanbul.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Internet electronic mail addresses of(a) his Department and (b) each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the information super-highway. [17737]

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on 29 November 1994 at column 250 and 10 January 1995 at column 63.

  The FCO and ODA do not at present use the Internet for e-mail. However, both wings are currently considering how to implement a public inquiry Internet e-mail address, for launch later in the year.

  A project is underway to establish an FCO world-wide web service on the Internet which should come on stream

  889
  before the summer recess. A further announcement will be made at that time.

  Public Information Telephone Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by his Department, in each case indicating the costs of establishing, operating and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when they were established; and what assessment his Department has made of their effectiveness. [17457]

  Mr. Baldry
  Consular Department operates a public information telephone service for travel advice. Because of increased demand—staff were handling as many as 600 calls per day—and in order to improve our service to the public a new automated telephone answering system was introduced on 27 February 1995. The service offers travel advice for the 11 countries most in demand and is available on 0374–500900.

  Call costs to the public are at standard or local rate. The new service involved no capital expenditure. Its running costs are £500 per month. The national and local media, the travel industry and other existing customers have received information about the service. No publicity costs have been incurred. It is still too early to assess the effectiveness of the new service.

  Irish Nationals
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Irish Republic will sign the appropriate convention enabling it to receive Irish nationals serving custodial sentences in prisons in the United Kingdom. [17660]

  Mr. Hurd
  This is a matter for the Irish Government. At the recent plenary meeting of the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Spring, confirmed that legislation to ratify the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons was being prepared by the Irish Department of Justice, and was expected to be introduced in the Dail after the Easter recess.

  Death Penalty
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to stop the execution of a British citizen in the electric chair in the United States of America on 6 April; and what assessment he has made of the applicability of the international covenant on civil and political rights. [17899]

  Mr. Baldry
  None. There are no special grounds for a plea for clemency by us on Mr. Ingram's behalf. The death penalty is permitted in certain circumstances under international human rights law. Mr. Ingram, who is a dual British—US national was convicted of a "most serious crime" as specified in article 6 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. Mr. Ingram received both a fair trial and a lengthy appeals process.

  EU Ottawa Representative
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the name of 890
  the senior representative of the European Union or Community representing its interest in Ottawa; for how long that envoy has held this post; and if he will give their personal and occupational curriculum vitae. [18034]

  Mr. David Davis
  The head of delegation of the Commission of the European Communities in Ottawa is Mr. John R. Beck. Mr. Beck has held this position since April 1993. Mr. Beck has been working for the European Commission since 1973. He had previously worked at the Economist intelligence unit and the London chamber of commerce.

  Fisheries, Canada
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which article of which treaty enables him to prevent, or vote against, any proposal for retaliatory action by the European Union or Community in respect of their dispute with Canada relating to fisheries. [18035]

  Mr. David Davis
  We believe that the best way to resolve the fisheries dispute between the EU and Canada is by negotiation. There is no formal proposal to impose sanctions. A proposal under article 228a of the treaty of Rome to interrupt or reduce, in part of completely, economic relations with Canada would require the adoption of a common position or joint action according to the provisions of the treaty on European Union relating to common foreign and security policy, which would be subject to unanimity.

  Overseas Posts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many labour attachés and labour reporting offices there are in each embassy or overseas posts; and at what annual cost. [18079]

  Mr. Goodlad
  At FCO posts overseas there are at present eight United Kingdom-based and five locally engaged officers with a formal labour reporting responsibility. Five of the UK-based officers are full-time labour attaches. As the following table shows, the 13 officers expect to devote, each year, a total of 10 man-years to labour reporting, at a total cost of £683,000.

  Post

  UK-based officers

  Man Years Labour reporting

  LE Officers

  Man Years Labour reporting

  Cost £

  Bonn

  1

  1

  2

  1.3

  133,058

  Brussels

  1

  1

  1

  1

  116,624

  Dublin

  1

  0.1

  0

  0

  8,597

  Madrid

  1

  1

  0

  0

  116,102

  Paris

  1

  1

  0

  0

  112,768

  Pretoria

  1

  1

  0

  0

  53,272

  Rome

  2

  0.6

  1

  1

  107,492

  Washington

  0

  0

  1

  1

  35,050

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper

  891
  advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising, for each year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since then and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17628]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information requested could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotions material and activities (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17627]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The figures requested are as follows:

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 (Estimate) £

  1995–96 (Estimate) £

  (a) Television

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (b) Radio

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (c) Newspaper of which

  370,979

  505,430

  847,000

  885,465

  recruitment

  370,979

  505,430

  847,000

  885,465

  (d) Others

  1,724,228

  1,624,834

  1,570,000

  1,942,000

  of which recruitment

  190,262

  43,739

  —

  200,000

  (e) Total of which

  2,095,207

  2,130,264

  2,417,000

  2,827,465

  recruitment

  561,241

  549,169

  887,000

  1,085,465

  (f) Percentage of total on recruitment

  27

  26

  37

  38

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Law Commission Report
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members of the inter-departmental working party established by the Lord Chancellor to prepare the Government's response to the Law Commission report on mental incapacity; what specific remit the working party has been given; whether the working party will be taking further written or oral evidence; what steps are being taken to ensure that the working party endorses the Government's policy of opposition to euthanasia and if he will make a statement. [17754]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The working group is made up of officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Department of Health, the Home Office, the Department of Social Security, the Welsh Office and the Treasury. The terms of reference of the group are:892

  To co-ordinate the Government response to the Law Commission report on mental incapacity published on 1 March 1995.

  To produce an initial report by 1 September 1995.

  No decisions have yet been taken as to whether the group will take further written or oral evidence.

  The Government consider euthanasia to be unacceptable and the working group has no remit to consider any change to this policy.

PRIME MINISTER

  Malaysia
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Malaysian authorities about trade relations between the United Kingdom and Malaysia. [18579]

  The Prime Minister
  I welcome Dr. Mahathir's positive remarks, during his recent visit to Britain, that Malaysia wants to continue building the strongest possible ties with Britain, and is putting behind her the two countries' recent trade problems. This was a constructive initiative. Britain has close and long-standing links with Malaysia. We look forward to working with Malaysia to develop these to their full potential in the future.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss during his visit to Washington, the United States' experience of deregulation and the lessons learnt by the administration which can be applied to the United Kingdom. [17900]

  The Prime Minister
  I am always interested to hear new ideas to take forward the Government's deregulation initiative.

EMPLOYMENT

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising for each year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since then; and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17636]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information about the spending on advertising and promotional activity by non-departmental public bodies and agencies is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The publication entitled "Public Bodies 1994" is held in the Library and lists the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Employment Department.
  893
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17635]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The expenditure by the Employment Department on advertising and other promotional activities between 1992–93 and 1993–94 is shown in the following table:

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  (a) Television advertising

  Nil

  Nil

  (b) Radio advertising

  1,034

  194,554

  (c) Newspaper advertising

  4,674,390

  7,120,535

  (d) Other promotional materials

  3,209,309

  3,654,466

  Total

  7,884,733

  10,969,555

  None of the above expenditure was on recruitment advertising.

  The expenditure figures to date for 1994–95 are shown in the following table:

  £

  (a) Television advertising

  3,199,260

  (b) Radio advertising

  409,534

  (c) Newspaper advertising

  4,438,393

  (d) Other promotional materials

  2,763,979

  Total

  10,811,166

  The budgeted figure for advertising and publicity for 1995–96 is £10.6 million. Further information broken down by type of publicity is not yet available.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the Internet electronic mail addresses of(a) his Department and (b) each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the information superhighway. [17743]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Officials within the Department are currently investigating the possibility of establishing links to the Internet electronic mail service. The Department's approach to the information super-highway is to regard it as a potential vehicle for improving services to the Department's customers and as an additional publication medium for promoting open government.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) the number of new directors each year that have joined the board of directors and (b) the percentage annual turnover of directors in respect of each training and enterprise council in England and Wales since their creation. [17052]
  894
  Mr. Paice
  I am unable to give the information that the hon. Member is asking for as it is not collected in that form. However, the total turnover for board members for training and enterprise councils in England and Wales is shown in the following list:

  March 1992 to February 1993: 20 per cent.

  March 1993 to February 1994: 25 per cent.

  March 1994 to February 1995: 19 per cent.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what amounts are available under objective 4 of European structural funds for the retraining of existing employees in 1994–95; and how much has been applied for and spent in 1994–95. [17342]

  Miss Widdecombe
  A total of 3,377 million ecu is available for spending in Great Britain under objective 3 and 4 of the structural funds between 1994 and 1999. The Government announced their intention last year to concentrate available funding on helping unemployed people under objective 3. Therefore, nothing was applied for or spent under objective 4 in Great Britain in 1994–95.

  Public Information Telephone Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by his
  Department, in each case indicating the costs of establishing, operating and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when they were established; and what assessment his Department has made of their effectiveness. [17459]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Details about the public information telephone inquiry lines operating throughout the Department are not held centrally.

ENVIRONMENT

  Planning Applications
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if planning approvals granted since January where the application used imperial units of measurement, are valid; and if he will make a statement. [16766]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  All planning permissions granted are valid unless and until declared invalid by a court. As far as this Department is aware, no planning permissions have been declared invalid on the grounds that the application for permission used imperial measurements nor are we aware of any applications to the courts to declare permissions invalid on these grounds.

  Local Government Finance, Leicestershire
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the standard spending assessment for Leicestershire; how much was spent in each of the last five years; and what is the planned standard spending assessment for this year. [17157]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The figures are:
  895

  £ million

  Standard spending assessment

  Net revenue expenditure1

  1990–91

  458.828

  484.585

  1991–92

  539.740

  545.463

  1992–93

  579.013

  581.405

  1993–94

  548.651

  545.528

  1994–95

  560.740

  567.888

  1995–96

  531.173

  —

  Notes:

  1 All figures are at outturn with the exception of 1994–95 which is budget.

  The figures have not been adjusted for changes of responsibility or function. On a comparable basis, the standard spending assessment for 1995–96 is a £3.206 million increase from 1994–95—£527.966 million.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was budgeted by the county council for education in Leicestershire in each of the last five years; and how much is planned for this year. [17156]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Information on the planned budget for 1995–96 has not yet been received. Budgets set for the previous five years were as follows:

  Leicestershire budgeted1 education net current2 expenditure

  £ million

  1990–91

  340

  1991–92

  375

  1992–93

  416

  1993–943

  374

  1994–95

  375

  Note:

  1 Final outturn expenditure figures would be different.

  2 Net current expenditure is defined as employee plus running expenses less sales, fees and charges, and other non-grant income. It is not consistent with the definition of net revenue expenditure to compare with SSA.

  3 Further education colleges were removed from local control on 1 April 1993.

  County Council Reserves
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the most recent information is on the current reserves held by the county councils of(a) Suffolk, (b) Essex, (c) Cambridgeshire and (d) Norfolk; and what the figures were 12 and 24 months previously.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The available information is as follows:

  Local Authority Reserves 1 April 1992 to 1 April 1994

  The latest available estimates of the level of reserves as at 1 April 1992 to 1 April 1994 are attached. These are split, where possible, into schools' reserves ('LMS'), and other ('Non-LMS'). Non-LMS reserves include funds, which may be substantial, held for specified purposes which may not be available to the council for general use—for example, funds to finance capital projects to which the authority is committed; and insurance funds where the authority is bearing its own insurance risks.

  These estimates are subject to amendment as authorities finalise their accounts. Compatible data on the use of balances in 1994–95 which would be needed to derive an
  896
  estimate of the level of reserves at 1 April 1995 is not yet available.

  1 April 19921 £000

  1 April 19932 £000

  1 April 19943 £000

  Suffolk

  LMS

  n/a

  13,120

  13,120

  Non-LMS

  n/a

  21,388

  14,982

  Total

  16,051

  34,508

  28,102

  Essex

  LMS

  n/a

  25,039

  25,039

  Non-LMS

  n/a

  20,311

  49,465

  Total

  39,373

  45,350

  74,504

  Cambridgeshire

  LMS

  n/a

  8,469

  7,930

  Non-LMS

  n/a

  45,343

  48,602

  Total

  48,119

  53,812

  56,532

  Norfolk

  LMS

  n/a

  9,059

  9,059

  Non-LMS

  n/a

  21,915

  24,791

  Total

  13,109

  30,974

  33,850

  Sources:

  1 Level of reserves (outturn) at 1/4/92 (RS returns for 1992–93).

  2 Level of reserves (outturn) at 1/4/93 (RS returns for 1993–94).

  3 Level of reserves (outturn) at 1/4/93 +/- appropriations to/withdrawals from reserves 1993–94 (RS returns for 1993–94).

  National Parks
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people both live and work in each of the national parks; and, in each case, what this is as a percentage of the economically active population. [17165]

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department does not maintain statistics specifically relating to those people both living and working in national parks, and it could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what ethical guidelines exist in respect of the development of genetically modified organisms; what structures there are for the control of (i) development and (ii) release of genetically modified organisms; and how many genetically modified organisms have been (1) developed and (2) released in each year since 1989. [17064]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There are no specific ethical guidelines in respect of the development of genetically modified organisms which may subsequently be released to the environment. The structures for the control of development and release of GMOs include the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the GMO (Contained Use) Regulations 1992; the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the GMO (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 and 1995, and the GMO (Contained Use) Regulations 1993. Records are not kept each year of how many GMOs have been developed. Prior to the regulations requiring a consent for the release of GMOs coming into force on 1 February 1993, there had been about 50 releases of GMOs in the United Kingdom. Since that date, consents to
  897
  release GMOs to the environment have been issued as follows: 15 in 1993, 24 in 1994, and to date, 15 in 1995.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d), and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The figures for central publicity expenditure by my Department in each of the financial years/categories requested is detailed below. These figures exclude recruitment advertising expenditure. Budgets for financial year 1995–96 are still being prepared and are not yet available.

  TV

  Radio

  Press

  Other

  £000 Total

  1992–93

  3,545

  Nil

  3,324

  7,828

  14,697

  1993–94

  2,774

  347

  2,028

  6,959

  12,108

  1994–95

  2,698

  477

  1,295

  4,408

  8,878

  These figures include VAT, agency fees where relevant and all other levies as paid.

  Spent on recruitment advertising during financial year 1994–95 was approximately £38,200. Figures for previous years are not readily available and cannot be provided within the acceptable cost limits.

  Emissions
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he had to monitor PM10 in rural areas. [15717]

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department plans to begin monitoring PM10 at a small number of rural locations this year.

  Minicab Offices
  Mr. John Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue jointly with the Secretary of State for Transport, guidance on the siting of minicab offices and their effect on traffic flow. [15692]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Traffic flow may be a material consideration in determining an application for planning permission for a minicab office. We have no plans to issue guidance on this.

  Public Information Telephone Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by his Department, in each case indicating the costs of establishing, operating, and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when they were established; and what assessment his Department has made of their effectiveness. [17451]
  898
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department does not keep central records of the information requested on usage of public information telephone lines.

  Water companies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what agreements were entered into with water companies at the time of privatisation regarding charging bills at a scale which would accumulate money for future use; if he will make it his policy to require use of surplus funds to be devoted to reduction of water bills; and if he will make a statement. [17254]

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 21 March 1995]: No agreements were entered into at the time of privatisation regarding accumulation of funds for future use. Initial price limits were set at a level to ensure water companies were able to finance the proper carrying out of their functions, in accordance with the requirements of legislation. This function is now the responsibility of the Director General of Water Services who, in his recent periodic review of price limits, has set new limits for future increases in charges which assume improved efficiency and lower rates of return by the companies. He has stated that any additional savings should be shared with customers through increased spending on discretionary service improvements or lower charges.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Green Paper on Drugs Misuse
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will comment on submissions made on the Government Green Paper on drugs misuse. [15731]

  Mr. Newton
  Over 400 detailed responses were received from individuals and organisations during the consultation period on the Green Paper "Tackling Drugs Together". The great majority of respondents have very much welcomed the Government's initiative in developing a three-year strategy for tackling drug misuse and supported the main proposals. A number of issues on which clarification has been sought are being addressed in the preparation of a White Paper, which we intend to publish shortly.

  Procedural Reform
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, columns 19–20, what timetable he envisages for reviewing recent reforms in parliamentary procedure and for considering further reforms; and if he will make a statement. [15732]

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), of 20 February,Official Report, columns 19–20, what timetable he envisages for reviewing recent reforms in parliamentary procedure and for considering further reforms; and if he will make a statement. [15736]

  Mr. Newton
  As I explained in the debate on 19 December,Official Report, columns 1456–65, the reforms which the House has agreed to are in operation as an

  899
  experiment for the remainder of the Session, and will be reviewed towards the end of the Session. If the hon. Member wishes to suggest further reforms, he might like to submit them to the Procedure Committee.

  Divisions
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many votes there have been in the House since January; and what was the equivalent figure for 1994. [15733]

  Mr. Newton
  The number of Divisions in the House for the period from Tuesday 10 January 1995 to Tuesday 21 March 1995 inclusive was 76. This period represented 50 sitting days, with one "constituency Friday" not included in the total. During the first 50 sitting days of 1994, covering the period of Tuesday 11 January 1994 to Monday 21 March 1994 inclusive, there were 116 Divisions.

  Standing Committee Membership
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent representations he has received on the proprietary of hon. Members with registered interests serving on Standing Committees discussion issues relating to those interests. [15735]

  Mr. Newton
  In the course of business questions, I have received oral representations from five hon. Members.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Phone Numbers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government current and future policy regarding portability of phone numbers between BT and cable companies. [17126]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Responsibility for number portability falls to the Director General of Telecommunications. He and I agree that the introduction of portability is essential to the development of effective competition. Oftel has made proposals for a regime to govern portability, and I expect progress to be announced shortly.

  Konver Programme
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the projects for which assistance under the Konver programme has been sought but for which no decision has been made; [17757]

  (2) if he will list the projects for which assistance under the Konver programme has been refused; [17755]

  (3) what is his assessment of the success of the projects funded by the Konver programme since it began; [17768]

  (4) if he will list the projects which have been funded by the Konver programme since it began, the total value of each such project, and the value of the contribution made in each case by the Konver programme. [17756]

  Mr. Eggar
  Lists of both the successful and unsuccessful applications for Konver I were placed in theLibraries of both Houses in December 1993. There are no outstanding decisions on the Konver I projects.
  900
  It is too early in the life of the programme to assess how successful the projects are going to be. Many projects still have a year to run. As is usual with all programmes, an independent evaluation will be undertaken.

  For Konver II, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, (Mr. Fatchett) on 20 March 1995, Official Report, columns 796–97.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department spent on public relations during the financial year 1993–94; how much contracts with the private sector cost; and if he will list the activities covered by these contracts. [16289]

  Mr. Heseltine
  There was no expenditure on public relations under the Department's central publicity budget in 1993–94.

  Carriage Charges
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had about the increased level of carriage charges imposed by the Royal Mail for the delivery of newspapers to small shop outlets; and if he will make a statement. [17488]

  Mr. Eggar
  None. I understand from the Post Office that the Royal Mail does not currently provide a service for delivery of newspapers to small shop outlets.

  Car Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the level of import penetration in the car market in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany, (c) France and (d) Italy; and if he will make a statement. [17125]

  Mr. Page
  The information is in the table.

  Import penetration in the car market 19941

  Car registrations (000 units)

  Import (000 units)

  Import penetration per cent.

  UK

  1,911

  1,090

  57.0

  Germany

  3,209

  1,161

  36.2

  France

  1,973

  766

  38.8

  Italy

  1,647

  886

  53.8

  Source

  1 Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

  Export Values
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the percentage change in United Kingdom export unit values relative to those of the EEC Six for each quarter since the fourth quarter of 1986. [17163]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information is given in the table:
  901

  Percentage change on previous quarter in UK export values relative to those of the EEC six

  Change on previous quarter

  1987q1

  0.3

  1987q2

  4.9

  1987q3

  1.3

  1987q4

  1.8

  1988q1

  2.6

  1988q2

  2.0

  1988q3

  -0.5

  1988q4

  -1.7

  1989q1

  -1.5

  1989q2

  -2.5

  1989q3

  -0.6

  1989q4

  -4.3

  1990q1

  -3.1

  1990q2

  1.6

  1990q3

  4.5

  1990q4

  -2.2

  1991q1

  2.3

  1991q2

  1.4

  1991q3

  1.4

  1991q4

  -1.4

  1992q1

  0.2

  1992q2

  0.9

  1992q3

  -3.3

  1992q4

  -7.8

  1993q1

  7.4

  1993q2

  3.0

  1993q3

  6.0

  1993q4

  1.6

  1994q1

  -0.2

  1994q2

  -2.4

  Note:

  Unit value indices in $US for EEC(6) are weighted together using total trade weights.

  Limestone
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much United Kingdom quarried limestone was used in the United Kingdom steel industry for each year since 1979. [17229]

  Mr. Page
  The information is in the table.

  UK consumption of limestone in blast furnaces and sinter plants1

  Year

  Tonnes (000)

  1979

  1,206

  1980

  618

  1981

  1,032

  1982

  890

  1983

  1,165

  1984

  1,144

  1985

  1,562

  1986

  1,496

  1987

  1,827

  1988

  1,948

  1989

  2,062

  1990

  1,991

  1991

  2,124

  1992

  2,033

  1993

  2,077

  Source:Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau.

  Note:

  1 Steel industry as defined by the Standard Industrial Classification (1980), Groups 221, 222 and 223.

  Sarin
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his time scale for the banning of the manufacture of Sarin in the United Kingdom. [17166]

  Mr. Heseltine
  Sarin is one of a number of chemicals, the production of which will be permitted under the chemical weapons convention only for research, medical, pharmaceutical or protective purposes. The legislation to implement the CWC in the UK and to enable the UK to ratify it will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits. The CWC will enter into force for participating states 180 days after 65 countries have ratified it. So far, 27 states have done so.

  Chernobyl
  Mr.Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent communications he has received from the Ukrainian Government in regard to technological assistance required at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. [17552]

  Mr. Page
  No such approach has been received.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how long it has been the policy to offer staff recruited to work at the Patent Office in Newport two-year contracts; what benefits the Patent Office has derived from this policy; and if people employed on two-year contracts are afforded the same rights as Patent Office staff not on fixed-term contracts. [17414]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Patent Office does not have a policy of recruiting staff on two-year contracts and currently has no such employees. However, the office does employ staff on renewable six-month contracts and has done so since March 1991 when it became clear that there has been a considerable reduction in demand for trade marks. A number of staff were therefore recruited on short-term contracts in order to retain the flexibility to reduce staff numbers quickly if market pressures so required. Although those pressures remain significant, reductions required to reflect efficiency improvements and changes in demand have so far been accommodated by normal staff turnover.

  Staff on fixed-term contracts do not have all the rights of established civil servants. As well as terms of employment, there are differences between conditions of service, including amounts of sick leave entitlement.

  Copyright Offences
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce regulations to give effect to enforcement procedures under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. [17687]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Enforcement of copyright offences already falls within the responsibilities of the police. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Acts 1988 contains provisions facilitating both civil and criminal proceedings under that Act. These provisions which re-enacted and improved upon earlier legislation have been in force since 1 August 1989. Section 165 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 additionally makes it a duty of local weights and measures authorities to enforce copyright offences. However, when agreeing to introduce
  903
  that provision, the Government made it clear that it would not be brought into effect until there had been an opportunity to carry out full consultations with local authority associations on the possible resource implications. Those consultations are not yet complete.

  Companies House
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost to date of the report by SRU Ltd. into the future of Companies House; and what estimate he has made of the final cost of all consultancy work on the subject of contracting out Companies House. [17228]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The cost of consultancy advice from SRU Ltd. on the future of Companies House was £283,000, exclusive of VAT.

  At this stage it is not possible to say what the final cost of all consultancy work on contracting out companies House services will be.

  Land Rover
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what Government regulations apply in respect of the licencing for manufacture in other countries of Land Rover vehicles; and to what extent human rights are taken into account in respect of the licencing arrangements. [17787]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  It is a matter for manufacturers' commercial judgment as to whether they wish to have their products manufactured overseas under licence. Vehicles and related equipment specially designed or modified for military use and components therefore specially designed or modified for military use are controlled under schedule 1, part 1, group 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (category ML 6). Exports of equipment and technology for the production of all goods specified in group 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order are also controlled under category ML18. Any application for a licence to export such vehicles, equipment or technology would be considered against internationally agreed criteria governing the control of exports of military equipment. These criteria include consideration of the human rights record of the country to which the goods would be exported. There are military equipment embargoes imposed by the European Union against Burma and China which were put in place as a result of those countries' record on human rights.

TREASURY

  Civil Service (Privatisation)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil service functions are currently being considered for privatisation; and who the consultants are in each case. [16972]

  Sir George Young
  An activity is identified as a possible candidate for privatisation either in the Department's annual efficiency plan, or as part of a prior options review process under which activities are reviewed to see whether they should be abolished,904
  privatised, strategically contracted-out, market tested or given agency status. Prior options reviews are announced in the monthly "Market Testing Bulletin". Decisions on possible candidates for privatisation are announced by departmental Ministers as and when appropriate.

  Information on the consultants used by departments and agencies in cases currently being considered is not held centrally.

  Income Tax (Welsh Authorities)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which tax offices in Wales are responsible for processing the income tax of the employees of(a) the Welsh local authorities and (b) the Welsh health authorities; how many staff at each office are engaged in this work; what proposals he has to alter these arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [17545]

  Sir George Young
  Details of the tax offices in Wales which are responsible for processing the income tax of the employees of the Welsh local authorities and Welsh health authorities together with the approximate number of staff engaged on this work are as follows:

  Tax office

  Approximate staff deployed on local authority work

  Approximate staff deployed on health authority work

  Aberystwyth

  0.2

  —

  Bangor

  5.5

  1.5

  Brecon

  2.5

  0.8

  Bridgend

  0.4

  —

  Carmarthen

  7.0

  4.25

  Colwyn Bay

  7.4

  —

  Llanelli

  0.25

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1.0

  —

  Neath

  2.3

  —

  Newport 1

  7.5

  3.0

  Newport 2

  0.6

  —

  Pontypridd

  0.8

  3.0

  Wrexham 2

  0.9

  —

  Cardiff 1

  12.5

  —

  Swansea

  12.0

  3.4

  The current reorganisation of local authorities in Wales will necessitate some changes to the organisation of the employee's tax records. Full details of the local authority changes and the resulting impact on each tax office are not yet clear.

  Barings
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the activities of Mr. Christopher Heath in future markets were first drawn to the attention of the Bank of England.

  Mr. Nelson
  Mr. Heath joined the Barings group in June 1984 and left in March 1993. Prior to leaving he was the managing director of Barings Securities Ltd. and a director of Baring Brothers and Co. Ltd. His role in the activities of Baring Securities, particularly in the far east and in the Japanese equity warrant market, were known to the Bank of England. As for his involvement, if any, in futures markets and the Bank of England's knowledge of such activities, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor told the House on 27 February, he has asked the Board of Banking Supervision to investigate fully and urgently all aspects of the Barings episode and to report
  905
  back to him. He expects to publish the full report subject only to the need to protect the legitimate confidentiality of innocent third parties and any other legal constraints.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spent on public relations during the financial year 1993–94; how much contracts with the private sector cost; and if he will list the activities covered by these contracts. [16291]

  Mr. Nelson
  Total expenditure was £1.6 million of which just over £1 million was for contracts with the private sector including the cost of press handling and marketing advice on the BT2 final instalment and BT3 share offer.

  Exchange Rates
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will state the £/Irish Punt exchange rate in(a) 1965, (b) 1975, (c) 1985, and (d) currently; [16711]

  (2) if he will state the £/deutschmark exchange rate in (a) 1965, (b) 1975, (c) 1985 and (d) currently. [16710]

  Mr. Nelson
  The exchange rates requested are:

  DM/£

  Irish £/£

  1965 (average)

  11.17

  1.00

  1975 (average)

  5.45

  1.00

  1985 (average)

  3.78

  1.22

  30 March 1995

  2.25

  1.00

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by rank order of import penetration for the manufacturing industries listed in table 15.10 of the April 1991 "Monthly Digest of Statistics" the percentage increase in output in the fourth quarter of 1994 compared to(a) 1973 and (b) 1979; and if he will make a statement. [17113]

  Mr. Nelson
  Comparative output data for 1973, 1979 and the fourth quarter of 1994 are not available at the requested level of disaggregation.

  Imports and Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in the value and volume of imports and exports of(a) manufactures, (b) North sea oil and gas, (c) food, drink and tobacco, (d) other goods, (e) travel and tourism, (f) financial services and (g) other services between 1990 and 1994. [17188]

  Mr. Nelson
  Information relating to changes in the value and volume of imports and exports between 1990 and 1994 can be derived from data available on the Central Statistical Office database, which can be accessed by the House of Commons Library. The CSO is unable separately to identify North sea oil and gas.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account his Department's definition of export-led growth takes of imports; and if he will list the change in the value and volume of imports and exports of(a) manufactures, (b) North sea oil and gas, (c) food, drink
  906
  and tobacco, (d) other goods, (e) travel and tourism, (f) financial services and (g) other services between 1992 and 1994. [17164]

  Mr. Nelson
  Changes in both gross and net exports are considered when assessing the sources of GDP growth. Figures for export and import value and volumes are available on the Central Statistical Office database, which can be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each quarter since the fourth quarter of 1986 the percentage increase or reduction in the rate of exchange between sterling and the ecu currencies other than the deutschmark. [17115]

  Mr. Nelson
  Information on sterling's exchange rate against the ecu currencies other than the deutschmark can be found in table 7.1 of "Financial Statistics" published by the Central Statistical Office.

  Investments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list United Kingdom earnings from (i) overseas investment and (ii) investments by United Kingdom manufacturers overseas for each quarter since 1989. [17123]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information available is given in the table. Figures are available only on an annual basis. The information is classified according to the activity in which the investment is made rather than the activity of the investor.

  Direct investment by UK companies overseas: net earnings1 (£m)

  Manufacturing industry2

  Total all industries

  1989

  7,477

  16,608

  1990

  7,130

  15,526

  1991

  6,532

  12,688

  1992

  6,368

  13,285

  1993

  6,983

  16,367

  Notes:

  1 Earnings from branches, subsidiaries and associate companies. Earnings are defined as profits net of losses, plus interest receipts net of claims.

  2 Classified by main industrial activity of overseas affiliate.

  Source:

  Central Statistical Office.

  Pig Producers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to(a) give 100 per cent. first-year allowance to pig producers for any costs associated with the replacement of sow stalls and tethers, (b) change capital allowances to allow buildings with a short life span to be written off for tax over their useful life and (c) allow losses for the pig industry to be carried back for three years for income tax. [17065]

  Sir George Young
  (a) I have no such plans;

  (b) The net cost—less any receipts on disposal—of agricultural buildings can already be written off for tax

  907
  over their actual life, however short, under the capital allowances code as it now stands;

  (c) I have no such plans.

  Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will resume publication in the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" of the four ratios in table 15.10 of the April 1991 issue on an annual or quarterly basis. [17114]

  Mr. Nelson
  Ratios for divisions 17, 18 and 24 of the standard industrial classification 1992 will be published on a quarterly basis in the "Monthly Digest of Statistics". The remaining divisions will be published on an annual basis.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons for the state of the balance of trade in manufactured goods in 1994; and what this balance was(a) in 1994 prices and (b) as a percentage of gross domestic product relative to that in (i) 1970, (ii) 1977 and (iii) 1979. [17118]

  Mr. Nelson
  A recent assessment of factors affecting the balance of trade in manufactures was published in the November 1994 "Financial Statement and Budget Report", based on data available at that time. Estimates for the balance of trade in manufactures up to and including 1994, both in 1994 prices and as a percentage of gross domestic product, can be calculated from series on the Central Statistical Office database. This can be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the reason for the change in the deficit in the balance of trade with the EC Twelve in manufactured goods between 1992 and 1994; and what was the contribution to that change of monetary and exchange rate policies. [17162]

  Mr. Nelson
  The balance of trade with the EU in manufactures depends on a variety of factors, including competitiveness, domestic demand and mainland European demand. By keeping inflation low, monetary policy has contributed to British industry's ability to compete in both overseas and domestic markets.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by rank order of import penetration for the manufacturing industries listed in table 15.10 of the April 1991 "Monthly Digest of Statistics" the percentage change in the volume of output, exports and imports in (i) 1994 and (ii) the fourth quarter of 1994 since the 12 months ended in 1989 and the implied increase in import penetration. [17116]

  Mr. Nelson
  Comparative data for 1994 and 1989 are not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the balance of trade with the EC Twelve in manufactures between 1992 and 1994 of the increase in United Kingdom export unit values for manufactures relative to 908
  those of the EC Six between the third quarter of 1992 and the first half of 1994. [17124]

  Mr. Nelson
  The balance of trade with the EU in manufactures depends on a variety of factors, including competitiveness, domestic demand, and mainland European demand.

  Council Tax Appeals
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what timetable guidance he has given to local valuation officers in respect of setting council tax appeals. [17681]

  (2) if he will take measures to accelerate the processing and settlement of council tax appeals. [17669]

  Mr. Nelson
  Targets for settling council tax appeals in England were announced by the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration on 31 January 1995,Official Report, column 580.

  Referring to initial appeals, he said that it was hoped that all but a handful would be settled by the summer. By 28 February, the last date for which statistics are available, 88 per cent. had been cleared. When the bulk of initial appeals have been settled it is expected that any further new appeals will generally be settled within 12 months of their being received.

  Local valuation offices are expected to deal with appeals within these targets, having regard to when the appeal was made and giving priority to cases where hardship is identified.

  Given these arrangements, I do not intend to take any further measures to accelerate the processing and settlement of council tax appeals but will continue to keep the matter under review.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many council tax appeals submitted from the borough of Basingstoke and Deane in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 are outstanding. [17668]

  (2) how many council tax appeals were submitted from the borough of Basingstoke and Deane in (a) 1993–94 (b) 1994–95; and what percentage has been settled. [17682]

  Mr. Nelson
  The number of council tax appeals submitted from the borough of Basingstoke and Deane in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95, and the numbers outstanding and the percentages settled are as follows. The figures for 1994–1995 are for the period from 1 April 1994 to 28 February 1995, the last date for which statistics are available.

  Year

  Appeals submitted

  Appeals outstanding

  Percentage settled

  1993–94

  2,940

  634

  78

  1994–95

  285

  230

  19

  VAT
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from which date the value added tax changes will be introduced which stem from the EC seventh VAT directive and which specifically affect(a) importers of

  909
  works of art, (b) antiques, (c) collectors' pieces and cars and (d) agents. [18578]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The provisions in the Finance Bill introducing many of these changes will take effect following Royal Assent, which is a moveable date. I am aware, however, that businesses would find it of assistance to have a firm date by which they should amend their procedures in order to be able to take account of changes. In view of this, it has been decided that the changes which affect importers of certain works of art, antiques, collectors' pieces and cars, and agents who act in their own names will be introduced with effect from 1 June 1995. I am sure that the affected businesses will welcome this decision.

  Software Licences
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount was paid to Computer Associates for it to transfer software licences to EDS as part of the Inland Revenue's outsourcing programme. [17320]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 30 March 1995]: EDS and Computer Associates have a universal enterprise agreement which allow EDS to use all the Computer Associates products for which the IR had licences. It was not therefore necessary to transfer the IR/Computer Associates software licences to EDS, and nothing was paid to Computer Associates.

EDUCATION

  Teachers
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list for each of the past five years, the number of(a) teachers and (b) auxiliary school staff in England who are employed on a temporary basis, also

  Teachers employed in local education authority maintained1 schools in England in the nursery, primary and secondary sector

  Full-time teachers in regular service2 with:

  Part-time teachers in regular service2 with:

  Fixed term or temporary contracts

  Permanent contracts

  Fixed term/temporary as percentage of total

  Fixed term or temporary contracts

  Permanent contracts

  Fixed term/temporary as percentage of total

  Teachers employed on an occasional3 basis

  January 1992

  19,155

  328,085

  5.5

  27,655

  24,462

  53.1

  11,526

  January 1993

  18,222

  322,824

  5.3

  27,928

  24,220

  53.6

  11,373

  January 19944

  18,909

  299,603

  5.9

  25,198

  24,720

  50.5

  11,377

  1 Information for self-governing (GM) schools is not collected.

  2 Teachers in regular service are those employed at the time of the survey on a contract of a month or more.

  3 Occasional teachers are employed for the whole of the survey date on a contract of less than one month.

  4 Excludes sixth form colleges.

  Non-teaching Staff
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list by local education authority all categories of non-teaching staff employed(a) in schools and (b) outside schools indicating which are considered to be administrative staff; and what is the ratio to teachers. [17654]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows, for each local authority in England, the full-time equivalent numbers of selected categories of non-teaching staff employed in LEA maintained schools. This information is taken from the department's 1994 annual schools' census.

  Full-time equivalent of non-teaching staff1 in LEA maintained schools in each LEA in England

  Education support staff

  Administration/Clerical staff

  LEA

  Nursery assistants

  Special needs support staff

  Other

  Sub total

  Secretaries

  Bursars

  Other

  Sub total

  Total

  Corporation of London

  2

  2—

  3

  5

  1

  0

  2—

  1

  6

  Camden

  52

  48

  171

  270

  94

  5

  8

  107

  377

  Greenwich

  126

  26

  232

  385

  124

  11

  33

  168

  553

  Hackney

  102

  25

  191

  318

  101

  6

  9

  116

  434

  Hammersmith

  82

  24

  118

  225

  75

  1

  10

  86

  310

  Islington

  113

  41

  150

  304

  87

  4

  8

  100

  404

  Kensington and Chelsea

  61

  19

  82

  162

  41

  2

  14

  57

  218

  Lambeth

  110

  38

  244

  392

  105

  4

  27

  136

  528

  Lewisham

  94

  47

  227

  368

  110

  6

  22

  139

  506

  Southwark

  128

  66

  211

  406

  111

  4

  21

  136

  542

  Tower Hamlets

  200

  39

  252

  490

  138

  6

  18

  161

  651

  Wandsworth

  165

  27

  305

  497

  88

  10

  12

  109

  606

  Westminster

  61

  18

  152

  231

  63

  10

  38

  111

  342

  Barking

  80

  81

  116

  277

  90

  3

  11

  104

  381

  Barnet

  94

  100

  234

  428

  105

  13

  14

  132

  560

  Bexley

  37

  38

  121

  196

  108

  6

  13

  127

  323

  Brent

  122

  11

  117

  250

  81

  13

  21

  115

  365

  Bromley

  32

  59

  107

  197

  113

  4

  14

  130

  328

  Croydon

  131

  54

  272

  456

  146

  4

  35

  186

  642

  Ealing

  181

  69

  183

  433

  108

  4

  16

  128

  561

  Enfield

  87

  11

  213

  311

  99

  4

  26

  129

  440

  912
  expressing the data as a percentage of the total numbers in each respective staff group. [17761]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table gives information about types of contract for teachers employed in local authority-maintained schools; this was first collected in 1992. Information collected on non-teaching staff in schools does not distinguish between permanent and temporary staff.

  Information about non-teaching staff employed in the local authority education service is collected by the Local Government management board. This information covers all non-teaching staff whether employed in or outside of schools. This source does not distinguish between staff employed in schools and those employed elsewhere, nor does it separate administration from other staff. Further details of the data available together with data for each local authority were provided in my letters dated 21 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), in answer to his question, Official Report, 21 February column 181, and to my hon. Friend the member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) in answer to his question, Official Report, 28 February column 534. Copies of the letters are available in the Library.
  913

  Full-time equivalent of non-teaching staff1 in LEA maintained schools in each LEA in England

  Education support staff

  Administration/Clerical staff

  LEA

  Nursery assistants

  Special needs support staff

  Other

  Sub total

  Secretaries

  Bursars

  Other

  Sub total

  Total

  Haringey

  209

  33

  207

  448

  107

  4

  9

  121

  569

  Harrow

  52

  116

  170

  338

  83

  6

  32

  121

  459

  Havering

  39

  41

  134

  213

  117

  1

  31

  149

  362

  Hillingdon

  68

  64

  146

  278

  65

  4

  16

  85

  363

  Hounslow

  156

  39

  164

  359

  99

  8

  46

  152

  511

  Kingston upon Thames

  61

  9

  58

  129

  38

  29

  37

  104

  233

  Merton

  77

  57

  82

  216

  15

  55

  73

  143

  360

  Newham

  120

  44

  192

  355

  63

  1

  87

  151

  506

  Redbridge

  48

  25

  192

  265

  131

  10

  48

  190

  455

  Richmond upon Thames

  31

  15

  110

  157

  72

  6

  22

  99

  256

  Sutton

  45

  27

  48

  121

  4

  25

  67

  96

  216

  Waltham Forest

  91

  26

  279

  396

  120

  7

  47

  173

  569

  Birmingham

  937

  141

  732

  1811

  534

  30

  37

  601

  2,411

  Coventry

  295

  26

  220

  541

  178

  16

  56

  250

  791

  Dudley

  193

  20

  114

  328

  134

  2

  13

  149

  477

  Sandwell

  328

  33

  177

  538

  203

  2

  14

  220

  757

  Solihull

  135

  29

  129

  293

  114

  18

  16

  148

  440

  Walsall

  204

  51

  272

  527

  152

  1

  12

  165

  692

  Wolverhampton

  245

  23

  152

  420

  144

  6

  8

  158

  578

  Knowsley

  98

  2

  165

  265

  85

  16

  46

  147

  411

  Liverpool

  179

  56

  420

  654

  279

  14

  36

  329

  983

  St. Helens

  126

  65

  146

  338

  95

  10

  8

  112

  450

  Sefton

  174

  44

  186

  404

  143

  32

  25

  200

  605

  Wirral

  133

  47

  183

  364

  130

  20

  30

  180

  544

  Bolton

  189

  24

  109

  323

  127

  12

  6

  144

  467

  Bury

  113

  53

  80

  246

  81

  2

  2

  85

  331

  Manchester

  475

  29

  406

  910

  257

  16

  25

  299

  1,209

  Oldham

  201

  18

  228

  446

  30

  8

  124

  161

  608

  Rochdale

  146

  14

  95

  255

  114

  19

  15

  148

  403

  Salford

  240

  26

  131

  397

  117

  18

  17

  152

  548

  Stockport

  138

  84

  226

  448

  133

  15

  47

  195

  643

  Tameside

  190

  29

  87

  307

  90

  17

  8

  115

  421

  Trafford

  62

  26

  84

  171

  88

  9

  8

  105

  276

  Wigan

  127

  22

  210

  359

  133

  24

  30

  187

  546

  Barnsley

  95

  197

  146

  439

  88

  14

  31

  133

  572

  Doncaster

  103

  118

  248

  469

  196

  26

  40

  262

  731

  Rotherham

  84

  88

  216

  388

  123

  14

  22

  158

  546

  Sheffield

  296

  50

  344

  689

  208

  28

  76

  312

  1,001

  Bradford

  372

  428

  493

  1,294

  246

  43

  87

  376

  1,669

  Calderdale

  95

  96

  181

  371

  91

  3

  3

  97

  468

  Kirklees

  140

  150

  378

  668

  183

  16

  39

  238

  906

  Leeds

  456

  547

  509

  1,513

  330

  32

  83

  445

  1,958

  Wakefield

  178

  124

  213

  515

  175

  23

  30

  228

  743

  Gateshead

  134

  11

  80

  225

  94

  1

  24

  120

  345

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  194

  8

  195

  398

  154

  2

  7

  163

  560

  North Tyneside

  128

  18

  123

  269

  92

  3

  32

  127

  396

  South Tyneside

  114

  5

  56

  176

  69

  2—

  2

  72

  247

  Sunderland

  235

  45

  187

  467

  154

  0

  9

  163

  630

  Isles of Scilly

  2—

  1

  1

  2

  3

  2—

  2—

  3

  6

  Avon

  614

  168

  653

  1,434

  557

  55

  60

  672

  2,107

  Bedfordshire

  274

  150

  412

  836

  272

  23

  162

  457

  1,294

  Berkshire

  260

  220

  574

  1,054

  258

  162

  108

  528

  1,582

  Buckinghamshire

  191

  196

  638

  1,024

  268

  51

  102

  421

  1,445

  Cambridgeshire

  216

  476

  578

  1,271

  297

  32

  94

  423

  1,694

  Cheshire

  550

  252

  578

  1,380

  419

  73

  150

  642

  2,022

  Cleveland

  292

  74

  398

  765

  286

  3

  76

  364

  1,129

  Cornwall

  115

  452

  414

  981

  196

  12

  102

  310

  1,291

  Cumbria

  196

  246

  191

  633

  192

  6

  37

  234

  868

  Derbyshire

  460

  374

  627

  1,462

  369

  44

  111

  523

  1,985

  Devon

  185

  437

  921

  1,543

  584

  48

  88

  720

  2,264

  Dorset

  85

  116

  447

  647

  230

  41

  93

  364

  1,011

  Durham

  323

  204

  301

  829

  307

  10

  7

  323

  1,152

  East Sussex

  139

  186

  558

  884

  301

  62

  97

  459

  1,343

  Essex

  143

  406

  831

  1,381

  504

  31

  381

  916

  2,297

  Gloucestershire

  186

  130

  219

  534

  211

  24

  34

  269

  804

  Hampshire

  510

  965

  1,370

  2,846

  765

  73

  394

  1,231

  4,077

  914

  915

  Full-time equivalent of non-teaching staff1 in LEA maintained schools in each LEA in England

  Education support staff

  Administration/Clerical staff

  LEA

  Nursery assistants

  Special needs support staff

  Other

  Sub total

  Secretaries

  Bursars

  Other

  Sub total

  Total

  Hereford and Worcester

  101

  130

  410

  641

  343

  20

  68

  431

  1,073

  Hertfordshire

  361

  232

  947

  1,541

  546

  85

  73

  704

  2,245

  Humberside

  407

  290

  670

  1,367

  424

  50

  115

  588

  1,955

  Isle of Wight

  30

  50

  150

  230

  49

  2

  49

  101

  331

  Kent

  371

  590

  1,007

  1,968

  745

  38

  89

  872

  2,840

  Lancashire

  786

  152

  948

  1,886

  632

  110

  161

  902

  2,788

  Leicestershire

  297

  218

  903

  1,418

  394

  136

  179

  709

  2,127

  Lincolnshire

  188

  210

  356

  754

  250

  9

  25

  284

  1,038

  Norfolk

  143

  243

  494

  880

  376

  18

  38

  432

  1,312

  North Yorkshire

  182

  160

  414

  757

  395

  44

  43

  482

  1,238

  Northampton

  190

  166

  486

  842

  272

  87

  93

  452

  1,295

  Northumberland

  159

  70

  119

  348

  180

  10

  10

  200

  548

  Nottinghamshire

  678

  248

  578

  1,505

  612

  15

  39

  666

  2,171

  Oxfordshire

  199

  359

  544

  1,101

  280

  74

  61

  414

  1,515

  Shropshire

  93

  209

  308

  610

  203

  16

  45

  264

  874

  Somerset

  120

  326

  491

  936

  197

  30

  111

  338

  1,274

  Staffordshire

  557

  209

  639

  1,406

  488

  15

  252

  755

  2,161

  Suffolk

  108

  184

  516

  808

  298

  79

  94

  472

  1,279

  Surrey

  172

  341

  551

  1,064

  392

  142

  210

  744

  1,808

  Warwickshire

  178

  120

  425

  722

  284

  18

  30

  332

  1,054

  West Sussex

  130

  198

  694

  1,021

  236

  203

  165

  604

  1,626

  Wiltshire

  18

  308

  455

  782

  196

  38

  134

  368

  1,149

  England

  20,820

  14,152

  35,223

  70,195

  22,277

  2,777

  6,127

  31,181

  101,375

  1 Excludes premises related to staff, kitchen/canteen staff and lunchtime supervisors.

  2 Less than 0.5.

  Correspondence
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, when she expects to answer the question table by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley for answer on 6 March on the percentage of secondary school children entitled to free school meals. [17753]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on Friday 31 March.

  Public Information Telephone Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by her Department, in each case stating the costs of establishing, operating and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when they were established; and what assessment her Department has made of their effectiveness. [17461]

  Mr. Forth
  A dedicated public inquiry unit was established within the Department's information bureau and library in 1987. With the advent of a new switchboard in 1991 a single number—0171 925 5555—was established to handle public inquiries. In September 1994 a voice processing system with automatic call routing capabilities was added to the telephone line at a cost of £18,477. The unit's annual staffing costs are estimated at £127,000. The telephone number appears on all departmental press releases, in entries in directories and year books and in appropriate departmental publications. No extra costs have been incurred in publicising the number.

  It is estimated that 65 per cent. to 70 per cent. of all inquiries are made by telephone. The total number of inquiries handled by the public inquiry unit as a result of telephone calls, letters and personal callers to the
  916
  Department's inquiry room at its headquarters are as follows:

  1987: 30,633 (April-December only)

  1988: 51,468

  1989: 55,674

  1990: 49,553

  1991: 58,103

  1992: 51,866

  1993: 51,327

  1994: 63,974

  The introduction of the call routing system has increased the effectiveness of the public inquiry unit by enabling telephone callers to be automatically directed to staff able to handle specific queries or to the publication ordering service.

  National Youth Agency
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will withdraw central Government-funded support from the National Youth Agency; and if she will make a statement. [17147]

  Mr. Boswell
  Central Government grants to the National Youth Agency have already been agreed for 1995–96. Funding from the Department for Education for future years will be decided in the light of the outcome of the policy review of the agency currently taking place.

  School Capital Grants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what capital grants were(a) applied for and (b) granted for 1995–96 for each grant-maintained school. [18078]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These matters are now the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have
  917
  asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member with this information.

  GCSE
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the GCSE average point scores for(a) each twentieth group and (b) for the cumulative twentieth groups of 15-year-old pupils ranked according to their average point scores for (i) 1993 and (ii) 1994, in respect of (1) all pupil, (2) pupils in the grant-maintained

  GCSE average point scores by each twentieth of the 15 year olds 1993–94

  All schools

  Grant maintained

  Independent

  Maintained

  LEA maintained

  Average GCSE Points

  Number 15 years olds

  Average GCSE Points

  Number 15 years olds

  Average GCSE Points

  Number 15 years olds

  Average GCSE Points

  Number 15 years olds

  Average GCSE Points

  Number 15 years olds

  0.0

  26,614

  0.2

  4,303

  0.0

  2,303

  0.0

  24,311

  0.0

  20,008

  0.7

  53,227

  3.5

  8,607

  1.8

  4,605

  0.7

  48,622

  0.5

  40,015

  2.9

  79,841

  7.3

  12,910

  8.9

  6,908

  3.1

  72,933

  2.0

  60,023

  5.4

  106,455

  9.7

  17,214

  16.1

  9,210

  5.8

  97,245

  4.3

  80,031

  8.5

  133,068

  12.5

  21,517

  20.4

  11,513

  8.1

  121,556

  7.4

  100,039

  11.1

  159,682

  15.9

  25,821

  25.9

  13,815

  9.6

  145,867

  8.9

  120,046

  12.8

  186,296

  16.5

  30,124

  27.6

  16,118

  12.5

  170,178

  11.6

  140,054

  14.6

  212,909

  18.7

  34,428

  32.6

  18,420

  14.4

  194,489

  13.4

  160,062

  16.5

  239,523

  20.9

  38,731

  35.3

  20,723

  16.4

  218,800

  15.4

  180,069

  19.8

  266,137

  23.1

  43,035

  34.9

  23,025

  18.4

  243,112

  17.4

  200,077

  20.5

  292,750

  23.8

  47,338

  38.2

  25,328

  19.2

  267,423

  18.1

  220,085

  22.5

  319,364

  26.2

  51,641

  41.2

  27,630

  21.2

  291,734

  20.1

  240,092

  24.5

  345,977

  27.0

  55,945

  41.1

  29,933

  23.2

  316,045

  22.1

  260,100

  25.2

  372,591

  29.3

  60,248

  41.2

  32,235

  24.0

  340,356

  22.8

  280,108

  27.0

  399,205

  30.0

  64,552

  44.7

  34,538

  25.8

  364,667

  24.6

  300,116

  28.7

  425,818

  31.9

  68,855

  45.5

  36,840

  27.4

  388,978

  26.2

  320,123

  30.2

  452,432

  33.5

  73,159

  45.3

  39,143

  28.8

  413,290

  27.6

  340,131

  31.3

  479,046

  34.7

  77,462

  46.9

  41,445

  29.8

  437,601

  29.4

  360,139

  33.0

  505,659

  35.6

  81,766

  48.2

  43,748

  31.8

  461,912

  30.6

  380,146

  34.5

  532,273

  37.0

  86,069

  48.6

  46,050

  33.1

  486,223

  32.3

  400,154

  GCSE average point scores by each twentieth of the 15 year olds 1992–93

  All schools

  Grant maintained

  Independent

  Maintained

  LEA maintained

  Average GCSE Points

  Number 15 years olds

  Average GCSE Points

  Number 15 years olds

  Average GCSE Points

  Number 15 years olds

  Average GCSE Points

  Number 15 years olds

  Average GCSE Points

  Number 15 years olds

  0.0

  26,122

  0.7

  3,540

  0.0

  2,301

  0.0

  23,822

  0.0

  20,282

  0.9

  52,245

  3.5

  7,080

  1.8

  4,601

  0.9

  47,644

  0.6

  40,564

  2.9

  78,367

  6.2

  10,619

  7.9

  6,902

  3.1

  71,465

  2.5

  60,846

  5.4

  104,489

  9.5

  14,159

  14.9

  9,202

  4.9

  95,287

  4.3

  81,128

  7.5

  130,612

  12.4

  17,699

  21.1

  11,503

  7.1

  119,109

  6.4

  101,410

  10.0

  156,734

  14.2

  21,239

  24.3

  13,804

  9.6

  142,931

  8.8

  121,692

  11.6

  182,856

  16.2

  24,779

  28.7

  16,104

  11.3

  166,752

  10.4

  141,974

  14.5

  208,979

  18.4

  28,318

  30.6

  18,405

  13.1

  190,574

  12.2

  162,256

  16.4

  235,101

  19.1

  31,858

  33.0

  20,705

  15.0

  214,396

  14.0

  182,538

  17.0

  261,224

  21.4

  35,398

  35.5

  23,006

  17.0

  238,218

  16.0

  202,820

  19.0

  287,346

  23.7

  38,938

  35.1

  25,307

  17.8

  262,039

  17.9

  223,102

  21.0

  313,468

  24.5

  42,478

  37.9

  27,607

  19.8

  285,861

  18.7

  243,384

  22.9

  339,591

  25.4

  46,017

  40.3

  29,908

  21.7

  309,683

  20.6

  263,666

  23.6

  365,713

  27.6

  49,557

  40.0

  32,208

  22.4

  333,505

  22.5

  283,948

  25.4

  391,835

  28.2

  53,097

  42.8

  34,509

  24.2

  357,326

  24.2

  304,230

  27.0

  417,958

  29.9

  56,637

  43.1

  36,810

  25.8

  381,148

  25.7

  324,512

  28.3

  444,080

  31.4

  60,177

  44.0

  39,110

  27.0

  404,970

  26.9

  344,794

  30.1

  470,202

  33.4

  63,716

  45.5

  41,411

  28.8

  428,792

  27.0

  365,076

  31.4

  496,325

  34.9

  67,256

  47.3

  43,711

  30.4

  452,613

  29.4

  385,358

  33.1

  522,447

  35.6

  70,796

  47.4

  46,012

  31.7

  476,435

  31.1

  405,640

  918
  sector, (3) pupils in the independent sector, (4) pupils in the whole maintained sector and (5) pupils in the local education authority maintained sector giving the numbers of each group of the whole cohort in each case. [18033]

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is shown in the table. The total number of pupils are divided into 20 groups of equal size. The cumulative number of pupils in each of the 20 groups and their cumulative average point score are listed in the table. The numbers and average point score of individual groups can be derived from the listed figures.

  "Education Means Business"
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost to his Department of the printing and distributing of the booklet "Education Means Business". [17785]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) on 28 March,Official Report, column 572.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many copies of "Education Means Business" have been printed; what was the cost of publication excluding distribution; what was the distribution cost; how many copies of "Education Means Business" have been distributed; and if he will identify the nature of recipients. [17841]

  Mr. Forth
  Fifty thousand copies of "Education Means Business" were printed at a total production cost of £101,000. Twenty-nine thousand copies have been distributed to the business community, colleges, universities, schools and local education authorities at a cost of £18,400.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what top-slice percentage was held-back by each local education authority for the administrative services undertaken on behalf of grant-maintained schools for the last year for which figures are available. [17370]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Grant-maintained schools are themselves responsible for their own administration. Local education authorities have certain continuing responsibilities for all pupils, whether at grant-maintained or LEA schools. These include home-to-school transport, the education welfare service, and support for pupils with statements of special educational need. The cost of these services in relation to GM school pupils is not collated centrally. However, in the areas where GM secondary schools' budgets are determined by the common funding formula, the percentage of the schools' standard spending assessment attributed to LEA continuing responsibilities in 1995–96 is set out in the table.

  Per cent.

  Barnet

  16.36

  Brent

  18.12

  Bromley

  16.87

  Calderdale

  13.55

  Cambridgeshire

  16.54

  Croydon

  18.23

  Cumbria

  16.17

  Ealing

  23.03

  Enfield

  18.99

  Essex

  16.97

  Gloucestershire

  20.73

  Hertfordshire

  15.64

  Hillingdon

  17.42

  Kent

  17.10

  Kingston

  18.61

  Lambeth

  25.62

  Lincolnshire

  23.90

  Surrey

  18.30

  Sutton

  17.26

  Walsall

  14.52

  Wandsworth

  23.60

  Wiltshire

  16.10

  920
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will calculate how much extra money per pupil would reach schools in each local education authority if all schools in that local education authority were grant-maintained compared with the position in which none is grant-maintained, in the most recent year for which information is available. [17148]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested cannot readily be calculated. However, the Government remain committed to ensuring that grant-maintained schools receive funding to reflect their additional responsibilities compared with local education authority schools.

  In the case of annual maintenance grant, individual secondary LEA schools in authorities in which the common funding formula operates can obtain from the Funding Agency for Schools detailed information on what their budgets for 1995–96 would have been as grant-maintained schools.

  Other LEA secondary schools, and all LEA primary schools, can calculate very closely what their budgets for 1995–96 would have been as grant-maintained schools by increasing their budget shares resulting from their LEA's local management of schools scheme by the relevant percentage for central costs, and estimating a level of subsidy for the provision of school meals consistent with the LEA's policy.

  Details of this and of the arrangements for special purpose and capital grants to grant-maintained schools are included in the Department's "Grant-Maintained Schools Funding Worksheet," the 1995–96 version of which will be circulated to schools later this month.

  Schools Expenditure
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the unit cost net of institutional expenditure per primary and secondary school pupil for each of local education authority for 1993–94. [17371]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Provisional information on net institutional expenditure per pupil in 1993–94 on LEA-maintained schools is shown in the table. Data for some LEAs are not yet available centrally.

  Cost per pupil net institutional expenditure 1993–94

  Pre-primary and primary education

  Secondary education

  Corporation of London

  3,587

  0

  Camden

  2,047

  2,721

  Greenwich

  2,009

  2,583

  Hackney

  —

  —

  Hammersmith

  2,534

  3,329

  Islington

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  Lambeth

  2,666

  3,296

  Lewisham

  2,058

  2,614

  Southwark

  1,806

  2,421

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  2,139

  2,795

  Westminster

  2,592

  2,739

  Barking

  1,790

  2,355

  Barnet

  2,006

  2,952

  Bexley

  —

  —

  Brent

  1,633

  1,835

  Bromley

  1,525

  2,280

  Croydon

  1,793

  2,309

  Ealing

  1,915

  2,575

  Enfield

  1,768

  2,531

  Haringey

  2,236

  3,041

  921

  Cost per pupil net institutional expenditure 1993–94

  Pre-primary and primary education

  Secondary education

  Harrow

  —

  —

  Havering

  1,636

  2,290

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  Hounslow

  1,784

  2,282

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,728

  2,284

  Merton

  1,853

  2,463

  Newham

  1,708

  2,563

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,794

  2,280

  Sutton

  1,639

  1,978

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  1,678

  2,434

  Coventry

  1,684

  2,469

  Dudley

  1,490

  2,098

  Sandwell

  1,681

  2,349

  Solihull

  —

  —

  Walsall

  1,672

  2,279

  Wolverhampton

  1,357

  2,300

  Knowsley

  1,485

  2,243

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  Sefton

  —

  —

  Wirral

  1,552

  2,299

  Bolton

  —

  —

  Bury

  —

  —

  Manchester

  1,547

  2,328

  Oldham

  —

  —

  Rochdale

  1,307

  1,974

  Salford

  1,505

  2,215

  Stockport

  1,466

  2,310

  Tameside

  —

  —

  Trafford

  1,428

  2,156

  Wigan

  1,437

  2,141

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  1,425

  2,022

  Rotherham

  1,723

  2,271

  Sheffield

  1,573

  2,119

  Bradford

  1,654

  1,969

  Calderdale

  1,607

  2,162

  Kirklees

  1,579

  2,207

  Leeds

  1,647

  2,164

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  Gateshead

  1,664

  2,252

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,697

  2,187

  North Tyneside

  1,469

  1,995

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  1,509

  2,114

  Isles of Scilly

  2,401

  4,415

  Avon

  1,571

  2,288

  Bedfordshire

  1,639

  2,103

  Berkshire

  1,592

  2,214

  Buckinghamshire

  1,735

  2,286

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  1,604

  2,206

  Cleveland

  1,461

  2,129

  Cornwall

  1,535

  2,160

  Cumbria

  1,667

  2,216

  Derbyshire

  1,600

  2,214

  Devon

  1,503

  2,157

  Dorset

  1,485

  2,065

  Durham

  1,664

  2,114

  East Sussex

  1,643

  2,270

  Essex

  1,724

  2,286

  Gloucestershire

  1,523

  2,084

  Hampshire

  1,583

  2,180

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  Humberside

  1,621

  2,257

  Isle of Wight

  1,598

  2,027

  Kent

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  1,669

  2,347

  Leicestershire

  1,734

  2,346

  922

  Cost per pupil net institutional expenditure 1993–94

  Pre-primary and primary education

  Secondary education

  Lincolnshire

  1,496

  2,322

  Norfolk

  1,585

  2,309

  North Yorkshire

  1,555

  2,187

  Northamptonshire

  1,522

  2,125

  Northumberland

  1,686

  2,083

  Nottinghamshire

  1,653

  2,381

  Oxfordshire

  1,765

  2,191

  Shropshire

  1,577

  2,354

  Somerset

  1,583

  2,138

  Staffordshire

  1,534

  2,078

  Suffolk

  1,673

  2,190

  Surrey

  1,701

  2,215

  Warwickshire

  1,555

  2,420

  West Sussex

  1,579

  2,467

  Wiltshire

  1,521

  2,379

  — LEA returns are being processed.

  0 Corporation of London has no secondary schools.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Eduction if she will list, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by her Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotion materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are her latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17603]

  Mr. Forth
  The actual costs for the Department's spend on advertising and other publicity—1992–93 and the estimated costs for 1994–95—are given in the table.

  £000

  1992–93

  1993–94

  11994–95

  Television advertising

  0

  0

  0

  Radio advertising

  0

  29.2

  0

  Newspaper advertising

  1,086.4

  1,413.0

  159.3

  Other promotional material and activities

  5,800.1

  8,551.3

  8,360.7

  Total

  6,886.5

  9,993.5

  8,520.0

  1 Estimate.

  The budget for departmental publicity in 1995–96 is estimated at £5,530,000. Decisions on media have yet to be made.

  The costs for advertising do not include recruitment advertising. The Department's spend on recruitment and recruitment advertising is set out in the following table.

  £000

  1992–93

  11993–94

  1994–95

  Recruitment and recruitment advertising

  150.8

  296.5

  218.9

  1 Estimate.

  The Department's budget for recruitment and recruitment advertising in 1995–96 is estimated at some £145,000.

  Special Needs (Research)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research her Department has funded into the differing levels of children with special educational needs in different areas; and if she will make a statement. [17218]

  Mr. Forth
  No academic research on variations in the incidence of special educational needs has been funded by the Department for Education. The Department has, however, sponsored research into aspects of several types of learning difficulty, although not their incidence.

  The Office for Standards in Education also monitors special educational provision and practice in schools throughout the country.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland Police Authority
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the chairman of the Northern Ireland police authority has communicated directly with individual members of the RUC in respect of his community consultation. [17050]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I understand that the chairman has written to every serving officer in the regular RUC and the RUC reserve, full-time and part-time, to explain the police authority's community consultation process and its view of the future. He has also written to the civilian staff.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what formal invitations to present oral or written evidence to his community consultation the chairman of the Northern Ireland police authority has issued to Northern Ireland's constitutional political parties, the various RUC staff associations, the trade unions, the churches and employers' organisations. [17049]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I understand that the chairman of the authority has written to each Member of Parliament and each local council in Northern Ireland seeking their written views on the future of policing in the Province, by 2 May 1995. Written views have also been sought from the staff associations and organisations referred to, together with a wide range of community groups. In addition, the authority is in the process of holding a series of informal discussion seminars on policing, at venues throughout Northern Ireland, which all locally elected representatives and representatives from local businesses, churches, schools, charities and community groups have been invited to attend.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the requirement by the chairman of the Northern Ireland police authority in terms of full-time and part-time staff engaged in his community consultation exercise; what has been the total number of man days expended; and whether he is eligible for extra remuneration or allowances in respect of the exercise. [17047]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I understand that three members of staff within the authority's existing personnel complement have been deployed directly on the community consultation programme. A number of tasks have been undertaken by other authority personnel as part of their existing overall remit. No additional staff have been 924
  employed by the police authority as a result of the community consultation exercise.

  It is not possible to calculate precisely how many man hours have been expended on the project to date by all staff in the authority; however, the three units of staff directly employed on the project have expended a total of 67 working days up to 17 March 1995.

  The chairman does not receive extra remuneration or allowances in respect of the exercise.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has received from the chairman of the Northern Ireland police authority on how the evidence given during his community consultation is to be verified, collated and assessed; when the exercise is to be completed; and what is the next stage in the process. [17051]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The chairman of the authority has kept my officials fully informed about each stage of the consultation process. I understand that the first stage of the consultation process ends on 2 May 1995, by which date all submissions should be received in writing by the authority.

  The second stage involves the submissions being examined and, where appropriate, organisations or individuals being invited to expand or explain their submissions in further detail, either in writing or in an oral submission. The second stage should be completed by October or November. However, this stage of the process will be dependent, to a large extent, on the total number of submissions received and their content. Submissions are currently being analysed by authority officials and information is being collated. Once all the submissions have been reviewed, the third stage of the process will be implemented; this will involve preparing a written report for the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. The authority hopes to issue a report by the end of this year or at the beginning of 1996.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total cost of the various elements in the chairman of the Northern Ireland police authority's community consultation exercise, including all printing, postage, administration and public hearings, up to 17 March. [17048]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The cost of the community consultation process up to 17 March amounts to £72,012.11, excluding VAT. This does not include staff costs, as the authority did not recruit additional personnel for the exercise.

  Anaphylaxis
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients in Northern Ireland, have been diagnosed as suffering from food-induced anaphylaxis, peanut allergy. [17013]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the form requested. During the year 1993–94, there were 32 admissions to hospital of patients suffering from anaphylactic shock. This figure would include any cases induced by peanut allergy.

  Temporary Contracts
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each of the past five years, the number of(a) teachers and (b) auxiliary school staff in

  925
  Northern Ireland who are employed on a temporary basis, also expressing the data as a percentage of the total numbers in each respective staff group. [17764]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information regarding teachers is as follows:

  Years

  Teachers employed in a temporary capacity

  Percentage of total teachers

  1993–94

  258

  1.3

  1992–93

  205

  1.1

  1991–92

  186

  1.0

  1990–91

  152

  0.8

  1989–90

  154

  0.8

  Figures for auxiliary school staff in controlled and maintained schools are available for 1994–95 only and comprised 1,446 temporary staff—29 per cent. of the total.

  Information for auxiliary staff in voluntary grammar schools is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each of the past five years, the number of NHS staff in Northern Ireland who

  Number of NHS staff in N.I who are employed on a temporary basis

  September 1990

  September 1991

  September 1992

  September 1993

  September 1994

  Staff group

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Nursing and General

  1,165

  5.7

  1,314

  6.6

  1,505

  7.7

  1,733

  9.2

  2,121

  11.2

  Medical and Dental

  394

  18.6

  387

  17.0

  337

  17.0

  334

  13.7

  371

  14.9

  Ambulance

  18

  3.0

  7

  1.2

  4

  0.7

  1

  0.2

  8

  1.4

  Ancillary and General

  2,148

  18.3

  2,041

  18.5

  1,588

  16.0

  1,334

  14.4

  1,586

  17.4

  Managers and Administrative

  919

  12.0

  996

  12.6

  1,034

  11.9

  993

  11.3

  1,110

  12.3

  Prisoners (Irish Nationals)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Irish nationals are serving custodial sentences in Her Majesty's prisons in Northern Ireland; and what obstacles are preventing them from being transferred to prisons in the Irish Republic. [17661]

  Sir John Wheeler
  This information is not readily available as statistics are not kept on Irish nationals. The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what area of Northern Ireland is designated as being environmentally sensitive, how much Government funding is spent annually on environmentally sensitive areas; how this formula is calculated; and if he will make a statement. [17794]

  Mr. Ancram
  There are five ESAs in Northern Ireland covering 220,000 hectares or about 20 per cent. of the agricultural land area. Payments covering agreements with participating farmers will build up over the next three years. The financial provision for 1997–98 is £5.104 million which reflects anticipated
  926
  are employed on a temporary basis, breaking the date down into (a) nursing and midwifery staff, (b) medical and dental staff, (c) ambulance staff, (d) ancillary staff and (e) managers and administrative staff, also expressing the data as a percentage of the total numbers in each respective staff group. [17759]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is set out in the following table.

  Figures for auxiliary school staff in controlled and maintained schools are available for 1994–95 only and comprised 1,446 temporary staff—29 per cent. of the total.

  Information for auxiliary staff in voluntary grammar schools is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each of the past five years, the number of NHS staff in Northern Ireland who are employed on a temporary basis, breaking the date down into(a) nursing and midwifery staff, (b) medical and dental staff, (c) ambulance staff, (d) ancillary staff and (e) managers and administrative staff, also expressing the data as a percentage of the total numbers in each respective staff group. [17759]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is set out in the following table.

  maximum uptake of 65 per cent. of the designated land area. Payment rates reflect income forgone and costs incurred by participating farmers in meeting the requirements of the scheme.

HEALTH

  Day Care Services
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's latest estimate of the total level of public expenditure on day care services by local authority area for children under the age of five; and what this sum is per child. [16130]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on expenditure per child, by authority, is published in "Key Indicators of Local Authority Social Services", copies of which are available in the Library.

  The latest available information on total expenditure by local authorities covering 1992–93 on day care, child minding facilities and playgroups will be placed in the Library. These figures do not give an indication of the true level of services in a particular area as such services have historically developed in different ways in different authorities.
  927

  Table: Gross expenditure on daycare services for children under 51, 1992–93

  Total expenditure £000

  Shire Counties

  Avon

  3,860

  Bedfordshire

  870

  Berkshire

  365

  Buckinghamshire

  800

  Cambridgeshire

  613

  Cheshire

  1,247

  Cleveland

  1,666

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  104

  Cumbria

  517

  Derbyshire

  2,559

  Devon

  186

  Dorset

  48

  Durham

  638

  East Sussex

  141

  Essex

  1,874

  Gloucestershire

  0

  Hampshire

  355

  Hereford and Worcester

  580

  Hertfordshire

  599

  Humberside

  91

  Isle of Wight

  31

  Kent

  109

  Lancashire

  5,942

  Leicestershire

  1,840

  Lincolnshire

  475

  Norfolk

  137

  Northamptonshire

  895

  Northumberland

  199

  North Yorkshire

  23

  Nottinghamshire

  3318

  Oxfordshire

  156

  Shropshire

  406

  Somerset

  718

  Staffordshire

  2,052

  Suffolk

  254

  Surrey

  264

  Warwickshire

  45

  West Sussex

  182

  Wiltshire

  0

  Metropolitan Districts

  Bolton

  956

  Bury

  384

  Manchester

  11,590

  Oldham

  28

  Rochdale

  2,046

  Salford

  1,472

  Stockport

  24

  Tameside

  1,929

  Trafford

  1,369

  Wigan

  1,223

  Knowsley

  224

  Liverpool

  4,188

  St. Helens

  181

  Sefton

  977

  Wirral

  1,790

  Barnsley

  29

  Doncaster

  38

  Rotherham

  111

  Sheffield

  1,722

  Gateshead

  619

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  1,749

  North Tyneside

  1,159

  South Tyneside

  34

  Sunderland

  46

  Birmingham

  10,090

  Coventry

  1,925

  Dudley

  168

  Sandwell

  91

  Solihull

  0

  928

  Table: Gross expenditure on daycare services for children under 51, 1992–93

  Total expenditure £000

  Walsall

  301

  Wolverhampton

  124

  Bradford

  2,010

  Calderdale

  420

  Kirklees

  971

  Leeds

  7,134

  Wakefield

  461

  Inner London

  Camden

  2,917

  Greenwich

  1,833

  Hackney

  8,621

  Hammersmith

  3,273

  Islington

  3,542

  Kensington

  2,970

  Lambeth

  6,463

  Lewisham

  3,790

  Southwark

  5,004

  Tower Hamlets

  2,154

  Wandsworth

  2,599

  Westminster

  4,803

  City of London

  203

  Outer London

  Barking

  899

  Barnet

  1,856

  Bexley

  257

  Brent

  2,985

  Bromley

  549

  Croydon

  1,253

  Ealing

  1,517

  Enfield

  113

  Haringey

  4,227

  Harrow

  463

  Havering

  726

  Hillingdon

  985

  Hounslow

  1,200

  Kingston Upon Thames

  542

  Merton

  609

  Newham

  2,140

  Redbridge

  79

  Richmond Upon Thames

  984

  Sutton

  560

  Waltham Forest

  1,782

  Source:

  Revenue Outturn returns for Personal Social Services (RO3).

  Note:

  1 The figures may include some expenditure on child minding for 5–7 year olds.

  General Practitioner Working Hours
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change there has been in the number of hours worked on average by general practitioners since 1979. [16422]

  Mr. Malone
  The earliest available information is for 1985–86 and the most recent for 1992–93. Over this period, average general practitioners' working hours increased by 13 per cent., from 34.4 to 38.8 hours a week. Some of this increase is attributable to the reclassification of time spent attending educational courses as general medical services.

  If time spent on-call but not working is included, the average commitment has reduced by 5 per cent., from 61.9 hours a week in 1985–86 to 58.8 hours a week in 1992–93.

  General Medical Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how she will inform the House when next she intends to seek nominations for lay members of the General Medical Council. [16223]

  Mr. Malone
  I will consider how best to proceed at the appropriate time.

  General Practitioner Pay
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change in general practitioners' salaries there has been in real terms since 1979. [16423]

  Mr. Malone
  For 1994–95, the average general practitioner will earn £41,890 for the provision of general medical services— a real terms increase of 40 per cent. over 1978–79. The average GP also receives an extra £3,150 for achieving higher target levels of coverage for childhood immunisations and cervical cytology screening.

  NHS Directors of Finance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health is she will list the health authorities and trusts whose directors of finance do not hold a recognised accountancy qualification. [16243]

  Mr. Malone
  Such information about individuals employed in national health service health authorities and trusts is held only on a management-in-confidence basis. In early 1994, guidance was issued by the then national health service management executive on "The Role of the Director of Finance in the NHS". Among other things, that guidance commended appointment of future directors of finance from those holding qualifications recognised by the Consultative Committee of the Accounting Bodies. Copies of that guidance are available in the Library.

  Cancer Research
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of health service funds are dedicated to cancer research; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on appeals by health research charities for funds from the public. [16940]

  Mr. Malone
  Figures are not collected centrally on the proportion of health service funds dedicated to cancer research.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The MRC is an independent body deciding what research to support on its own expert judgment.

  In 1992–93, the MRC spent a total of £13.5 million on cancer research. These figures would rise by a considerable amount if a proportion of the MRC's spend on basic medical research, that may yield results relevant to cancer, were included.

  The Department of Health spends some £7.7 million annually on research into cancer. This supports a programme of work on radiation protection, work at the National Radiation Protection Board, the small area health statistics unit and the cancer screening evaluation unit.

  The Government support the work of the medical research charities and recognise that charities are
  930
  important funders of health and medical research. The Department is working with the Association of Medical Research Charities to promote a better understanding of the charities' strategies and priorities. In cancer research, the Department is funding research in collaboration with research charities, such as the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Research Campaign.

  Advisory Group on Direct Payments
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the membership of her technical advisory group on direct payments. [17061]

  Mr. Bowis
  This informal group will be a source of practical expertise, to assist the Department in progressing this important issue. The membership may therefore need to vary to reflect the issues being discussed. Its initial membership will include relevant Government Departments, local authorities' associations, social services directors, potential users of direct payments and their representatives.

  Hospital Closures
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many hospitals for the mentally handicapped have closed since 1966; [17189]

  (2) how many hospitals for the mentally handicapped are due to close in the next five years. [17190]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not routinely collect information on hospital closures. Information is available centrally on proposals to close, or change the use of, health service facilities which are referred to Ministers for decision following objections from a community health council.

  A recent report of a survey by Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy showed that of 106 mental handicap hospitals with 100 or more beds at December 1960, 62 had been closed or replaced and 44 remained open in March 1994. The report identified a further 11 hospitals with 100 or more beds and four with 75 to 100 beds which had opened during the period. Of the total of 59 hospitals with over 75 beds at March 1994, 42 had plans to close by 2000 as alternative community-based health and social services are developed. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.

  Local Pay Bargaining
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will suspend for 12 months any decision on local pay bargaining in the NHS, to allow further negotiations with representatives of affected parties; and if she will deliver a full 3 per cent. pay increase across the board to all NHS staff who were subject to local pay bargaining proposals for the year 1995–96. [17225]

  Mr. Malone
  No.

  Message Handling Service
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made in the testing of the message handling service being offered by BT Syntegra scheduled to take place between August and December 1994; [17683]
  931
  (2) when she expects the message handling service being provided by BT Syntegra to be fully available to the NHS; and what are the expected cost savings; [17684]

  (3) what is the cost to her Department of the procurement of the message handling service; [17686]

  (4) how the message handling service of the NHS is currently being provided; which company provides this service; and how many users subscribe to this network. [17685]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are currently two message handling services available to the national health service: one provided by Syntegra and the Healthlink service provided by Racal Data Networks Ltd. The cost of procuring the Healthlink service in 1989–90 by single tender negotiations is estimated at £450,000. The cost of the competitive procurement which resulted in the award of a contract to Syntegra in 1994 is estimated to be £517,000.

  As at 1 March 1995, there were about 6,500 subscribers to Healthlink, the majority being general practitioners and dentists. At present, there are about 350 subscribers to Syntegra's MHS.

  The Department has successfully completed technical testing of the main components of Syntegra's MHS. User acceptance testing is currently taking place and is scheduled to be completed by the end of April 1995. This activity will therefore be completed approximately 12 weeks after the agreed target date. A number of technical issues were encountered early in the testing which has caused the original timetable to be extended.

  The various elements of Syntegra MHS are being introduced over the coming months. The basic messaging service is currently undergoing user acceptance trials, and early users of messaging services will be able to connect to it from April 1995 onwards. Use of the service by family health services authorities will be piloted in May and June, installed in early sites in July to September, then become generally available from October 1995 onwards. Electronic data interchange will become progressively available from the summer of 1995. The Syntegra MHS is an advanced system, offering the latest standards in messaging. The Department and Syntegra have insisted on all aspects of the service being thoroughly tested and piloted before being made available for general use. This policy means that a reliable operational service will be made available at the planned dates.

  It is anticipated that cost savings to the NHS from use of Syntegra's MHS, based on the best current projections of service usage and the costs of the two services at August 1994, will be in the range of £70 million to £130 million over seven years compared with the existing Healthlink service.

  Community Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the proposal for a minimum standard of mental health services in the Community Care (Rights to Mental Health Services) Bill. [17361]
  932
  Mr. Bowis
  The introduction of prescriptive legislation for a minimum standard of mental health services is not the right approach as decisions about the provision of appropriate care in the community are best made locally in the light of local needs, priorities and resources rather than dictated centrally.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from the professional bodies to the Community Care (Rights to Mental Health Services) Bill. [17362]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have received representations from the Royal College of Nursing.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the outcome of the consultations between the NHS and local councils on the need for each aspect of community care; and if she will make a statement. [17407]

  Mr. Bowis
  As a precondition for receiving their community care special transitional grant in 1993–94 and 1994–95, local social services authorities have been required to reach agreements with health authorities on a number of community care issues. For 1995–96, the pre-conditions include taking into account the continuing care guidance issued in February 1995.

  Health authorities and social services departments are required to work together to develop services in the community based on individual assessment of need. Many local authorities and health authorities produce joint community care plans.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change there has been in the number of people taking dental examinations since the abolition of the free dental examination. [17363]

  Mr. Malone
  The information available centrally is the number of courses of treatment for adults that either consist of, or include, dental examinations. This information is shown in the table.

  General dental service: number of national health service dental examinations for adult patients in courses of treatment claimed for in the financial years 1987–88 to 1993–94 in England

  Year ending

  Examinations (thousands)

  1987–88

  19,889

  1988–89

  20,904

  1989–90

  19,402

  1990–91

  18,951

  1991–92

  19,548

  1992–93

  20,000

  1993–94

  19,488

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board.

  Notes:

  1. The Charge for dental examinations was introduced for courses of treatment commencing on or after 1 January 1989. The table relates to courses of treatment claimed for by dentists in the financial year. Because of the time lag between courses of treatment starting and finishing a large number of free examinations will be included in the financial year 1988£89. Some free examinations will be included in later years' figures.

  2. The figures for examinations are the totals of items 1a and 1b in the statement of dental remuneration.

  3. Numbers estimated from a 5 per cent. sample of courses of treatment.
  933
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made on the effect of the introduction of a sessional fees system for dentists on the number of dentists leaving the NHS system. [17364]

  Mr. Malone
  The sessional model was one of the options outlined in the Green Paper "Improving NHS Dentistry". We are considering the responses from the consultation, and hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to include dental policy and practice as part of "The Health of the Nation" planning and documents. [17365]

  Mr. Malone
  Oral health has been considered alongside the strategy for improving health set out in "The Health of the Nation". "An Oral Health Strategy for England", published in July 1994, reviewed the present state of oral health in England, identified problem areas and suggested in broad terms how these might be tackled. Both the contents of this document and decisions taken following the consultation of the Green Paper "Improving NHS Dentistry" will inform policy on how best to achieve future improvements in oral health.

  AIDS
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to her answer of 17 March,Official Report, column 741, if she will place in the Library the correspondence relating to her proposal to reduce Manchester's AIDS support programme. [17580]

  (2) if she will now rescind her proposal to reduce Manchester's AIDS support programme. [17507]

  Mr. Sackville
  Copies of the correspondence will be placed in the Library. Having considered Manchester's request for additional funding, I have decided to make an extra £100,000 available to Manchester city council in excess of the indicative allocation of £75,000 notified earlier this year.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the Internet electronic mail addresses for(a) her Department and (b) each Minister in her Department; and if she will make a statement on her Department's approach to the information super-highway. [17730]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department and Ministers do not have Internet electronic mailboxes. Although officials are using the Internet to retrieve information and to communicate with the research, medical and scientific community, public electronic mail access is still under consideration. The Department is considering how best to exploit the information super-highway to disseminate and retrieve information and to communicate with external organisations and members of the public without risking the security of confidential or personal information and at minimum administrative cost.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are her policies for ensuring that progress is made in meeting "The Health of the Nation" targets on teenage pregnancies. [17409]
  934
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 14 February,Official Report, columns 640–41.

  The Government continue to work closely with health authorities and voluntary organisations towards achieving "The Health of the Nation" target to reduce under-16 conceptions by 50 per cent. by 2000.

  Traffic Calming Measures
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will call for a report from the Hillingdon hospital trust on the ease of road access to the hospital from the surrounding areas of West Drayton, Yiewsley, Hillingdon and Uxbridge; and if she will satisfy herself that the construction of road humps in many streets is not leading to the death of patients admitted in emergency cases. [17421]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Transport recently issued a code of practice—Traffic Advisory Leaflet No. 3–94—setting out arrangements for consultation between highway authorities and the emergency services when traffic calming measures are proposed. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. Martin Gorham, chief executive of the London ambulance service to establish what consultation was carried out before the recent introduction of traffic calming measures in the area around Hillingdon hospital.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 13 December 1994,Official Report, columns 615–16, if she will collect information of the savings made since April 1993 by the national health service by transferring the funding of continuing care of elderly people to local authorities. [17508]

  Mr. Bowis
  Local and health authorities are responsible for agreeing their responsibilities for continuing care. They should agree the information which they need locally to identify and monitor respective financial commitments in this area. Health authorities can transfer funds to local authorities under section 28a of the National Health Service Act 1977 but it is not clear how this would result in savings to the NHS.

  Junior Doctors' Hours
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the average and maximum weekly number of hours on duty and on call for junior hospital doctors. [17384]

  Mr. Malone
  Junior hospital doctors contract to work a standard week of 40 hours. The majority of them also contract for a number of additional duty hours, which may vary from contract to contract.

  The maximum weekly hours of duty including additional duty hours are laid down in "The New Deal", copies of which are available in the Library. Since 1 January, these are 56 hours for those on full shifts, 64 hours for those working partial shifts, 72 hours for those in hard-pressed on-call posts and 83 hours for those in non-hard-pressed on-call posts. Maximum average hours of work are, regardless of the contracted working pattern, 56 a week.
  935
  The medical and dental work-force census for England and Wales shows that at 30 September 1993, the average contracted hours of full-time junior doctors and dentists who contract for additional duty hours was 75.2 a week.

  Average hours of work, as opposed to contracted hours, are not held centrally. However, the 23rd report of the Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration, copies of which are available in the Library, contained the results of an independent survey of junior doctors and dentists in Great Britain which show that average hours of work were, in October 1993, 53.4 a week.

  Public Information Telephone Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by her Department, in each case indicating the costs of establishing, operating, and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when they were established; and what assessment her Department has made of their effectiveness. [17379]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate costs. There are a number of such lines to help the public with advice on health issues.

  Hospices
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many health authorities met the target for joint funding of hospices in the last three years; and if she will make a statement; [17550]

  (2) what was the total expenditure by health authorities in England on hospices in each of the last three years in (a) cash terms and (b) in constant 1995 prices. [17549]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available in the form requested. Funding allocated centrally for hospices and specialist palliative care services for the three years 1992–93 to 1994–95 is shown in the table. These figures do not include additional funding of specialist palliative care by health authorities from their general allocations. Information on the number of health authorities who have met the target of matched national health service and voluntary funding for hospices is not available centrally.

  Region

  1992–93 cash prices (000s)

  1992–93 constant prices1 (000s)

  1993–94 cash prices (000s)

  1993–94 constant prices1 (000s)

  1994–95 cash prices (000s)

  Yorkshire

  2,892

  3,040

  3,446

  3,515

  3,788

  Northern

  2,329

  2,448

  2,712

  2,766

  3,012

  Trent

  3,443

  3,619

  4,019

  4,099

  4,304

  Mersey

  1,940

  2,039

  2,356

  2,403

  2,489

  Oxford

  1,737

  1,826

  1,966

  2,005

  2,128

  East Anglia

  1,589

  1,670

  1,922

  1,960

  2,129

  Wessex

  2,513

  2,642

  2,861

  2,918

  3,025

  N.E. Thames

  2,807

  2,951

  3,410

  3,478

  3,864

  N.W. Thames

  2,469

  2,595

  2,848

  2,905

  3,240

  S.E. Thames

  3,233

  3,399

  3,664

  3,737

  4,000

  S.W. Thames

  2,473

  2,600

  2,913

  2,971

  3,145

  N. Western

  3,105

  3,264

  3,846

  3,923

  4,099

  S. Western

  2,835

  2,980

  3,408

  3,476

  3,648

  West Midlands

  3,828

  4,024

  4,560

  4,651

  4,858

  Total (million)

  37.2

  39.1

  43.9

  44.8

  47.7

  1 Figures shown at constant 1994–95 prices.

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding the banning of the use of electro-convulsive therapy on children under the age of 16 years; what reply she is making; and if she will make a statement. [17471]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on 9 March, column 319.

  NHS Staff
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each of the past five years, the number of NHS staff in England who are employed on a temporary basis, breaking the data down into(a) nursing and midwifery staff, (b) medical and dental staff, (c) ambulance staff, (d) ancillary staff and (e) managers and administrative staff, also expressing the data as a percentage of the total numbers in each respective staff group. [17760]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 31 March, column 815, which gave information on nursing and midwifery bank staff. Information is not available centrally about other staff employed on a temporary basis.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received calling for the reintroduction of free tests for pensioners; what her response has been; and if she will make a statement. [17979]

  Mr. Malone
  We have received and are considering a copy of the Association of Optometrists and British Medical Association's joint document "Free Eye Examinations For the Over-65s", which calls for the re-instatement of national health service eye examinations for that group.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to her answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 131, whether she will make it her policy to continue to place in the Library information about the number and percentage of emergency ambulance calls in London that took (a) 14 minutes and (b) each subsequent minute up to 70 minutes in February and subsequent months as they become available. [17864]

  Mr. Sackville
  The hon. Member should contact Mr. Martin Gorham, chief executive of the London ambulance service, for this information.

  Accident and Emergency Services, Liverpool
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the accident and emergency services in Liverpool hospitals. [17980]

  Mr. Sackville
  Substantial investment is being made reorganising and improving accident and emergency services in Liverpool. In the transition, arrangements are being made to ensure that safe and effective services are maintained. The provision of such services is a local
  937
  matter and the hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. D. H. Tod, chairman of Liverpool health authority, for details.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the objects and property accepted

  Item

  Tax satisfied £

  Conditions as to destination

  Date of MGC recommendation

  Drawing, 'Contraholz Solo' by Paul Klee

  59,048

  Wish

  12.08.93

  Drawings 'Tête de Ferame, 1924' and Tête de Femme, 1937' by Picasso. Vase 'The artist at his easel' by Picasso

  325,952

  Wish

  12.08.93

  Fairfax Archives

  24,500

  Unconditional

  23.08.93

  George I silver kettle and stand

  130,000

  Wish

  21.01.94

  Painting 'The Council of Horses' by Ferneley

  350,000

  Conditional

  01.05.93

  Collection of riding tack

  1,700

  Conditional

  17.02.94

  The Acland Archive

  42,000

  Conditional

  16.08.93

  'Black Painting 1958' by William Scott

  35,000

  Conditional

  06.09.93

  Collection of architectural drawings

  79,093

  Conditional

  13.01.94

  Chattels at Castle Fraser

  107,709

  Conditional

  17.01.94

  Number 2 Willow Road by Erno Goldfinger

  203,111

  Hybrid purchase with National Trust

  n/a

  'Dido and Aeneas' by Jacopo Amigoni

  207,030

  Unconditional

  21.01.93

  Benthall Hall chattels

  25,540

  Wish

  28.03.94

  Busts of Matthew Bolton by John
  Flaxman and James Watt by Sir Francis Chantrey

  122,500

  Wish

  28.03.94

  Fitzherbert papers

  49,000

  Conditional

  25.05.94

  Studio and contents of F E McWilliam

  35,000

  Conditional

  11.08.93

  'Stonehenge' by J M W Turner

  192,000

  Conditional

  28.03.94

  Collection of Islamic books

  3,500

  Conditional

  26.08.94

  Calke Abbey chattels

  143,473

  Conditional

  03.12.93

  Chattels at Nymans

  176,055

  Conditional

  18.04.94

  Musical automation clock by Thomas Weekes

  59,147.26

  Unconditional

  06.09.94

  Florentine terracotta roundel by Foggini

  26,600

  Unconditional

  26.07.94

  Study for a portrait by Francis Bacon

  680,000

  Wish

  01.05.93

  Silver gilt wine-fountain

  770,000

  Conditional

  11.06.93

  Six sculptures by Naum Gabo

  979,616

  Conditional

  28.03.94

  Paintings 'L' Artiste dans son Atelier' by Marc Chagall and 'La Condition Humaine' by René Magritte

  665,000

  Conditional

  26.07.94

  Paintings 'A Village Wedding' by Jan Steen, 'The Castle of Bentheim from below' by Jacob Van Ruisdale and 'The Bird Trap' by Nicholas Berchem

  665,000

  Conditional

  05.12.93

  The total expenditure for the financial year 1994–95 was £6,160,116. This includes an additional payment of £2,041.74 for the painting, "Weeping Woman" by Picasso which was accepted in 1986–87. Five offers costing £3,759,616 were met by calls on the reserve.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish the attendance figures for the financial year ended 31 March reported by the national museums and galleries for which he is responsible, broken down into the individual institutions, but including their outstations, with figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for the preceding year. [16754]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I list forecasts for the number of visits to the 11 national museums and galleries in England for which I am responsible for the financial year ended 938
  in satisfaction of inheritance tax during the financial year ended 31 March; and if he will specify (a) the amount of tax satisfied in each case, (b) whether any offers carried conditions as to destination, (c) the date in each case of the recommendations received by him from the Museums and Galleries Commission for the acceptance of objects, (d) the total for the financial year of the tax thus satisfied and (e) how much of this total was covered in the public accounts by means of resort to the reserve in accordance with the Government policy announced on 2 July 1985, Official Report, column, 779. [16753]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is as follows:

  31 March 1995 and the actual figures for the financial year 1993–94. More accurate figures for 1994–95 will be available in July.

  Number of visits in 1993–94 (million)

  Forecast number of visits in 1993–94 (million)

  Provisional percentage increase/decrease over the previous year

  British Museum

  6.03

  6.32

  +4.8

  Imperial War Museum

  1.19

  1.23

  +3.4

  National Gallery

  4.02

  4.00

  -0.5

  National Maritime Museum

  0.53

  0.54

  +1.9

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  1.34

  1.38

  +3.0

  National Portrait Gallery

  0.79

  0.85

  +7.6

  939

  Number of visits in 1993–94 (million)

  Forecast number of visits in 1993–94 (million)

  Provisional percentage increase/decrease over the previous year

  Natural History Museum

  1.74

  1.54

  -11.5

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  2.67

  2.48

  -7.1

  Tate Gallery

  2.75

  2.80

  +1.8

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  1.58

  1.60

  +1.3

  Wallace Collection

  0.15

  0.16

  +6.7

  Total

  22.79

  22.9

  +0.5

  It is not possible to identify the number of visits to the Royal Armouries because it at present forms part of the Tower of London.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to review the distribution mechanisms for the proceeds of the national lottery. [17223]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The distribution mechanisms are as set out in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 and can be changed only by Parliament.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to instruct Oflot to examine the profits of Camelot. [17222]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no such plans.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pig Research Unit
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what was the cost of market testing his Department's pig unit; [16962]

  (2) which consultants were employed to advise on the market testing of his Department's pig unit; and at what cost;
  [16963]

  (3) how many (a) pig and (b) staff were included in the scope of his Department's market test of the pig unit; [16964]

  (4) how many bids from the private sector were received following the issuing of the invitation to tender for his Department's pig unit work; [16965]

  (5) if the market testing of the Government's pig research unit falls within the remit of his "Competing for Quality" initiative; and if he will make a statement. [16958]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have asked the chief executive of the Central Veterinary Laboratory to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from T.W.A. Little to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 3 April 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your recent questions about the Department's Pig Unit. I am also replying to your question to the Prime Minister concerning the Government Pig Research Unit.
  940
  I should perhaps begin by explaining that there is no single Government Pig Research Unit. However, at CVL the Animal Services Unit is responsible for the procurement, housing and welfare of animals used on site in connection with the work of the Laboratory on animal health and welfare. In 1993 it was decided to market test that part of the operation responsible for the supply of animals of known health status. This involved the supply of pigs as well as other animals. The planned approach was to invite potential tenderers to either run the service on site, using CVL's existing facilities, or to supply from their own facilities off-site.
  The response to advertisements for expressions of interest for the supply of animals was disappointing. Too few organisations replied who had sufficient track record to meet all the Laboratory's needs. Against this background the market test was not pursued in favour of an internal management review which concluded that supplies should continue to be arranged in-house but with occasional use of out-sourced suppliers.
  Turning to your specific questions, I am unable to provide you with a cost for that aspect of the exercise which related to the supply of pigs since these costs were not kept separately. I can confirm no consultants were involved at any stage of the market testing exercise.
  That part of the unit supplying pigs comprised approximately 3 boars, 30 sows and followers. Two members of staff were involved for most of their time with limited supervisory input. As explained above, no bids were invited since the exercise did not reach the stage of inviting tenders.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the setting up of the national meat hygiene service. [17276]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Secondary legislation has been laid before the House which would, among other things, make Ministers, acting through the meat hygiene service responsible for enforcement of meat hygiene and welfare at slaughter legislation. The necessary arrangements have been made to allow the meat hygiene service to carry out its responsibilities with effect from 1 April when these regulations come into force.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the total administrative cost of setting up the national meat hygiene service to date and if he will indicate any further expenditure that will be necessary in establishing this agency. [17272]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Provision was made for a total of £5.2 million in the years 1994–95 and 1995–96 to meet the set up costs of the meat hygiene service. In addition, a small project team was established within the Ministry between 1992 and March 1995 at an estimated total cost of £626,000.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the representations he has received concerning the national meat hygiene service. [17278]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My ministerial colleagues and I have had frequent meetings with hon. Members and organisations representing the meat industry to discuss the meat hygiene service. We have also received letters from hon. Members and others both supporting and opposing the creation of the MHS.

  I met 11 representative organisations on 27 March; 10 of them confirmed their continuing support for the creation of a single organisation to be responsible for meat hygiene enforcement and inspection.
  941
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the methods by which the national meat hygiene service will be held accountable to the House. [17274]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The meat hygiene service will be an agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its staff will be civil servants. I will be accountable to Parliament for the activities of the agency. Full authority for the day to day operation of the agency rests with the chief executive who will be responsible to me for the agency's overall operation and performance. The MHS will operate in Scotland and Wales on behalf of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State.

  Ministers will usually ask the chief executive to write to hon. Members in response to written Parliamentary questions and letters about matters delegated to him. The chief executive's letters in reply to parliamentary questions will be published in the Official Report.

  The agency's annual report and accounts will be laid in the House.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the senior officers, (b) the salaries of the senior officers and (c) the salaries of each grade of staff in the national meat hygiene service. [17277]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The meat hygiene service is headed by a chief executive supported by four heads of Department. There are six regional managers. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 14 March 1995 to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill),Official Report, column 500, for details of the chief executive's remuneration. Meat inspectors and other staff transferring from local authorities will do so on terms and conditions broadly equivalent to those of their previous employment. The salaries given for these grades are those which will be offered to new staff on appointment.

  Grade

  Range (£s)

  Heads of Department

  38,000–50,000

  Regional Manager

  37,500–43,000

  Official Veterinary Surgeon

  22,000–35,000

  Headquarters Manager

  16,000–30,000

  Area Resource Manager

  19,000–28,000

  Meat Hygiene Inspector

  11,000–23,000

  Executive Assistant

  7,500–13,000

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the annual total cost to public funds of the national meat hygiene service. [17273]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The estimated net cost of the meat hygiene service in 1995–96 is £15.4 million. This includes provision for the transitional assistance which I announced on 29 March and elements, such as start-up costs and normal delays in payment, which are not relevant to the agency's operational costs. The estimated net cost in 1996–97 is £1.4 million.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions he has put in place to assist with maintaining operations in small abattoirs following the setting up of the national meat hygiene service. [17279]
  942
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have always recognised the importance of local abattoirs to the rural economy and have taken a number of measures to ensure that single market rules are applied sensibly and flexibly. These arrangements will continue. The transitional assistance which I announced on 29 March will be of particular benefit to the smaller operator.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what impact the national meat hygiene service will have for the training requirements of environmental health officers; and if environmental health officers will continue to be required to gain qualifications in meat inspection.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The meat hygiene service will assist in providing training for environmental health officers.

  Environmental health officers authorised to exercise powers under the Food Safety Act 1990 to examine and seize meat must hold one of the qualifications listed in the schedule to the Authorised Officers (Meat Inspection) Regulations 1987.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the necessary qualifications for appointment to each grade of staff in the national meat hygiene service.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Management and support staff are required to have the appropriate skills and experience. The head of operations post requires a veterinarian with substantial professional experience of meat hygiene and regional managers must have substantial practical experience of meat hygiene. Official veterinary surgeons must be members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and be designated by Ministers as official veterinary surgeons having completed the appropriate refresher training in fresh meat or poultry meat hygiene. Meat hygiene inspectors must have the qualifications specified in the regulations governing meat hygiene.

  Fishing Boats
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to verify the size of fishing fleet claims of other member states of the European Union, where such claims have an effect on the size of the fleet the United Kingdom is permitted to run under EU rules; and if he will make a statement. [17091]

  Mr. Jack
  Each member state has agreed binding multi-annual guidance programme targets. Responsibility for compliance with these targets and the enforcement of Community regulations and verification of the data supplied by member states is the responsibility of the Commission.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food if he will discuss with his Spanish counterpart and with the European Fisheries Commissioner the regulations of the common fisheries policy governing declarations of fishing boat engine size; and if he will make a statement. [17092]

  Mr. Jack
  Responsibility for ensuring compliance with Community regulations rests with the Commission. However, my officials are drawing the recent press reports on these matters to the attention of the Commission. Evaluation of effort is sometimes discussed in the Council when all member states can contribute to the proceedings.

  Public Information Telephone Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by his Department, in each case indicating the costs of establishing, operating and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when they were established; and what assessment his Department has made of their effectiveness. [17454]

  Mr. Jack
  MAFF has set up two public telephone helpline services with local call rate charging facilities. The general MAFF helpline, launched in May 1993, provides a one-stop point of contact for individuals or organisations seeking information about or advice from the Ministry. The more specialist consumer helpline was set up in April 1990 to act as a focal point for enquirers needing information from the food safety directorate. Both units also handle written and faxed public enquiries, and in the case of the MAFF helpline, those received by e-mail. The start-up costs for these services were approximately £21,000, and annual running costs are estimated at £90,000. Since the introduction of both services, over 62,000 calls have been received. The effectiveness of the helpline services are measured by regular annual increases in the volume of calls dealt with, by the high proportion of calls handled directly without onward referral and by their success in meeting citizens charter targets on the way in which they deal with inquirers and the time limits for response.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many environmentally sensitive area agreements were concluded in 1994–95 in the(a) zero to £5,000, (b) £5,001 to £10,000, (c) £10,001 to £15,000, (d) £15,001 to £20,000, (e) 20,001 to £25,000 (f) £25,001 to £50,000, (g) £50,001 to £75,000, (h) £75,001 to £100,000, (i) £100,001 to £150,000, (j) 150,001 to £200,000 and (k) over £200,000 bands; [17674]

  (2) how many environmentally sensitive area agreements were concluded in 1993–94 in the (a) zero to £5,000, (b) £5,001 to £10,000, (c) £10,001 to £15,000, (d) £15,001 to £20,000, (e) 20,001 to £25,000 (f) £25,001 to £50,000, (g) £50,001 to £75,000, (h) £75,001 to £100,000, (i) £100,001 to £150,000, (j) 150,001 to £200,000 and (k) over £200,000 bands; [17673]

  (3) how many environmentally sensitive area agreements he estimates will be concluded in 1995–96 in the (a) zero to £5,000, (b) £5,001 to £10,000, (c) £10,001 to £15,000, (d) £15,001 to £20,000, (e) 20,001 to £25,000 (f) £25,001 to £50,000, (g) £50,001 to £75,000, (h) £75,001 to £100,000, (i) £100,001 to £150,000, (j) 150,001 to £200,000 and (k) over £200,000 bands. [17675]

  Mr. Jack
  Records of the number of agreements concluded in 1993–94 are not kept in the form requested. The total number of agreements on which payments were made in English ESAs in each band is as follows:

  £

  1993–94

  1994–95

  0–5,000

  3,554

  4,206

  5,001–10,000

  543

  653

  10,001–15,000

  146

  185

  15,001–20,000

  52

  65

  20,001–25,000

  28

  42

  944

  £

  1993–94

  1994–95

  25,001–50,000

  56

  75

  50,001–75,000

  10

  10

  75,001–100,000

  3

  5

  100,001–150,000

  2

  0

  150,001–200,000

  0

  0

  Over 200,000

  0

  0

  Entry to the ESA scheme is voluntary and it is not possible to predict the number of new agreements that will be concluded in 1995–96 in the form requested.

  Live Exports
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the approximate cost to the Exchequer of subsidies to United Kingdom producers of live animals for export for slaughter in the latest convenient period for which figures can be calculated. [17462]

  Mr. Jack
  For live animals exported for slaughter from the United Kingdom in the period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994, nil.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make an assessment of the consequences for farming and the countryside, including the budgetary and trade implications, if the United Kingdom were to withdraw from the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement. [17969]

  Mr. Jack
  There can be no question of the United Kingdom withdrawing from the common agricultural policy, participation in which is an integral part of our membership of the European Union.

  Sow Stall Conversions
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants are available to pig farmers in Northern Ireland to assist with sow stall conversions. [14798]

  Mr. Ancram
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are currently no grants available in Northern Ireland to assist in sow stall conversion.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Order Prosecutions
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been under (i) section 18, (ii) section 19 and (iii) section 23 of the Public Order Act 1986 in each year since 1990. [17860]

  The Attorney-General
  Since 1990, 12 prosecutions have been commenced under part III of the Public Order Act 1986. Information on each of the prosecutions is as follows:
  945

  Year

  Offence(s)

  Result

  1.

  1990

  Sections 19 and 23

  Convicted

  2.

  1990

  Section 23

  Convicted

  3.

  1991

  Section 19

  Convicted

  4.

  1991

  Section 18

  Died before trial

  5.

  1991

  Section 23

  Discontinued

  6.

  1992

  Section 23

  Convicted

  7.

  1992

  Section 23

  Convicted

  8.

  1992

  Section 18

  Acquitted

  9.

  1993

  Sections 19 and 23

  Convicted

  10.

  1993

  Section 23

  Convicted

  11.

  1993

  Section 23

  Convicted

  12.

  1994

  Section 23

  Convicted

  Date-rape Cases
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Attorney-General what consultations he has had with the Director of the Crown Prosecution Services concerning the numbers of date-rape cases dropped on Crown Prosecution Service advice after a full police investigation, as a proportion of all date-rape cases arriving at court. [17994]

  The Attorney-General
  I have routine meetings with the DPP to discuss departmental issues, including aspects of prosecutions policy. The particular information sought by the hon. Member is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Parliamentary Data and Video Network
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what financial provision is being made for installing the parliamentary data and video network; when this will be completed; and if the Commission will be providing funds for terminals and computers. [15725]

  Mr. Channon
  By the end of the summer recess 550 Members, including all those with offices in the outbuildings, will have access to the video network. Remaining Members' offices in the Palace will be cabled progressively over the next five years. In accordance with the recommendations of the Information Committee approved by the House last June, terminals and computers will not be funded from the House votes.

  Visitors' Refreshment Facilities
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what plans he has to provide increased refreshment facilities within or adjacent to Westminster Hall for members of the public visiting the House. [15727]

  Mr. Channon
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell).

  Members' Accommodation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of 946
  Commons Commission, what is his latest estimate of the total cost of hon. Members moving office within parliamentary buildings during the current Parliament.

  Mr. Beith
  No figures are available to identify separately the total cost of moving hon. Members between offices but the cost of removal for an individual Member has been estimated at approximately £50 plus VAT, together with any extra costs caused by new furniture, furnishings or redecoration.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the number of staff years which have been used by Departments in order to progress market testing since April 1992. [16971]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what considerations underlie his decision to publish information on service quality following a market testing exercise only when the quality has risen. [16970]

  Mr. Horam
  There has-been no such decision.

  Public Information Telephone Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the costs of operating the(a) 0800 100101 and (b) 0345 300130 telephone services to the citizens charter unit; what was the total number of calls made to each line during its operation; what were the costs of establishing, publicising and operating each service; and what assessment his Department has made of these services. [17797]

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

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the costs of operating the citizens charter publication line; what was the number of calls made to it for each month of its operation; what were the costs of establishing, publicising and operating this service; and what assessment his Department has made of this service. [17799]

  Mr. Horam
  The citizens charter publication line on 0345 22 32 42 was set up on 16 March to send out copies of the guide to the citizens charter White Papers; details of how to obtain the follow-up charters; the code of practice on access to Government information; charter mark award scheme information; "Charter News"; and complaints task force information. The service remains in operation; calls are charged at a local rate. Initially the service was managed by IBM national call centre. When the contract expired the service was run directly by the charter unit until 17 October 1994, then a new contract was awarded to Inform Communications who have managed the publications line since then.

  The costs of operating the publication line and the number of calls up to 16 March 1995 are:
  947

  Period covered

  Number of calls

  Operating costs (excluding VAT) £

  Set up costs1 £

  Managed by

  16 March 1994–10 July 19942

  5,160

  23,204.59

  1,420.00

  IBM National Call Centre

  11 July 1994–16 August 1994

  405

  absorbed within Charter unit running costs

  Citizen's Charter Unit

  17 August 1994–16 September 1994

  132

  17 September 1994–16 October 1994

  145

  17 October 1994–16 November 1994

  432

  1,654.22

  640.00

  Inform Communications

  7 November 1994–16 December 1994

  250

  1,044.12

  17 December 1994–16 January 1995

  120

  753.55

  17 January 1995–16 February 1995

  451

  1,453.55

  17 February 1995–16 March 1995

  480

  1,394.35

  Note:

  1 One-off costs.

  2 The time period covers the IBM management of the Publication Line.

  The telephone number for the publication line was publicised in the citizens charter second report, 1994 and other internal newsletters and magazines; no specific publicity costs have been incurred.

  The service is kept under continuous review, and decisions about continuation and contractual arrangements are made accordingly.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the costs of operating the charterline telephone information service; what was the number of calls made to it for each month of its operation; what were the costs of establishing, publicising and operating this service; and what assessment his Department has made of this service. [17798]

  Mr. Horam
  The cost of operating the charterline information service from 19 May 1993—the setting up of the pilot scheme—to 19 March 1994, the ending of the evaluation of the pilot scheme was £1,130,991.

  During this period, charterline received 5,603 calls. A month-by-month breakdown of this number is not available.

  The breakdown of the costs of the pilot scheme until 19 March 1994 is as follows:

  Developmental costs £

  Ongoing costs £

  Initial research

  67,000

  —

  Set up charges

  749,000

  —

  System Design

  119,918

  —

  Project planning and management

  195,000

  —

  Selection of pilot region

  25,000

  —

  Regional seminars

  21,000

  —

  Data collection

  57,000

  —

  Detailed requirements, acceptance testing and financial modelling

  50,520

  —

  CCTA contractual advice

  47,761

  —

  Advertising

  —

  602,922

  Research during pilot study

  —

  61,239

  IBM operational costs

  —

  403,579

  Charterline language service (set up and operational charges)

  —

  34,951

  CACI use of ACORN data

  —

  28,300

  Totals

  1,332,199

  1,130,991

  This information, together with other data on the charterline pilot is contained in the document "Charterline Evaluation Report", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
  948
  Paragraphs 41–44 of the evaluation report set out the conclusions at the end of the study. The evaluation showed what information people wanted to know about their public services but also that there were problems with doing this through charterline because of the lack of awareness of the service. In the light of these conclusions, it was decided that charterline should not be continued, and the pilot scheme ended on 6 May 1995. Subsequently, the charter unit has worked with Yellow Pages and Thomson Directories to develop the information on public services that they provide in their directories.

  Statutory References
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what statutory references to hon. Members have been made in legislation introduced by his Department, or its predecessors, since 1965. [17038]

  Mr. David Hunt
  Any analysis could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It would be extremely unlikely for reference to be made specifically to an individual hon. Member.

  Charter Marks
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the budget for the 1995 charter mark award scheme. [17110]

  Mr. Horam
  We have provisionally set aside a sum of £1.65 million to cover the cost of the award assessment, the new scheme for public nominations and the wider promotion of the award scheme. But final costs will be heavily dependent on the number of applications received and on the number of public nominations. We will therefore be refining the budget as the year progresses.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much of the budget for the 1995 charter mark award scheme has been spent on (i) publications and (ii) distribution of information. [17109]

  Mr. Horam
  We think it very important this year to involve the public in the operation of the charter mark award scheme. We also wish to involve a larger proportion of public service organisations in this scheme. We have spent £111,900 of the £1.65 million provisionally set aside for the 1995 charter mark award scheme on publications and £58,500 on distributing those publications.

  Cabinet Office
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Cabinet Office was last inspected by the relevant local authority to ensure that it fully complies with health and safety at work legislation; and what steps have been taken to implement any necessary improvements relating to space standards, toilets, rest rooms, canteens and asbestos removal, for staff employed there. [17312]

  Mr. Horam
  The Cabinet Office and its agencies occupy a number of buildings throughout the country. The buildings concerned are, therefore, subject to different inspection regimes by the respective local council, local fire authority and local environmental health authority. The responsibility for ensuring compliance with the health and safety at work legislation, however, lies with the Health and Safety Executive.

  Listed are the latest recorded inspections, since January 1993, for buildings where the Cabinet Office is the major occupier. Good working relations are maintained with all relevant local authorities and a number of informal inspections also take place. Except as noted, there are no outstanding actions still to be taken following any of the inspections listed.

  Inspections

  Date

  London, 70 Whitehall

  Environmental Health Officer's visit

  November 1994

  Portable electrical appliance testing

  August 1994

  Water quality test

  December 1994

  Hepburn House and 53 Parliament Street

  Portable electrical appliance safety testing

  March 1994

  Fire Safety Inspection

  January 1995

  Belgrave Road

  Home Office Fire Safety Inspection

  September 1994

  Fire Brigade Inspection

  January 1995

  Ascot, Sunningdale Park

  Inspection of kitchens and bedroom accommodation

  January 1995

  Fire Safety Inspection

  November 1994

  Asbestos Inspection

  September 1994

  Portable electrical appliance safety test

  March 1995

  Water quality sampled

  February 1995

  Edinburgh Hill Street

  Electrical circuit safety check

  September 1994

  Water quality check

  March 1995

  Fire safety check

  September 1994

  Basingstoke Alençon Link

  Asbestos check

  February 1995

  Work is ongoing to meet recommendations

  Norwich Rosebury Court

  The CCTA moved to a new building constructed in July 1994 that fully complies with all extant Health and Safety, etc, legislation.

  Chessington Government Buildings, Leatherhead Road

  Kitchen Inspection

  February 1993

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what considerations led to the continued advertising of posts within the civil service to work in 950
  the Cabinet Office for two hours a week longer than the proposed European Community directive on maximum hours of work. [17311]

  Mr. Horam
  The working time directive is not in force. The United Kingdom's challenge to it has yet to be considered by the European Court of Justice. Working hours in the Cabinet Office are agreed between management and staff in the light of particular circumstances, under the guiding principles set out in the civil service management code.

SCOTLAND

  Taxation
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the sources and calculations behind his statements in a television interview on 12 February on(a) the extra cost to each Scot in income tax of the Labour party's plans for a Scottish Parliament, (b) the Scottish share of the United Kingdom population and Government expenditure and taxation and (c) the amount raisable by 3p on income tax leviable only in Scotland and (d) the change if Scotland were funded to the same level as the rest of the United Kingdom. [14918]

  Mr. Lang
  I have arranged to place in the House of Commons Library the sources and calculations behind my statements in my interview with Jonathan Dimbleby on ITV on Sunday 12 February.

  Clinical Outcome Indicators
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish on an annual basis health service clinical outcome indicators for individual(a) health boards and (b) NHS trusts, similar to those published in December 1994. [15867]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Decisions about future publication will be taken in the light of continuing development work and full discussion of the indicators already published.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department spent on public relations during the financial year 1993–94; how much contracts with the private sector cost; and if he will list the activities covered by these contracts. [16284]

  Mr. Lang
  The running cost of the Scottish Office information directorate in 1993–94 was £1.4 million. No public relations companies were employed by my Department during that period.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines his Department has issued to its agencies and other public bodies under its authority in respect of the employment of public relations companies and the procedures to be adopted in relation to requesting tenders for public relations companies. [16213]

  Mr. Lang
  Guidelines on the employment of public relations companies are contained in the central Government conventions on publicity and advertising which have been recognised by successive Governments.
  951
  Detailed guidance on tendering procedures is regularly issued to agencies and passed to other public bodies on request.

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the official cell capacity and (b) the inmate prison population in each prison in Scotland on 24 March. [17235]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of this question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. A. Stewart to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 3 April 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked the Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to reply to your Question relating to (a) the official cell capacity and (b) the inmate prison population in each prison Scotland on 24 March. I am replying in his absence.
  The table shows the design capacity and number of prisoners in each penal establishment in Scotland on 24 March 1995.

  Establishment

  Design capacity

  Number of prisoners

  Aberdeen

  142

  171

  Barlinnie

  939

  1,185

  Castle Huntly

  144

  70

  Cornton Vale

  213

  167

  Dumfries

  139

  129

  Dungavel

  135

  116

  Edinburgh

  508

  645

  Friarton

  56

  80

  Glenochil

  669

  484

  Greenock

  172

  252

  Inverness

  79

  108

  Longriggend

  177

  191

  Low Moss

  396

  381

  Noranside

  135

  124

  Penninghame

  85

  50

  Perth

  426

  465

  Peterhead

  271

  205

  Polmont

  414

  394

  Shotts

  535

  450

  Scotland

  5,635

  5,667

  In Scotland design capacity is based on single occupancy. The measure of certified normal accommodation used in England and Wales, however, allows, in some instances double occupancy in cells.

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the individual members of the Lomond Healthcare NHS trust; and what criteria applied in respect of each appointment. [17415]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 28 March 1995,Official Report, column 582.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 28 March, how many days per week Mr. Stephen J. Newall is expected to work as chairman of Lomond Healthcare NHS trust. [17644]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Trust chairmen are expected to commit two to three days per week to trust work.

  Temporary Teachers
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the past five years, the number of(a) teachers and (b) auxiliary school staff in Scotland who are employed on a temporary basis, also expressing the data as a percentage of the total numbers in each respective staff group. [17763]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested on the number and percentage of teachers employed on a temporary basis in Scottish education authority schools for the years which data are available in the most recent five-year period is as follows:

  Year at September

  Number (full time equivalents)

  Percentage of all teachers

  1990

  1,838

  3.7

  1992

  1,942

  3.9

  These figures include teachers employed in nursery, primary, secondary and special schools. Figures for years subsequent to 1992 are not yet available.

  Information is not held centrally in respect of auxiliary school staff employed on a temporary basis.

  Higher Education Institutions
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those higher education institutions which are discussing private finance for upgrading or developing facilities with private sector firms; and which firms are involved in these discussions. [17474]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Higher education institutions are free to enter into discussions on private finance with the private sector as they consider appropriate. The names of the institutions or the private sector firms involved are matters of commercial confidence to the institutions concerned.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to refuse to approve any capital projects in higher or further education unless private finance options have been explored. [17473]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We would expect institutions to consider the private finance option. However, projects may proceed to procurement without a private finance option being considered if it is clear that transfer of control and risk is not feasible. It is for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to approve capital projects in higher education using criteria based on guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a list of those invited to attend the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council conference on the private finance initiative; and what specific developments, if any, arise from this conference. [17472]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council was responsible for organising the conference on the private finance initiative. Attendance was not by invitation but by application. I have asked the funding council to write to the hon. Member and provide details of those who attended.

  It is now for higher education institutions and the business community to decide on the feasibility of specific developments.

  Highland Railway Services
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the social and economic assessments which he has made over the impact of proposed rail service changes to the highlands. [17751]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for the railways rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. No such assessments have been undertaken by the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of all representations, which he has received from Highlands and Islands Enterprise since autumn 1994, in respect of rail connections to the highlands. [17752]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The chairman of Highlands and Islands Enterprise wrote to me on 22 March about sleeper services to Fort William and Motorail services. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Racial Incidents
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many racial incidents have been recorded in Scotland in each year since 1991. [17858]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of racial incidents recorded by the police in Scotland in each year since 1991 are as follows:

  1991: 678

  1992: 663

  1993: 756

  1994: 791

  Prisoners (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the(a) male and (b) female prison population in Scotland are from ethnic minority groups. [17859]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of this question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. A. Stewart to Mr. Jimmy Wray, dated 3 April 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked the Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to reply to your Question about the percentage of the male and female prison population in Scotland from ethnic minority groups. I am replying in his absence.
  Information on the ethnic origin of persons received into Scottish penal establishments has not been collected. The new Scottish Prison Service Prisoner Records Database which is currently being implemented across the Service, however, will enable us to provide such information after the Summer.

  NHS Staff
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the past five years, the number of NHS staff in Scotland who are employed on a temporary basis, breaking the data down into(a) nursing and midwifery staff, (b) medical and dental staff, (c) ambulance staff, (d) ancillary staff and (e) managers and
  954
  administrative staff, also expressing the data as a percentage of the total numbers in each respective staff group. [17758]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistics on the number of NHS staff in Scotland employed on a temporary basis are not maintained centrally.

  Water Authorities and Customers Council
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications he has received for membership of(a) the three new water authorities and (b) the consumer bodies; when he expects to announce the full membership of each of them; and if he will make a statement. [17301]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 30 March 1995]: We have received 759 applications for membership of the new water authorities; 384 for membership of the Customers Council; and 103 for chairmanship of the Customers Council.

  Membership will be announced in the late spring or early summer.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the total number of patients in Scotland registered with a dentist; and what was the number of patients that ceased to be registered with a dentist for each financial year since 1985–86; [15539]

  (2) if he will list for each health board area in Scotland the number of patients registered with a dentist and the number of patients who ceased to be registered with a dentist for each financial year since 1985–86. [15540]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: Registration of patients with a dentist was introduced in October 1990. Patients may cease to be registered with a dentist for a number of reasons, including lapse of registration owing to non-attendance, transfer to another dentist, agreement between patient and dentist to enter private arrangements, or decision by a dentist no longer to provide NHS treatment to a patient. Patients whose registration lapses may subsequently register with the same or another dentist and cannot be separately identified. The information available is shown in the tables.

  Table 1: Dental patients registered at 31 March—by health board in Scotland

  Financial year

  Health board

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Scotland

  1,710,947

  2,502,684

  2,548,095

  2,514,816

  Argyll and Clyde

  146,481

  213,990

  212,219

  207,647

  Ayrshire and Arran

  170,743

  221,072

  200,998

  198,376

  Borders

  38,118

  52,771

  53,897

  53,238

  Dumfries and Galloway

  50,535

  74,290

  71,220

  68,292

  Fife

  116,263

  167,285

  171,475

  170,690

  Forth Valley

  84,505

  129,146

  133,441

  131,571

  Grampian

  175,734

  246,479

  259,362

  260,173

  Greater Glasgow

  296,476

  458,557

  474,592

  464,351

  Highland

  69,124

  102,894

  99,161

  92,670

  Lanarkshire

  150,452

  233,418

  242,743

  240,001

  Lothian

  252,816

  374,659

  389,764

  385,702

  Orkney

  3,535

  5,525

  7,267

  7,961

  Shetland

  4,710

  7,034

  7,004

  7,823

  Tayside

  146,881

  207,270

  216,441

  217,565

  Western Isles

  4,574

  8,294

  8,511

  8,756

  955

  Table 2: Dental patient registrations ended prematurely1—by health board in Scotland

  Financial year

  Health board

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Scotland

  2n/a

  3,027

  11,336

  15,391

  Argyll and Clyde

  n/a

  338

  1,208

  426

  Ayrshire and Arran

  n/a

  236

  1,264

  1,050

  Borders

  n/a

  69

  286

  1,531

  Dumfries and Galloway

  n/a

  92

  3,791

  3,025

  Fife

  n/a

  133

  217

  1,172

  Forth Valley

  n/a

  156

  298

  301

  Grampian

  n/a

  227

  719

  335

  Greater Glasgow

  n/a

  563

  475

  1,500

  Highland

  n/a

  255

  132

  2,393

  Lanarkshire

  n/a

  170

  563

  340

  Lothian

  n/a

  474

  2,216

  3,178

  Orkney

  n/a

  66

  2

  0

  Shetland

  n/a

  16

  0

  5

  Tayside

  n/a

  273

  165

  128

  Western Isles

  n/a

  4

  0

  7

  1 Registrations ended prematurely either by dentist without patient's agreement, or by agreement between dentist and patient. This does not include registrations which lapse because the patient does not re-attend during the registration, or registrations which end automatically when the patient registers with another dentist.

  2 n/a = not available.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Fraud
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he estimates is the value of extra alternative benefits claimed by recipients of fraud savings and of the extra benefit entitlement in cases where there were no fraud savings. [16164]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information requested is not available.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if statistics kept by his Department on fraud savings include savings arising from non-fraudulent irregularities; what is his estimate of such non-fraudulent savings; and if he will make a statement. [16163]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Statistics kept by the Department on fraud savings do not include savings arising from non-fraudulent irregularities.

  Retirement Pensions Forecasting Unit
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account he has taken in conducting a market test of his Department's retirement pensions forecasting unit of the proposed pensions legislation currently before Parliament. [16983]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The effect of the changes proposed by the Pensions Bill on the work of the Benefits Agency's retirement pensions forecasting unit will be taken fully into account when deciding on the feasibility of a market test.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instigate an urgent inquiry to advise on the security implications of ensuring that private firms do not have direct or indirect access to the confidential national insurance information handled by the retirement pensions forecasting unit, in connection with the market testing exercise. [16984]
  956
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The study into the feasibility of market testing the work of the retirement pensions forecasting unit will take the security of confidential information fully into account.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the number of staff years allocated since 1992 to his Departmental market testing programme. [16978]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This Department has allocated some 306 staff years in support of the market testing programme since 1992.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what delays there have been to the commencement of contracts let to the private sector, following the market testing of accommodation and office services; and if he will make a statement. [16959]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This Department has awarded 23 accommodation and office services contracts to external contractors as part of the "Competing for Quality" initiative. Of the five that were subject to minor delays, three were at the request of the Department.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which firms have requested and received permission to delay the commencement of the provision of contracted-out services to his Department; and what were(a) the reasons for each delay and (b) the financial penalties imposed on each firm. [16960]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Two companies have requested and received permission to delay the provision of some accommodation and office services to the Benefits Agency. Procord and BET both experienced unexpected staffing difficulties and payments have been adjusted accordingly.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra costs his Department incurred over the past 12 months as a result of private sector companies that were unable to provide contracted-out services at the scheduled contract start date. [16961]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None. The prices for five contracts have been adjusted to take account of minor delays.

  Pensions (Overseas Residents)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of uprating the retirement pensions payable to present or former United Kingdom citizens living in those countries where uprating has not hitherto been payable(a) to restore them to the level at which the pension would have been payable if they had remained resident in the United Kingdom (i) with and (ii) without full backdated payments and (b) as if the only uprating payable to them since leaving the United Kingdom were that coming into payment in the current year; and if he will estimate separate totals in each case for British pensioners resident in (1) Australia, (2) Canada and (3) New Zealand. [17344]
  957
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Such information as is available is in the table:

  £ millions

  Country

  (a) Estimated cost of paying fully indexed pensions

  (b) Estimated cost of paying April 1994 uprating only

  Australia

  110

  7

  Canada

  60

  4

  New Zealand

  20

  2

  Rest of the world

  45

  3

  Total

  235

  16

  Notes:

  1. The estimated costs relate to all state retirement and widow pensioners living abroad whose benefits are not uprated. Separate figures are not available on the cost of uprating benefits only for retirement pensioners or those who are, or were, citizens of the United Kingdom.

  2. An estimate of the cost of backdating payments to make good upratings forgone in the past is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (I) how many(a) men and (b) women opted to remain on invalidity benefit on reaching retirement age in the latest year for which figures are available; [17347]

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women over the age of retirement are in receipt of invalidity benefit at the latest date for which figures are available. [17346]

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the tables.

  Table 1: The number of recipients who reached pension age in the year ending 3 April 1993 who opted to remain on invalidity benefit and were receiving invalidity benefit on 3 April 1993

  Gender

  Number

  Men

  53,000

  Women

  14,000

  Notes:

  1. Based on a 1 per cent. sample of claims rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. The figures exclude people who reached pension age in the year ending 3 April 1993 but whose claim to invalidity benefit terminated before the end of that year.

  Table 2: The number of people over retirement age receiving Invalidity Benefit on 3 April 1993

  Gender

  Number

  Men

  229,000

  Women

  53,000

  Note:

  Based on a 1 per cent. sample of claims rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Child Support
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he intends to meet the chief executive of the Child Support Agency to discuss the release of personal details about Marc Calder of Plymouth; [17094]
  958
  (2) if he will make a statement concerning the release of the personal details of Mr. Marc Calder from Plymouth to a local newspaper by the Child Support Agency in Plymouth; and what action he proposes to take. [17096]

  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been kept fully appraised of the incident but has no plans to meet the chief executive of the Child Support Agency on the matter.

  I understand that the agency immediately instigated an investigation into the incident and as a result a member of staff at the Plymouth Child Support Agency centre was suspended from duty the same day pending further inquiries. Staff disciplinary action is a confidential matter between management, personnel and the member of staff involved. At this stage of the investigation, I cannot provide the hon. Member with any further details of this case which would not breach that confidentiality.

  Public Information Telephone Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by his Department, in each case indicating the costs of establishing, operating and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when they were established; and what assessment his Department has made of their effectiveness. [17458]

  Mr. Hague
  The full information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The available information is as follows.

  The public inquiry office is available to members of the public at national call rate. The number of calls taken from January to December 1994 was 86,355. This service is monitored routinely to establish how many incoming calls are presented to the system; the number answered and the average waiting time for answers. This line is not intended to provide a full public enquiry service for the Department, only for members of the public who need to contact the administrative headquarters in London. Other public information lines are available in the Department's agencies, as follows:

  January—December 1994 Calls handled

  Benefits agency

  Freeline

  2,688,000

  Benefit inquiry line

  930,000

  Family credit advice line

  2,173,000

  Disability living allowance line

  2,206,000

  Pensions advice line, introduced June 1994

  60,392

  An assessment of effectiveness is included as part of a national customer service survey undertaken on behalf of the Benefits Agency by Public Attitudes Survey Ltd. It is intended that this will continue annually.

  Contributions agency

  Social security advice line for employers

  240,000

  Independent research has predicted the demand for this service will increase by 30 per cent. during the next two years.
  959

  War pensions agency

  War pensions help line

  Approximately 600,000 calls sincestart up in january1992

  A customer perception survey started six months after set up has been started on a rolling basis to assess customer satisfaction.

  Child support agency

  National inquiry line

  356,569 calls answered since June 1994 when a centralised service was established. This was previously administered from individual agency
  centres.

TRANSPORT

  Sleeper and Motorail Services
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had on the future of sleeper and Motorail services from Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [15705]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend and I have had a number of discussions about Anglo-Scottish sleeper and Motorail services with, among others, the franchising director, the chairman of British Railways Board, and the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee.

  Ship Crew Safety
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to modify the legislation and regulations governing the occupational safety of the crews of both United Kingdom registered merchant vessels and fishing vessels. [15706]

  Mr. Norris
  Domestic legislation governing the occupational safety of crews in United Kingdom merchant ships and fishing vessels is under continuous review through the Marine Safety Agency. In addition, further modification to United Kingdom legislation is being undertaken through the implementation of EU directives in consultation with the shipping and fishing industries.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will authorise the fast rail link between(a) the channel tunnel and London, (b) the channel tunnel and Scotland. (c) the channel tunnel and the north of England and (d) the channel tunnel and Wales. [15707]

  Mr. Watts
  The construction of the channel tunnel rail link between the channel tunnel and the London terminus at St. Pancras will be authorised by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill when it becomes law.

  The rail link will provide access for direct international trains to Wales, Scotland and the north of England and also convenient connections to domestic services to those countries and regions.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising to discuss the award of franchises; and if he will make a statement. [15709]
  960
  Dr. Mawhinney
  I last met the franchising director to discuss franchising on Wednesday 22 March. I welcome his recent announcement that 37 organisations have applied to pre-qualify for the first group of eight franchises. This is a vote of confidence in railway privatisation.

  Public Transport, London
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans next to meet the chairman of London Transport to discuss improvements to public transport in London. [15711]

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the chairman of London Transport regularly to discuss a variety of issues including improvements to LT's services.

  M1
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to complete the lighting of the M1. [15712]

  Mr. Watts
  Current plans are to light a total of 155 miles of the M1.

  Railway Station Platforms (Accessibility)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway stations in Britain have platforms which need raising to allow access to trains for wheelchair users or others with mobility difficulties. [15713]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not available. Facilities for disabled passengers vary from station to station. Government proposals to improve accessibility at stations for disabled passengers are included in the Disability Discrimination Bill, published in January.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of rail services in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Wales. [15715]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Railway privatisation can be expected to bring benefits to Wales as well as other parts of the United Kingdom by delivering better services more closely attuned to customers' needs.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the cost to local education authorities of introducing seat belts and other safety requirements pertaining to the transportation of children, as stipulated in the draft regulations announced on 15 March. [15716]

  Mr. Norris
  Costs to individual local authorities have been taken into account in the local government settlement for 1995–96.

  Motorway Facilities
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve the standards and frequency of rest and recreation facilities on motorways; and if he will make a statement. [15694]
  961
  Mr. Watts
  In 1992 we deregulated the provision of new motorway service areas with the aim of providing more services more quickly.

  British Rail
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many parts of British Rail have been sold since November 1993. [15714]

  Mr. Watts
  Since November 1993, sales of the following British Rail businesses have been completed:

  Meldon Quarry

  Special Trains Unit.

  In addition, since November 1993 British Rail has offered for sale some 20 other businesses, the sales of which are now under way.

  Traffic, London
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the flow of traffic in London; and if he will make a statement. [15965]

  Mr. Norris
  Traffic conditions in London are a frequent theme of discussions and correspondence with a wide range of interested organisations and individuals on topics such as bus priorities, parking management, facilities for cyclists, pedestrian safety, road improvements and investment in public transport. We are currently funding initiatives, including red routes, the London bus priority network, the London cycle network and other improvements on trunk and local roads, to ease the flow of traffic, reduce pollution and improve safety.

  Public Information Telephone Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by his Department, in each case indicating the costs of establishing, operating, and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when they were established; and what assessment his Department has made of their effectiveness. [17450]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department set up a public inquiry unit in 1990. It has six staff and annual running costs of £105,000. It has received 487,000 calls since it was set up. Robin Verney and Associates have completed a review of the service and improvements will be made when we move to Great Minster house later this year. My Department does not monitor central inquiry services provided by its executive agencies.

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of all representations which he has received from Highlands and Islands Enterprise since autumn 1994 in respect of rail connections to the highlands. [17750]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 27 March 1995,Official Report, column 511. I have no record of receiving any other representations on rail connections to the highlands from Highlands and Islands Enterprise since autumn 1994.

  Second Severn Crossing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the comparative cost-benefit analysis of the Portskewett-Severn beach and the Cardiff-Weston alignment for the second Severn crossing. [17995]

  Mr. Watts
  The alignment of the second Severn crossing was fully debated during the passage of the Severn Bridges Bill.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 454, if he will place in the Library the text of the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of the Secretary of State for Transport v. Colonel Owen and Barbara Owen. [18077]

  Mr. Watts
  Yes.

  Transport Expenditure
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 153, what was the (a) total expenditure and (b) percentage of gross domestic product for (i) buses without coaches, (ii) trains and (iii) all public transport, inclusive of grants, subsidies and receipts for 1993 and 1994. [17856]

  Mr. Norris
  Total expenditure on various transport modes, including grants and subsidies, in financial year 1993–94, is as follows:

  Mode of transport

  Total expenditure £ billion

  Per cent. of GDP

  Buses and coaches1

  3.7

  0.7

  Railways2

  4.7

  0.8

  All public transport3

  9.9

  1.8

  All GDP4

  554.8

  100

  1 For licensing purposes bus operators are not distinguished from coach operators.

  2 Excludes Tyne and Wear Metro.

  3 Buses, coaches, railways and taxis. The estimate for taxis excludes business use.

  4 Gross domestic product for public transport contains expenditure on personal travel rather than business travel.

  A41
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the date on which he received the inspector's report on the proposed A41 Aston Clinton by-pass, following the public inquiry held in November 1994; and when he expects to publish that report and his decision. [18073]

  Mr. Watts
  The inspector's report was received on 6 January and is being considered by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport. They will announce their decision and publish the report as soon as possible.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who was consulted before the decision to transfer the Driving Standards Agency (Scotland) to Newcastle was taken; what was the level of dissent from
  963
  the final position; what further measures were undertaken to ensure this decision was accountable; and if the transfer decision is open to further negotiation. [16941]

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for the Driving Standards Agency.

  I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from L. M. Manley to Sir David Steel, dated 3 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your questions about the transfer of the Driving Standards Agency (Scotland) to Newcastle.
  As I explained in my letter to you of 17 February, in reply to correspondence you had received from the Chief Executive of the Ettrick and Lauderdale District Council, the office in Edinburgh currently undertakes the booking of driving tests and the management and deployment of driving examiners at test centres in Scotland. However, following the recent market test of the booking of driving tests, and the success of an in-house team, the booking work for the north of England and for Scotland will be based in a single office at Newcastle. In reaching this conclusion the in house team has to address whether this solution was cost effective and whether service delivery could be maintained.
  The conclusions reached by the bidders about how they might organise the work are their own and it is implicit that the evaluation of their tendered price is dependant upon acceptance of their proposals. My letter of 17 February also explained that there is no requirement under Market Testing guidance to undertake a consultation exercise during the evaluation of the bids.
  In determining where to site the work of management and deployment of driving examiners, the Agency took account of the space and staff remaining available at each of its offices to establish the most cost effective location for the work. Siting the work at the DSA office in Newcastle, where both staff and space was available meant the Agency could relinquish its expensive accommodation in Edinburgh and achieve a saving in property rentals.
  I should add that whilst the location of the booking office will change the Agency will retain it's driving test centres across Scotland.
  Since the result of the Market Test was announced some 27 items of correspondence have been received opposing the decision. These have, in the main, been from MPs on behalf of constituents who are concerned that the level of service will deteriorate with the move. In these cases I have replied advising that the Agency does not expect the closure to have an adverse effect on the published service standards.
  The potential impact on service standards was one of the factors considered by the Agency during the evaluation process. The in house team will be subject to a Service Level Agreement which will specify the service targets they must meet and procedures will be in place to monitor their performance against these standards.
  The Agency, together with the In House team are planning the timetable and the tasks required to implement the result of the market test. Until such time as the implementation is put in train DSA will continue to consider views.

  Signalling Equipment
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of the signalling equipment in the rail network is now(a) up to 10 years old, (b) 10 to 20 years old, (c) 20 to 30 years old, (d) 30 to 40 years old, (e) 40 to 50 years old and (f) over 50 years old. [17360]

  Mr. Watts
  Information is not kept by Railtrack in this form and it would involve a disproportionate cost to provide this information.

  A6 Bypass
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date it is expected that work will 964
  commence on the A6 bypass of Rushden and Higham Ferrers. [17185]

  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 Peter Fry, dated 3 April 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, on what date it is expected that work will commence on the A6 Bypass of Rushden and Higham Ferrers.
  Subject to the satisfactory completion of the remaining statutory procedures the start of construction will be dependent upon the availability of funding.

  Registry of Seamen and Shipping
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) on what grounds staff working within the Registry of Seamen and Shipping were asked to volunteer to do maintenance and cleaning work in addition to their normal duties as civil servants; [16968]

  (2) on what grounds managers within the Registry of Seamen and Shipping were allowed to issue an official communication to staff requesting them to bring into work building materials with which to repair their new accommodation; [16967]

  (3) for what reasons he allowed the Registry of Seamen and Shipping, following a market test, to move into a building which had no window frames and was in a very poor state of repair. [16966]

  Mr. Norris
  The request was in fact a notice issued by local management in a misguided attempt to economise on funding provided for alternative accommodation and to promote team spirit through self help. The notice was subsequently withdrawn. The new accommodation for the registry was initially lit by artificial lighting which fully met health and safety standards. However, additional windows were put into the buildings some three months after staff moved in.

  Airmiss
  Mr. Redmond
  To as the Secretary of State for Transport if he will send the hon. Member for Don Valley a copy of the Civil Aviation Authority's report into the airmiss on 22 March involving four Royal Air Force Tornados and an Air UK Fokker 50, 20 miles east of Ottringham, Humberside when it is published; and if he will make a statement. [17132]

  Mr. Norris
  An airmiss has been reported which involved four American F-15s and an Air UK Fokker 50. 20 miles north-east of Ottringham on 21 March. The joint airmiss working group will review this incident at its June meeting. I have asked the Civil Aviation Authority to send a copy of the working group's report on this incident to the hon. Member for Don Valley as soon as it is available.

DEFENCE

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each non-departmental public body
  965
  and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising for each year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since then; and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17618]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to "Public Bodies 1994" issued by the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service and Science, pages 7 and 8 of which detail MOD non-departmental public bodies and "Next Steps Agencies in Government-Review 1994" (Cmd 2750), which details MOD's agencies.

  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Procurement and Industrial Policy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the joint inquiry into aspects of United Kingdom defence procurement and industrial policy will be completed; and if this inquiry will look specifically at areas which have been affected by a decline in defence spending; what was the cost of previous inquiries into this area in the last five years; and what is the projected cost of the current inquiry. [17376]

  Mr. Freeman
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the recent joint inquiry set up by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee and the Trade and Industry Select Committee into aspects of defence procurement and industrial policy. The timing, scope and costs of such inquiries are matters for the Committees.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of investment in defence research and development in each of the last five years; and what proposals he has to increase defence research and development expenditure. [17378]

  Mr. Freeman
  The trend in expenditure on defence research and development is set out in the annual publications "Defence Statistics" and "Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology". As the 1993 White Paper "Realising Our Potential" noted, direct expenditure on defence research and development is planned to fall somewhat over the remainder of the decade, though this will be offset to a considerable extent by efficiencies arising out of "Front Line First", including through the formation of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency on 1 April.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total amount spent by his Department on research and development in each of the last 10 years at today's prices. [17542]

  Mr. Freeman
  The figures, based on table 1.4 of "Defence Statistics 1994" are as follows:

  Year

  Total amount (£ million)

  1983–84

  3,293.5

  1984–85

  3,452.3

  966

  Year

  Total amount (£ million)

  1985–86

  3,521.6

  1986–87

  3,297.8

  1987–88

  3,088.1

  1988–89

  2,850.1

  1989–90

  2,888.7

  1990–91

  2,715.0

  1991–92

  2,795.0

  1992–931

  2,142.4

  1993–942

  2,317.4

  All figures £ million, VAT inclusive and are at 1994–95 prices.

  1 Figures from 1992–93 onward subject to revision to accord with Frascati definitions. Futher details in Table 1.4 of "Defence Statistics 1994".

  2 Provisional estimate only.

  Dr David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards defence research and development collaboration with European partners; and if the percentage of this collaboration will increase over the next 10 years. [17544]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department participates in a large number of international research collaboration programmes both bilateral and multilateral. The primary objective of IRC is to obtain value for money by sharing the costs of necessary research programmes and facilities with allied nations. The overall strategy is to maintain a balance between our involvement with Europe and the US. While every endeavour will be made to increase the amount of defence research undertaken on a collaborative basis, there is no policy intention to change this balance. We have had considerable experience of collaborative development and in the future expect that the opportunities for collaboration of reducing cost will be further exploited.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of defence research and development was spent on collaboration with(a) the United States of America and (b) European Union members in each of the last 10 years. [17543]

  Mr. Freeman
  The primary objective of international research collaboration is to obtain value for money by sharing the costs of necessary research programmes and facilities with allied nations. The information requested concerning the proportion of defence research that was carried out collaboratively over the last 10 years, is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, for financial year 1991–92 and 1992–93 the figures for collaborative research joint programmes are 5.5 per cent. and 6 per cent. respectively, and I anticipate this ratio continuing to rise in the future.

  No equivalent figures are held relating to development expenditure.

  Military Assistance
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent by his Department on military assistance for non-NATO countries in each of the last five years. [17341]

  Mr. Soames
  The primary responsibility for funding military assistance lies with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. On occasion, however, and where the aims serve defence interests, the MOD agrees to waive the costs of training provided to foreign Governments.
  967
  The total of these waivers for non-NATO countries in the last five years for which records are available is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1993–94

  4,900,000

  1992–93

  5,600,000

  1991–92

  4,000,000

  1990–91

  4,200,000

  1989–90

  5,800,000

  In addition, some £70,000 was spent in 1993–94 in support of the United Kingdom's programme of bilateral defence contact with central and eastern Europe.

  Details of the assistance provided are confidential between Governments.

  Attack Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the RAF's front-line attack aircraft possess a precision capability; and how many will have this capability by 2000. [17538]

  Mr. Freeman
  All front-line attack aircraft—Tornado GR1, Harrier, Jaguar—are capable of delivering precision weapons. We have in hand a series of programmes which will substantially improve our precision capabilities by the turn of the century. We plan to extend the provision of TIALD—thermal imaging airborne laser designator—pods and a contract has been placed for the supply of a new low level laser-guided bomb. We have issued an invitation to tender for conventially-armed stand-off-missile. This weapon is planned to come into service by the end of the century.

  Armoured Vehicle Programme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to consider joining the Franco-German armoured vehicle programme; and if he will make a statement. [17540]

  Mr. Freeman
  We have made clear our interest in participating in a collaborative programme for armoured utility vehicles as one of the projects in a new European armaments structure. We are pursuing this with France and Germany.

  Property Management
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his Department's policy for the continuation of construction and property management work on sites proposed for closure under the defence costs study. [17989]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department's policy is that property management work, which may involve construction, on sites proposed for closure will continue as appropriate depending on the needs of the occupants up to the date of closure. Any subsequent maintenance work to make buildings wind and weather proof as appropriate and to satisfy health and safety obligations will be carried out up to the date of disposal.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the financial cost of(a) construction and property management work done and (b) any other expenditure on each site since 1994 owned by his
  968
  Department and proposed for closure under the defence costs study; [17990]

  (2) what is the financial value of contracts for construction work on bases proposed for closure under the defence costs study which have been awarded in each of the months since July 1993. [17991]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Procurement
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average time taken by his Department to assess procurement tenders and decide on contract awards in each of the last five years. [17551]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what undertakings he is seeking from United States manufacturers for offset work in the United Kingdom, in relation to orders placed with United States manufacturers of defence equipment. [18074]

  Mr. Freeman
  It is our policy to seek offset work in the United Kingdom whenever we make a major procurement—over £10 million—from the United States. Letters of agreement, underpinning the offset commitment, are concluded between ourselves and the contractor and form the basis for monitoring progress in meeting the offset obligations.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the receiving of commission payments by(a) civil servants, (b) members of the government, (c) hon. Members and (d) relatives of hon. Members involved in the sale of arms to overseas governments; and if he will make a statement. [17548]

  Mr. Freeman
  MOD civil servants are bound by departmental instructions which forbid them to make use of their official position to further their private interests or lay themselves open to suspicion of dishonesty. Furthermore the acceptance of a gift or other consideration by a Crown servant as an inducement or reward can be a criminal offence.

  Members of the Government are hound by "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" which states that no Minister or member of a Minister's family should accept gifts which might place him or her under an obligation.

  I cannot answer for other Members of the House or their relatives.

  Public Information Telephone Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by his Department, in each case indicating the costs of establishing, operating, and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when they were established; and what assessment his Department has made of their effectiveness. [17455]
  969
  Mr. Soames
  My Department's public inquiry office was established many years ago. Calls are routed to it either via the main switchboard or as a result of inclusion of the contact numbers in various commercial publications. Since 1988, the earliest date for which records are available, an annual average of 41,000 calls have been handled. Although the cost breakdown requested would not be available without disproportionate cost, the staff costs involved are less than £50,000 a year. No recent assessment of the effectiveness of this office has been undertaken.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what equipment at present at RAF Finningley is required by the RAF; and what equipment is surplus to the RAF's future needs. [17863]

  Mr. Soames
  Following the announcement of the closure of RAF Finningley, the RAF's requirement for the equipment based at the station will be reviewed. At present, no equipment has been declared surplus to the RAF's requirements.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the uses to which RAF Finningley can be put by(a) the Ministry of Defence and (b) other Government Departments. [17862]

  Mr. Soames
  The decision to close RAF Finningley has only recently been taken, and no detailed assessment of alternative uses has yet been made. If no alternative defence use is identified, however, the site will be disposed of in accordance with our normal procedures. These would include detailed discussions with the local planning authority and an assessment of alternative uses. Other Government Departments will have an opportunity to express any interest they may have.

  Government Contracts
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the report by the review board for Government contracts on its 1995 annual review of the profit formula for non-competitive Government contracts. [17547]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have accepted the overall target rate of return on capital employed as recommended by the review board in its report. The new rate will be 18.5 per cent. compared with the current rate of 18.2 per cent., both on the basis of historic costs. It will be effective from 1 April this year. There are other points arising from this report and from the board's report on the seventh general review in 1993 which officials will be discussing with the CBI as part of our continuing drive to secure maximum value for money from our defence contracts. The report has been printed and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Mine Clearance
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the British companies, which manufacture or have manufactured mines, which have received finance from Her Majesty's Government or the United Nations to clear minefields, together with the number of occasions on 970
  which each company has received such funding. [16822]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  No British mine-manufacturing companies have received finance for mine clearance from us. The UN on one occasion financed Royal Ordnance, a company which has in the past manufactured mines, to undertake a mine clearance project. I understand that Royal Ordnance has not manufactured mines for the past 10 years.

WALES

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what initiatives he will take to assist professionals engaged in combating drug abuse in Wales; [16835]

  (2) what progress is being made concerning drug abuse in Wales. [16833]

  Mr. Richards
  We are preparing a Welsh drug and alcohol strategy which I hope to issue for consultation in April.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average class size(a) in primary schools and (b) in secondary schools in Dyfed in each year from 1979 to the present. [16864]

  Mr. Richards
  Data for 1979 in respect of primary schools are not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. For secondary schools, comparable information is not available before September 1987.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 March,Official Report, column 766, if he will give a breakdown according to age of the children in Dyfed who received statements of special educational needs for the first time, for each year since 1987. [16863]

  Mr. Richards
  The number of children by age, for whom statements of special educational needs were made for the first time, for each calendar year since 1991, are shown in the following table. Data were not collected by age before 1991.

  Under 5

  5–16

  Over 16

  Total

  1991

  21

  251

  0

  272

  1992

  21

  374

  2

  397

  1993

  32

  403

  2

  437

  Dental Problems
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh school children had serious dental problems in each year since 1991; and if he will make a statement. [16778]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, two publications
  971
  concerning, in part, child dental health in Wales have recently been issued by Office of Population Censuses and Surveys:

  (i) The National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Children aged one-and -half to four-and-half years. ISBN 0–11–691612–5

  (ii) Children's Dental Health in the United Kingdom 1993. ISBN 0–11–691607–9

  In addition, directors of dental public health produce annual reports which include epidemiological data relating to the dental health of children in their districts. These are available from district health authorities.

  Roads
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the mileage of dual carriageway at present; and what it was in 1985. [17403]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Figures for the length of dual carriageway for years prior to 1987 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Excluding motorways, the length of dual carriageway in Wales was 153 miles at 1 April 1987 and/or 183 miles at 1 April 1994.

  National Museum of Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed by the National Museum of Wales. [17396]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The National Museum of Wales employed 507 people at 31 March 1995.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning north and south Wales rail links with the channel tunnel. [17404]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced the channel tunnel services between the continent and locations beyond London on 14 October. European Passenger Services Ltd. may refine these services to suit demand.

  Suicides (Farming Community)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many deaths there were through suicide among the farming community for each year since 1988 up to the most recent figure available: and if he will make a statement. [17483]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Suicides in farming community of Wales

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Deaths registered as suicide1:

  Farmers2

  9

  7

  10

  8

  4

  9

  Farm workers

  2

  —

  1

  2

  —

  2

  Total

  11

  7

  11

  10

  4

  11

  1 The figures relate to deaths registered in the years shown. Deaths are recorded according to the date of registration and not the date of occurrence.

  2 Farmers, horticulturists and farm managers.

  Source:

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  Motorways
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is(a) the current mileage of motorway in Wales and (b) what was the mileage in 1985. [17402]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The current length of motorway in Wales is 78 miles and was 74 miles at 1 April 1985.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made in securing more apprenticeships in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [17406]

  Mr. Redwood
  The departmental report—Cmnd 2815—sets out in paragraphs 4.13 and 4.14 my intentions for expanding modern apprenticeships in Wales.

  Negotiations are currently taking place with the training and enterprise councils to agree the numbers and occupational areas in which modern and accelerated modern apprenticeships will be offered.

  Temporary NHS Staff
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each of the past five years, the number of NHS staff in Wales who are employed on a temporary basis, breaking the data down into(a) nursing and midwifery staff, (b) medical and dental staff, (c) ambulance staff, (d) ancillary staff and (e) managers and administrative staff, also expressing the data as a percentage of the total numbers in each respective staff group. [17765]

  Mr. Richards
  Complete and reliable information is not available centrally.

  Public Information Telephone Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by his Department, in each case indicating the cost of establishing, operating and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when they were established; and what assessment his Department has made of their effectiveness. [17447]

  Mr. Redwood
  A freephone citizens charter inquiry line has been provided since July 1991. Total costs incurred to date are in the region of £1,500. Over 400 calls have been received providing a valuable service to members of the public needing information on charter-related matters in Wales.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake an exercise reconciling in detail appendix I from his departmental report, Cm 2815, with table 127 from "Welsh Economic Trends No 15 1994"; if he will place a copy of the exercise in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [17546]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Table 127 of "Welsh Economic Trends No 15 1994", is taken from figure 1.02 of the Welsh Office departmental report 1994—Cm 2515. The difference between these tables and the equivalent data in the 1995 departmental report are mainly due to revisions to the outturn and estimated outturn for the years up to
  973
  1994–95 together with the changes to expenditure plans for 1995–96 and onwards following the 1994 public expenditure survey. Appendix 1 of Cm 2815 is itself a disaggregation of the programme totals of figure 1.01 of the same document.

  Temporary Teachers
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each of the past five years, the number of(a) teachers and (b) auxiliary school staff in Wales who are employed on a temporary basis, also expressing the data as a percentage of the total numbers in each respective staff group. [17762]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many responses he has received to date to his consultative exercise on the licensing of houses in multiple occupation; how many of these were broadly in favour of a national comprehensive licensing system; what action he now proposes to take in the light of these representation; and what is his timetable for action. [17469]

  Mr. Redwood
  I received 47 replies to my letter of 8 December 1994. Eighty per cent. were broadly in favour of licensing, but there was no clear consensus on the way in which a licensing system should operate. The replies raised a wide range of issues for further consideration and I will make an announcement about the outcome in due course.

  Health and Social Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales; when he expects to make an appointment to the vacant post of the head of research and development for the NHS in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [18075]

  Mr. Redwood
  The new office of research and development for health and social services in Wales is to be established in the University of Wales, college of medicine. I hope that the college will be in a position to advertise the post of director shortly.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what area of Wales is designated as being environmentally sensitive; how much Government funding is spent annually on environmentally sensitive areas; how this formula is calculated; and if he will make a statement. [17792]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In Wales 519,800 hectares, representing around a quarter of the total land area has been designated under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. Gross expenditure in the financial year 1993–94 was £1.542 million. Financial provision is planned to rise to £6.941 million in 1996–97. Payments are calculated on the basis of income forgone and in recognition of farmers following prescribed management practices.

  The environmentally sensitive areas scheme in Wales positively promotes the co-existence of conservation and efficient farming by offering payments to farmers willing to maintain or introduce environmentally beneficial farming methods.

  New GPs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 24 March,Official Report, column 385, what was the level of new entrants to general practice in Wales in each of the past three years. [18001]

  Mr. Redwood
  Over the past three years there have been approximately 90 new entrants to general practice per year in Wales.

  Laundry
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the South Glamorgan health authority and the Welsh health common services authority concerning the closure of the Lansdowne road central laundry, Cardiff; [18004]

  (2) what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the Welsh health common services authority and the South Glamorgan health authority concerning laundry charges for communal laundering of terry towel nappies; and what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of the increased use of disposable nappies on sewerage treatment expenditure.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. This is an operational matter for the authorities concerned.

  Green Belt Guidance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish his decision with reference to planning guidance on green belts in Wales. [18029]

  Mr. Redwood
  I will shortly issue for consultation draft planning policy guidance for Wales; this guidance will cover green belts.

  Menai Straits
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to announce his decision on whether the Menai straits should become a designated marine nature reserve. [18031]

  Mr. Redwood
  The matter is presently under consideration. I will announce my decision at the earliest opportunity.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many NHS trusts in Wales hold their monthly board meetings in public. [18002]

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally.

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what target for the reclamation of derelict land in Wales he has set for 1995–96; and what progress has been made on reclaiming 600 hectares of derelict land in 1994–95 in accordance with "This Common Inheritance: The UK Report 1995". [18030]
  975
  Mr. Redwood
  A target of 850 hectares has been set for 1995–96. Outturn figures are not yet available for 1994–95 but the WDA is forecasting the completion of 550 hectares.

  Ely Community Survey
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority concerning the joint survey of all residents in Ely, Cardiff by the authority and the South Glamorgan county council; what estimate he has made of the cost of the health authority's share of the survey; and what assessment he has made of the health related purposes of such a survey. [17997]

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  A48
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on grant-aiding the private access road to the University Hospital of Wales from the A48 Eastern avenue; when he anticipates making a decision; and if he will make a statement. [17998]

  Mr. Redwood
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales met councillors and officials from Cardiff city council recently. A decision about funding for the road will be made once a satisfactory business case has been submitted by UHW Healthcare NHS trust and once private finance opportunities have been explored.

  Examination Achievements
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students gained A-level qualification, or GNV2 equivalent, last year, and what percentage that was of the year group normally sitting for this qualification. [17993]

  Mr. Richards
  The following table shows the number of students gaining at least one pass at A-level in the 1994 summer examinations and the numbers gaining a vocational qualification at level 2 or above. Individual 976
  students may have gained both A-levels and vocational qualifications and so may be counted twice.

  Age of student1 2

  Number gaining at least one pass at A-level3

  Number gaining vocational qualification at level 2 or above

  Percentage of age group in education4 gaining A-level pass or vocational equivalent

  Col 1

  Col 2

  Col 3

  Col 4

  16

  255

  1,767

  8.2

  17

  9,006

  2,097

  51.9

  18

  1,729

  2,066

  41.3

  Notes:

  1 As at 31 August 1993.

  2 Students of other ages gained qualifications also but are not shown in this table.

  3 Includes all students, irrespective of the type of institution, if any, at which they studied.

  4 Full and part time students in school or Further Education colleges.

  Source:

  Welsh Examinations Database.

  There is no information about the number of students taking examinations by year group. The figures in columns 2 and 3 have been expressed in column 4 as a percentage of the number of students of that age in education at school or further education colleges only, in 1993–94.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning the compulsory purchase order for the proposed Bute avenue and any such advertised in the compulsory purchase order not within the designated area of the corporation; and if he will make a statement. [17749]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 31 March 1995]: I have had no consultation with the chairman of CBDC over this issue.

  The corporation is empowered to acquire land by agreement, or with my authorisation, compulsorily, outside its designated area under the terms of section 142 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980.

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

Fishing Quotas: Monitoring Arrangements
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether improvements can be made in arrangements for monitoring and controlling the effects of fisheries agreements on quotas and methods where they apply to international waters outside any country's exclusive economic zone or fishing limit.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, possible improvements to monitoring and control of fishing activity and the setting of quotas and fishing methods in international waters are governed by various regional fisheries management bodies throughout the world. Additionally, those are among the important issues before the United Nations Conference on Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Species which meets for its third session in New York from 27th March to 14th April.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. However, how can regional conservation agreements work satisfactorily if fishing boats can only be inspected in international waters by their own country? The referee should surely be neutral. While the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, for example, provides for a joint
2
inspection scheme, is it not a voluntary one to which Spain is unlikely to accede?
Earl Howe: My Lords, a number of ideas are being discussed which we believe look promising. One is for an observer to be stationed on every fishing vessel with the power to call up an inspection vessel if evidence of a serious offence became apparent. A further suggestion is that that observer should be of a different nationality from the nationality of the vessel in question. If an inspection vessel confirmed the apparent offence, the fishing vessel would be required to submit to a full inspection at the nearest port, and to be held there. Another idea is for satellite transponders to he installed on every vessel to track its movements and activities.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that about 90 per cent. of the world's fish stocks are under the jurisdiction of developing countries? The sale of licences by these countries to foreign fleets of industrial trawlers is doing immense damage to the indigenous peasant fishermen and to fish stocks. For example, the European Union has 16 agreements with African countries. Do the Government agree that that problem should be addressed by the United Nations fisheries conference?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am aware that these matters have been raised in press reports recently. The European Union has a number of agreements with various third world countries to, I may say, the mutual benefit of both parties.
We are always concerned about the state of the stocks in the waters of the countries with which we have agreements and, moreover, of the needs of the local fishermen. Whenever possible we seek to promote joint ventures either in fishing or in fish processing and associated industries, again to the mutual benefit of both sides.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say what can be done to check Spanish intrusion into other people's fishing areas?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend raises a topical subject. One of the problems of enforcing the common fisheries policy in particular is that a great many national authorities are involved, on the high seas and in national waters, in policing fishing activity and the quantities of fish that are landed. There is every reason, therefore, to seek ways to strengthen the day-to-day co-operation between these authorities and, alongside that, to work towards a strengthened Community inspectorate which would help to police member states' national arrangements more effectively.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in pursuing the topical case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not one of the difficulties that there is no effective inspection at Spanish ports, whereas there is effective inspection at ports in the United Kingdom? In Spain the inspectors seem mainly to be quartered in Madrid, which is somewhat remote from the Atlantic Ocean if my information is correct.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I understand that Spain currently has 50 full-time inspectors working for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Where?
Earl Howe: My Lords, operating mainly from Madrid. However, they are supported by fisheries inspectors from the autonomous regional governments as well as military personnel. The Spanish Naval Marine Unit and the marine Civil Guard undertake fisheries surveillance at sea. So it is important to look at the full picture in Spain and not just part of it.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, in view of the Minister's remarks about the proposed monitoring and enforcement measures being considered, how long will it take to reach a conclusion on the proposed measures? It does not matter what kind of international agreements are arrived at, unless there is a clear and effective method of enforcement the depredations of the world's fisheries will continue.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I can only agree with the noble Lord that effective enforcement is the key to conservation in the future. I cannot say precisely when an agreement might be forthcoming, although I am aware that the talks are proceeding in a thoroughly constructive manner on all sides.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether at any future conference on a wide scale—for example, under United Nations auspices—Her Majesty's Government would be free to pursue an independent and vigorous line of policy? Alternatively, would we be in any way encumbered by commitments towards our neighbours and partners on the continent?
Earl Howe: My Lords, in many of the fisheries agreements under the spotlight the United Kingdom is represented by the European Union, which is the contracting party to the fisheries agreement. Therefore,
4
to an extent we stand to be represented by the European Union, although naturally we make our views known at every opportunity.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, since Spain appears to be acting in a predatory manner wherever fish are to be found, is not urgency of the utmost importance in applying decisions when they are made? Otherwise, the world's fishing stocks may be damaged beyond repair.
Earl Howe: Yes, my Lords, it is an urgent matter. To a degree, we are hampered by the development of technology. Although it shows promising signs, that technology has not yet been fully tried and tested. I refer principally to the notion of installing satellite transponders in vessels. We see them as having a helpful role to play in the future.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the idea of transponders has been urged on the Government for at least 15 years and possibly on previous governments? Does he maintain that transponders are as difficult to develop if the message is to be received only by an aircraft as opposed to being received by satellite? I believe that that is not the case.
Earl Howe: My Lords, unfortunately I cannot give a precise answer to the noble Lord, although clearly the question is pertinent. The installation of satellite transponders is being undertaken on a trial basis by all member states in the Union. Those member states are required to report to the Commission prior to the middle of the year, after which a considered view will be taken.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, are the British Government preparing for the expected confrontation in the west Atlantic this summer when the tuna season re-opens?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government hope that conflict in the tuna fishery this summer can be avoided and we shall work with all concerned to ensure that everything possible is done to avoid provocative actions and that agreed regulations concerning net lengths and so on are complied with.

Maastricht Treaty: Article 189
2.46 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that the agenda of the Inter-Governmental Conference includes the discussion of whether Article 189 of the Treaty of Maastricht should be augmented by a provision that directives shall have no legal consequences except in so far as they are implemented in national legislation.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, a number of issues are already on the agenda for next year's IGC. Others may be

5
added. The Prime Minister has set out clearly the broad framework of our approach, but our detailed objectives are still under discussion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I find that Answer slightly unsatisfactory? According to Article 189, there is a difference in the legal treatment of a regulation and a directive. A regulation issued on behalf of the Community becomes immediately enforceable throughout member states, including our own. A directive does not fall into quite the same category; it has already been the subject of some disputed judgment in which one is informed that the Home Office took one line and the Foreign Office took another—such as with the Van Duyn case. Does the Minister think that, in order to clear up the ambiguity, it would be far better that the matter should be raised for discussion and further clarification at the Inter-Governmental Conference? The consequences for the British legal system—which one hopes are still not to be ignored—ought to be raised on that occasion.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. There is a difference between Community regulations which apply directly under the European Communities Act 1972 and directives which leave to member states the form and implementation of legislation under Section 2.2 of the Act.
The important point is that we have real anxieties about some ECJ judgments, particularly where they have had unforeseen or disproportionate cost implications. We are considering ways of addressing those anxieties but have not yet reached any decisions. I should advise the House that not all judgments go against us. A number of recent cases show perfectly well that the European Court of Justice is now more sensitive to member states' anxieties. I shall be happy to acquaint the noble Lord with those cases, should he wish.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, despite the subsidiarity rule, the Commission is still putting forward too many directives? Is she further aware that some countries have no intention of implementing all of them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am well aware of what my noble friend says. That is why we are examining how well subsidiarity is working—where it is working—and where it is failing. Only by a careful examination of that can we put right the points which my noble friend mentioned.
However, there have been judgments where the Court has ruled in favour of member states and against the Commission, where that has been necessary: for example, in the recent WTO/GATT agreement. It is clear that the proper use of the European Court of Justice can be very much a benefit for member states. That also means that the Court must be used against member states when they refuse to comply. The British Government have been to the fore in bringing forward the wherewithal to do it.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, my noble friend used an interesting turn of phrase. She said that the Court was becoming more sensitive to member states' interest.
6
Surely a court of law should be concerned with implementing the law and not fluctuate one way and the other over whose interests it is sensitive to.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in no way did I intend to imply, as my noble friend seems to have misunderstood, that the Court was fluctuating; nor should it do so. The Court, which at one time seemed to be ruling against member states, has at least taken the law properly into account; otherwise, the inter-governmental arrangements in the EDF case would not have been upheld. For instance, the Court would not have given weight to national rules and legislation on Sunday trading. There are a number of cases in this very difficult area where the Court is looking at and dealing with the law, as it should do. We must make sure that it continues to do so.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, what is the Government's attitude towards the proposed ending of 700 years of British hallmarking of gold and silver, so that in future no one will know what is genuinely gold and what is genuinely silver?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am informed that that is not happening, and that the consumer council at its meeting last Thursday did not agree to it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will the Minister confirm that the European Court is governed by Roman law? Will she further confirm that Roman law asks: what is the principle of the law? Sometimes it will adjudicate one way and sometimes another, but it is not governed, as is English law, by precedent. Will the Minister suggest to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State that, because of the drip, drip, drip of anti-European Union propaganda, the time has come for the Government to issue a clearly worded statement to the general public on the advantages of belonging to the European Union?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, certainly I personally agree with the last point made by the noble Lord. I have just been listening to businessmen saying exactly what a great and positive difference our membership of the European Union has made to this country. I shall not go into detail about that today. With regard to the specific question, we must be clear that the principle of direct effect—which is what the Question is all about—does not apply to all provisions of directives. It applies only where certain specific provisions are clear. I shall write to the noble Lord about this matter, so that there is no difference of opinion between us.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government at the IGC next year to try to interfere with what is in the treaties in terms of the decision-making process in relation to directives?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it has not as yet been decided what will or will not be on the agenda at the IGC. I stand by what I said. We need a strong rule of law in the Community to ensure, as my noble friend Lord Renton asked, that all member states

7
comply with their obligations. We went over this matter on 8th March both in a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and in debate. I can say to the House that we are quite clear that any changes to the treaty articles that relate to the European Court of Justice should maintain or strengthen the rule of law in the Community. We must aim for that.

Arrests: Advance Disclosure to the Media
2.55 p.m.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is police policy to disclose in advance to the media details of the time and place of the imminent arrest of suspects, and, if not, what steps are taken to deal with unauthorised leaks of such information.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, it is not the policy of the police to disclose to the media details of the imminent arrest of named suspects. Any unauthorised disclosure of information by police officers is a disciplinary offence and could lead to dismissal. The responsibility for the authorised disclosure of information to the press is an operational matter for chief officers.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Will she confirm that the most recent incident involved a well known footballer? Would she agree that there has been a whole series of such incidents in which persons who are at that time presumed by law to be innocent have been arrested at an unearthly hour in the morning and simultaneously have found that not only they but their wives and children have been surrounded by a horde of photographers and journalists? Does she agree that that is not only a gross invasion of personal privacy but is a very real threat to the public peace?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am able to agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord. Even where there is not a complaint, the police are so concerned that they start investigations. They do so with or without a complaint. In the case mentioned an investigation is taking place. If it is found that a policeman has breached a confidence, it can lead to his dismissal.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if there is only a tiny minority of forces in the country which are not behaving in the normal way and which possibly committed the offences outlined by the noble Lord, would it be worth while having them investigated so that the excellent name of Britain's police forces throughout the country is in no way damaged?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. It does not matter whether it is one or many incidents. If there has been a breach of confidence which
8
prejudices or intrudes on the privacy of people who are innocent until proven guilty, it will be regarded as a very serious matter and will he investigated.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that she gave virtually the same reply to virtually the same Question a little time ago? Is she further aware that nothing has been done about the matter, that something has to be done about it, that these investigations are absolutely futile and useless, and that it is rather like trying to track down government leaks? What do the Government propose to do about this scandal?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend feels that my repeating an answer is somehow or other a sign of weakness. These cases will continue to be pursued. It must be said that it is very difficult to pin down who released the information. Very often there is an assumption that it has come from the police. Indeed, it could come from other people—perhaps journalists on the look-out being very speculative about what may happen. In these days of modern communications, information passes over mobile phones and so on. Where there is a breach of confidence and it leads to intrusion of privacy, or, even worse, prejudices someone's trial, it is regarded as very serious and investigations take place.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, quite apart from the unauthorised disclosure of information, the acceptance of a gratuity in these circumstances is also a disciplinary offence? To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is the Minister able to indicate how many disciplinary charges have been brought in respect of such matters in, say, the past three years?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not able to answer the specific question asked. Those statistics are not held centrally. I can confirm what the noble Lord said and that it is indeed a very serious offence under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act. Giving information for money is an offence and receiving it is an offence. It is also an offence and a disciplinary matter if a policeman, or indeed a civilian member of a police authority, gives information, whether or not it is for money.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if there is no reason whatever to suppose that the person concerned is likely to abscond, why do not the police simply ring him up and ask him to report to the station?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, matters surrounding the arrest of someone are operationally very much for the police themselves.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, am I right to conclude from my noble friend's original reply that there are circumstances in which information is released with the necessary authority? If so, can she say what circumstances create that situation, and when information is released with authority?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the best example of authorised information leaking was Operation Bumble-bee. That was a successful operation on the part

9
of the Metropolitan Police force when it engaged public support to help in reducing the number of burglaries in London. It was successful. Very often the press, the other media and the general public can help in tracking down a criminal. Sometimes chief constables will authorise the release of information in order to apprehend the people who are guilty. But in every case the protection of innocent people until proven guilty is at the heart of what they do.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think I made my question clear. Can my noble friend say what are the circumstances in which information about the impending arrest of a suspect, as described in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is released with authority?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I refer again to the example of Operation Bumble-bee where people were apprehended in the course of burgling. If that is public information, protecting the anonymity of the person doing the burglary until proven guilty is very much in the public interest to reduce down the amount of criminality in our community.

Israel: Nuclear Non-Proliferation
3 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will advise that a state visit be paid to Israel before Israel signs the non-proliferation treaty.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there are many competing bids for outward state visits, but there is no reason why one should not be paid to Israel in due course. We shall continue to urge Israel, and other non-members of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to allay suspicions about its nuclear activities and accede to the treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply; but will she bear in mind the somewhat equivocal background to the position? The Israeli Government said that they will never be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. That does not make sense, first, because they have already done so; and, secondly, before they did so, the Americans, ourselves and probably also the French did so. Beyond that, Israel proclaimed its desire to be the first country to propose a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East. That too is nonsensical because such a zone was proposed for many years by Egypt and Iraq and is now proposed also by Iran.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, along with many others, we have been concerned for some time, as the noble Lord knows, about reports that Israel has a nuclear weapon programme. However, we have no verifiable evidence of that. The noble Lord went on to say that others have been talking of the creation of a nuclear weapon-free zone hut do not mean it—I believe that that was the sense of his question. We support the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone; but the most effective way for states to demonstrate their
10
commitment to non-proliferation is to join the NPT. That is why my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spent some time last Thursday with the Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, urging him to make progress with Egypt. That means allaying international suspicions and acceding to the non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state as soon as possible.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Iran recently repeated its threat to annihilate the state of Israel? So far as we know, it is on the path to securing nuclear weapons. Iraq is very much of the same mind. Therefore, would it be reasonable for any government to ask the state of Israel not to retain at least the possibility of deterrence to those major threats to its very existence?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the difficulty is that both Iran and Iraq are not just a threat to Israel; they are a threat to peace in the Middle East and the wider world as a whole. That does not mean that we should not seek, where we can, to stop nuclear proliferation. That is why this important non-proliferation treaty and the forthcoming review conference is so much in the news at the present time. I understand my noble friend's anxieties in regard to the position of the state of Israel. I believe that signing the non-proliferation treaty is something we should be encouraging worldwide, not only with Israel.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government will consider going to the national non-proliferation treaty review conference later this month with a clear commitment to make no increase in the number of warheads on Trident over and above the number on Polaris? Would that not be an encouragement to countries such as Israel which, regrettably, refused to be party to the treaty? It would encourage them to take a more responsible position in relation to that treaty.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we shall do all we can to halt proliferation. That is why we shall take a positive position at the review conference.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I understand and share the anxieties which have been expressed regarding the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Does not the Minister agree that the object of the non-proliferation treaty is to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons? Does she agree also that four—possibly five—countries in the Middle East other than Israel either already have nuclear capability or are on the brink of acquiring it? They are also on the brink of acquiring the capability of other weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons, and are about to obtain the capability to deliver them by ballistic and air-breathing missiles. In the light of that, is it not strange to be concentrating upon the activities of one country in the Middle East?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is genuine anxiety about all countries which have not signed the non-proliferation treaty as well as some of those who have, like Iraq. However, at least if they have signed the NPT there is a legal basis for taking them to

11
task, whereas for countries which have not signed the non-proliferation treaty there is no such basis. The solution to all these problems must be to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Authority's ability to detect undeclared activities, to extend the nonproliferation treaty and also to ensure that the treaty not only enshrines commitment to negotiate nuclear disarmament, but also extends its influence over those countries mentioned by the noble Lord.

Jobseekers Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill introduces the jobseeker's allowance, a single allowance to replace the outdated system of unemployment benefit and income support for unemployed people. It will ensure that the efforts of jobseekers are focused on looking for work. The jobseeker's allowance will improve incentives to work and it will target benefit on those who need it most.
The allowance will be implemented jointly by the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service and will introduce a streamlined and more modem system of delivering benefits to unemployed people. Both the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service have made great improvements over the past few years in delivering benefits and jobsearch advice faster and more efficiently. The introduction of the new allowance will build on that and make further improvements in service.
The change will cut out the duplication caused by paying two benefits and reduce the number of offices with which most people have to deal. From April 1996 most people will be able to claim the jobseeker's allowance, obtain advice about their benefits and discuss jobseeking in the same office—the jobcentre. We provide an unprecedented range of programmes and services to keep people in touch with the labour market, to help them search effectively for work and to improve their skills. In 1995–96 there will be over 1.5 million opportunities on training and employment programmes.
Well over 40 per cent. of unemployed people attending jobclubs are successful at finding work. Almost half find jobs through the job interview guarantee scheme. The jobplan workshop and new restart courses have helped around 90 per cent. of course participants to apply for a job, training or other sources of help. And we continue to offer new initiatives. The jobfinder's grant will be extended to some 25,000 people this year who have been unemployed for two years or more: cash in the hand to people to help with bus fares, clothing or the tools they need for work when they first start a job.
Workwise and 1-2-1 will provide intensive jobsearch help to 18 to 24 year-olds who have been out of work for more than a year. And only last week we launched the new Jobmatch pilot to help long-term unemployed people who have been unable to find a full-time job to use part-time jobs as a stepping stone to full-time work.
12
With measures such as these the Employment Service placed more than 1.6 million people into jobs last year; and next year it aims to do even better, facing its toughest ever target of 1.9 million placings.
We are seeing unemployment falling—down by 600,000 since December 1992. For over a year and a half the number of people out of work has been falling at the rate of 1,000 a day—falling in all parts of the UK, falling among both men and women and in all age groups. In particular we have concentrated help on those people who do not leave the register within six months. That is where help is needed most since more than two-thirds of unemployed people leave unemployment within six months.
Again success is evident. The numbers of long-term unemployed people as a proportion of total unemployment are now lower than in the 1980s and far lower than in the majority of our European partners. More than a third of the fall in unemployment over the past year has been among those unemployed for over a year—the group long considered the most difficult to help. We want to support and reinforce this success.
The Government guarantee every young person who wants one a suitable youth training place. We are spending £676 million on youth training this year in England alone. It means there is no reason why young people need to be unemployed. We do not wish to encourage dependency on benefit at such an early age. Sixteen to 17 year-olds are, therefore, in general not entitled to claim benefits.
We recognise, of course, that there are circumstances when young people do need to claim benefits. We provide for them and will continue to do so. Young people who have recently left local authority care, for example, will be able to claim JSA for a period intended to allow them to overcome their temporary difficulties. And young people who are waiting for a suitable youth training place will he able to claim JSA if they would otherwise suffer severe hardship. The requirements to be available for and actively seeking employment will be tailored for young people in recognition of their need to focus on training.
The jobseeker's agreement will be a central feature of JSA. It will also make clearer the link between receiving JSA and looking for work. Each person will agree the steps they intend to take to find work and put them in the agreement. Their agreement will also contain information about the help that the Employment Service can provide to help them back to work. The jobseeker's agreement is the key to ensuring that jobseekers are treated as individuals and receive individual help. But let me explain that it will not mean individual terms and conditions for receipt of JSA. The agreement will set out what that jobseeker intends to do to meet the availability for work and actively seeking employment conditions. In the cases where the employment officer and the jobseeker cannot reach agreement it will be referred to an independent adjudication officer.
There has for many years been a provision whereby Employment Service staff can instruct unemployed people to take certain steps to get a job. We extend that approach in JSA. We believe that that is entirely reasonable. In any system there will always be a

13
minority of people who do not play by the rules: people who for no good reason reject the help and advice of the Employment Service; people who will try to avoid work by deliberately making a poor impression to a prospective employer. In these circumstances it is absolutely right that the employment adviser should use this provision. But as a protection, no unemployed person will lose benefit unless an independent adjudication officer decides that it is reasonable in the circumstances.
There has been no fundamental look at the system of benefits for unemployed people since the war. There are currently two benefits for the unemployed: unemployment benefit and income support; and they overlap. At any one time most unemployed people receive income support—a general benefit which is also paid to pensioners, lone parents and sick and disabled people, rather than unemployment benefit, which was designed for unemployed people. The rules are complex. Unemployment benefit was designed for an era when few worked on Sundays, people were compensated for days of unemployment and relatively few married women were in employment. Unemployment benefit excludes Sundays; income support does not; there are different earnings rules, different ways of calculating payments and different claim forms.
By contrast, the jobseeker's allowance will have a single set of rules and one claim form. The new allowance will provide financial support for unemployed people and their dependants according to their income and outgoings and this will be paid as long as they need it, provided they are available for and actively seeking work. Those who have paid national insurance contributions will receive a personal rate irrespective of their capital or partner's earnings for up to six months. We intend to make the structure of the benefit simpler, thus ensuring that unemployed people do not have to become unnecessarily involved in red tape.
One such change is for those who suffer a short spell of sickness. They will be able to remain in receipt of JSA for up to two short spells of sickness a year instead of having to change and make a new claim for income support or incapacity benefit. As the work towards implementation of JSA progresses we shall be considering other possible areas where we can further simplify and improve the service provided to unemployed people.
The vast majority of unemployed people make every effort to find work, but we need effective measures against the minority who do not. Social security law has always included penalties for those who break the rules. It is reasonable that those who pay taxes should not subsidise those who make no attempt to get a job.
The new system will make it crystal clear that those who do not meet their obligations will not receive benefit. However, we will protect vulnerable claimants: claimants with children, those who are sick or disabled or pregnant or who have partners in this position and those with caring responsibilities will be able to receive reduced payments if they would otherwise suffer hardship.
14
I turn now to work incentives. The jobseeker's allowance is part of a much larger package of incentives announced in the last Budget and social security statement. The package of measures included in jobseeker's allowance legislation underpins the Government's determination to remove barriers to finding work and helping every unemployed person to find a job quickly. In October 1996 we will introduce the back-to-work bonus. At present most unemployed people who work part-time lose benefit pound for pound, yet if earnings were kept in addition to benefit there would be little incentive to move off benefit into full-time work. So the tax-free back-to-work bonus represents a new incentive.
Jobseekers and their partners who take small amounts of work while on benefit can build up entitlement to a lump sum bonus of up to £1,000. They can cash this in when they move off benefit into work. We will also pay the bonus to people who move off JSA at pension age and at age 60 to income support claimants who have participated in the scheme so the bonus will not be lost. We expect to pay at least 150,000 bonuses to JSA claimants each year once the scheme is up and running. This scheme will encourage people to stay in touch with the world of work while they are on benefit and to keep their skills up to date. And it will give claimants a financial boost at a crucial time by helping them to meet the expenses connected with the move back to work.
As well as offering help in earnings disregards we will provide help for couples, enabling partners of JSA and income support claimants to work up to 24 hours—not 16 as now—which will encourage partners to remain in or to take part-time work. And in addition couples will be able to earn £10 even if only one is working. That should bring extra help to around 70,000 people.
Building on the incentives for the long-term unemployed, we also propose a national insurance holiday for up to 12 months for employers who employ someone who has been out of work for two years or more. This will encourage employers to take on long-term unemployed. Some 120,000 people are likely to be helped in this scheme and it should be worth £45 million to employers in national insurance savings.
We are underpinning the work incentive measure announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security last November by introducing a power to allow housing and council tax benefits to run on for four weeks for unemployed people who have to move to another local authority area to find work.
Its purpose is twofold. First, it enables authorities to exchange information about HB and CTB details. Secondly, it ensures that local authorities give priority to dealing with claims to these benefits from those who benefit from the run-on so that any ongoing entitlement to benefit is established before the end of the run-on period and there is no gap in housing benefit if an individual is entitled to it. In this way the claimant is protected from the sort of gap in income which currently causes concern and difficulties on returning to work. That fear can sometimes act as a deterrent to taking the plunge back into a job.

15
There are other deterrents stopping people taking work: the fear of the unknown; of a job not working out. We intend to ease the rules to help those who find work. Employment on Trial allows jobseekers to try out unfamiliar work without fear of sanction if they give it up. People will be able to take a job on trial after just three months' unemployment and, if necessary, to leave it after four weeks. We estimate that about 200,000 extra people will come within the scope of this measure.
During the passage of this Bill in another place concern was expressed about carers who might wish to return to the workplace. We accept the special circumstances of this group. We will allow them to restrict the hours of their availability so they can work in line with their caring commitments, We will allow them to place restrictions on the locality and nature of work, provided that they retain reasonable prospects of finding a job.
The benefit system must be flexible and capable of adapting to change but it can be difficult to predict how effective some measures will be in improving incentives and affecting people's behaviour. We already pilot new employment services and training schemes and we will be extending this system to provide new powers to use local pilots in benefit regulations, too. These pilots will be used to assess measures which promote employment. All pilots will need specific parliamentary approval. They will be time limited and there will be no power to reduce benefit rates.
The Bill also allows the resettlement agency to complete its task of disengaging the Government from the running of resettlement units. This has been a success story. The resettlement agency has met all its targets and will complete its task in 1996, by funding more appropriate provision delivered by alternative providers such as voluntary organisations or local authorities.
In this Bill we are increasing the incentives for people to find work, widening the range of opportunities that we can offer people who are unemployed and targeting help on those who need it. This is a package of measures which will provide an improved means of delivering benefit to unemployed people. The Bill is a key part of the Government's strategy to tackle unemployment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, this is yet another nasty Bill from a Government which must hold the record for nasty Bills affecting employees and social security claimants. It appears to be based on the Government's oft-stated assumption that the jobs are there and all that needs to he done is to coerce people, many of whom are work-shy, into accepting them. The Government seem to have a bit of an obsession about possible social security fraud. We, on this side of the House, do not condone fraud, but we do believe that its
16
impact has been grossly exaggerated. It is certainly not so grave a problem as to warrant penalising everyone else.
This measure has to be seen against the general background of, and as part of, the Government's employment philosophy. We are constantly told that unemployment is reducing—the Minister told us so this afternoon—but most people simply do not believe it. They do not believe the Government's statistics. Many are aware that the basis of assessment has been consistently changed and will no doubt be altered again as a result of the Bill. They are aware that the level of unemployment is still very high. Even on the Government's own figures unemployment stands at 2.5 million, 1.1 million of whom have been unemployed for over a year. The demise of a lot of UK manufacturing industry has drastically reduced the number of full-time jobs available. In 1971, 41 per cent. of the male workforce was employed in manufacturing. That was down to 28 per cent. in 1994. And this is the direct result of policies pursued by successive Conservative Governments, particularly those of the previous Prime Minister, who it is well known had little time for manufacturing industry and thought that everyone could be employed in the finance and service industries.
Now, as we have seen, unemployment is hitting even employments once regarded as relatively safe, like banking and insurance. As we know, banking is already threatening that 75,000 jobs are to go very shortly. Much of the so-called new employment is part-time and often low paid. One million people now earn less than £2.50 an hour and as many as 328,000 earn less than £1.50 an hour. It is hardly surprising that in these circumstances, the so-called feel-good factor is conspicuously absent and that the Government are just about as unpopular as it is possible to be—perhaps the most unpopular government since the Second World War.
Against that background the Government really have a nerve to introduce a measure of this kind, which will disadvantage yet further the most vulnerable and the poorest in our society. One of the core elements in it, as has been explained, is the provision of a jobseeker's allowance in place of unemployment benefit. Unemployment benefit is a contributory benefit for which people have paid. This new jobseeker's allowance will last for the first six months of unemployment, unlike the present unemployment benefit which runs for a year. Thereafter, after the first six months, entitlement will be means-tested.
I still do not understand how the Government can justify this. I listened carefully to the Minister this afternoon and I did not hear a justification for it in his speech. It is a cut in contributory benefit. Many people—perhaps as many as 90,000—will not be entitled to the means-tested jobseeker's allowance because they have a partner in work, perhaps on a low income, or they have savings or a redundancy payment above the £8,000 limit. Under the new system an unemployed man, if he had a redundancy payment of over £8,000 or if his partner works, would suffer a cut of £1,100 in a year. That really cannot be right. If the Government claim that the interests of the taxpayer have

17
to be considered, they should remember that that unemployed man had been a taxpayer himself when in employment and had paid his national insurance contributions. The Government should not be allowed to change the rules of the game any more than private insurers are entitled to renege on policy promises and conditions.
Then there is the so-called jobseeker's agreement, which I note from what the Minister said this afternoon, is regarded as being a core part of the Bill. Personally, I do not believe that it is. I think that the real objective of this Bill is to try to save money in order to be able to provide some up-front tax cuts just prior to the general election.
I believe that this so-called agreement is all part of the pressure to try to get people to take low-paid jobs and inappropriate ones. On this side of the House we have never said that the unemployed should not attempt to secure other employment. It is part of the deal under which unemployment benefit is paid. For many years the requirement that people should simply be available for work on the day for which benefit is paid, was generally acceptable. Then the Government changed all that in order to specify that the unemployed must be actively seeking work. That has not been in operation for very long. We now have this new and much more detailed, and not very comprehensible, Clause 6 in the Bill which states:
"(2) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, for the purposes of this Act—

(a) a person who is not available for employment is to be treated as available for employment;

(b) a person who is available for employment is to be treated as not available for employment;

(c) a person who is not actively seeking employment is to be treated as actively seeking employment; or

(d) a person who is actively seeking employment is to be treated as not actively seeking employment".

Earl Russell: My Lords, signed "H. Dumpty".
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, that particular clause also contains a whole lot of other proposals.
Therefore, we have a situation here where there will be an attempt, as far as we can see, to make it more difficult for people to qualify for benefit for which they have already paid. Obviously it means—indeed, it is stated in the Bill—that if there is a failure to enter into the jobseeker's agreement, in all probability the claimant will not get the jobseeker's allowance.
The agreement itself seems rather a one-sided affair. There is no commitment on the face of the Bill to ensure that the Government and their agencies do everything possible to find a job for the claimant—that is, a job that is appropriate to his or her skills, education and training—or to provide the necessary training (should that be required) to enable the claimant to compete successfully in the jobs market. All the emphasis seems to be on making it as difficult as possible to obtain the jobseeker's allowance—and to maintain it once entitlement has been established.
The Government boast of their new innovation—the back-to-work bonus. Again, everything will be done via regulations, since the Bill is not very specific about what
18
is entailed. We have no objection to the bonus—indeed, it is a good idea—but we would point out that it is not as generous as the Government would have us believe. It might have been better to increase the amount of the "disregard"—the amount of money an unemployed person may earn before benefit is affected. The amount of the disregard stands at £5 a week for a single person and £10 a week for a couple, and it has stood at that figure for a number of years. It might be an idea to raise those amounts at least in line with price inflation. In any event, as was pointed out in the other place, much as the innovation of the bonus is to be welcomed, it assists those who are successful in getting a job. We have also to concern ourselves with the plight of those who, for whatever reason, simply cannot do so.
Here we should say something about training. We have often in this House raised complaints about TECs—some of which do a good job, but not, I fear, all, and most suffer from inadequate resourcing. The Minister referred to training, but a Bill that was genuinely concerned with jobseeking, rather than with simply cutting benefits and saving money, would have devoted much more attention to training and to instituting a more effective system for providing training, both on and off the job. Sadly, the Bill does not do so.
It has, however, perpetuated one of the injustices of the present income support system. I refer to the reduced amount to be payable to the under 25s. I do not understand why this should be so, and the Minister did not explain it. Many young people under 25 have partners and children. Why should a 24 year-old receive £9.70 a week less than a 25 year-old? It simply does not make any sense.
I note the reference in the Bill to young people under the age of 18. The Government seem to have come belatedly to the view that something has to be done to alleviate hardship among such young people since the general entitlement to benefit for 16 and 17 year-olds was withdrawn in 1988. We share the view, which has often been expressed by the Government and which was stated again this afternoon, that young people in that age group should not really be in the workforce at all, but should be either still in full-time education or receiving training. Unfortunately, however, the guarantee of a youth training place has not been entirely fulfilled. There were 15,670 young people on careers service waiting lists in October 1994, of whom 1,060 had been waiting six months or longer. The result has been homelessness and destitution for far too many young and vulnerable people. We shall have to test out in Committee just how far the provisions of the Bill will go to alleviate the distress that clearly exists.
Then there may well be a problem of interface with other benefits—notably incapacity benefit—and there is the position of those who have been carers, mostly women but some men, who have been looking after elderly or infirm relatives in what is known as care in the community. Such people, as we know, save public funds a very large amount of money and they are entitled to have their needs properly safeguarded. I was glad to hear from the Minister that that point has at least

19
been given some consideration by the Government, although I believe that we shall have to test the amount of that consideration in Committee.
Being disabled is also a costly business, and those extra costs must be taken into account, particularly when disabled unemployed people are engaged in jobseeking. It is much more costly for people with a mobility problem actively to seek employment.
So, when taken altogether, it is not a Bill that we on this side of the House can welcome. I feel bound to tell the Government that the unions catering for the staff whose task it will be to administer the Bill are not happy either. There are already benefit offices in some parts of the country where screens have had to be erected to protect the staff from the wrath of occasionally disappointed claimants. There are likely to be far more disappointed claimants once this Bill is on the statute book, and the staff quite rightly fear that there may be an increase in violence at the places where they work and where they will be expected to administer the provisions of the Bill. I have no doubt that such staff are all now on systems of performance-related pay. Is that to be assessed on the basis of the numbers who have been refused JSA and other social benefits? It will be interesting to hear.
Clearly, the main purpose of the Bill is to save money. The Government expect the introduction of JSA to reduce public expenditure by £140 million in the first year and by about £270 million in the next year. The introduction of the back-to-work bonus is said to be cost-neutral. Those savings are to be made at the expense of the unemployed—notably, the longer-term unemployed. These are people who are the victims of 15 years of Conservative policies which have robbed them of employment and often of the prospects of it, and at the same time have gradually eroded public provision of all kinds. Moreover, the collective job protection that was once available via a strong trade union movement has also been deliberately eroded by a Government who see people as a commodity like any other, disposable when no longer profitable.
No: we do not like this Bill. It has been passed in the other place and we must therefore do our best in this House to seek to ameliorate the unacceptable conditions it contains. Had it not been the tradition of your Lordships' House that we do not oppose Bills on Second Reading which have already been through the other place, I would feel strongly inclined to say that we could not accept the Bill.
3.36 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will forgive a moment of levity before we get down to the serious business. When I was listening to him explain that some people in 1995 have succeeded in finding a job I was irresistibly reminded of the line from Beyond the Fringe:
"Some gallant citizens of this country can run a mile in four minutes".
20
I admit that unemployment is falling and, like the Minister, I welcome that, but I hope that the Minister appreciates that it is an urgent fiscal necessity that it has to fall a very great deal further than it has yet.
I do not know whether the Minister was listening last Friday night to Any Questions, which was broadcast from Babbacombe in Devon. Sir George Young said very much what the Minister has just said, and it produced such a ribald wave of laughter from the audience that he was barely able to complete what he was saying. He was telling the truth, but it is like saying, "You're only going to be shot six times instead of seven"; it does not give one very much comfort.
I owe the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, an apology for making an improper intervention in her speech. However, perhaps I may say, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, once said on a similar occasion:
"I was tempted and I did eat"—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I was not the first to say that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness went on to say one thing with which I disagree. She said that this Government are as unpopular as it is possible to be. Once the Bill is brought into effect, I think that the noble Baroness will find that she was mistaken on that point.
Having said that this is a very bad Bill indeed—one of the worst two or three with which I can remember dealing in this House—I must, to be fair, extend a welcome to two clauses. I welcome, first, Clause 24 which deals with a national insurance holiday for those taking on the long-term unemployed. I welcome that doubly because it is our own party policy that has now been adopted. I welcome also Clause 25 on expediting the payment of housing benefit and council tax benefit. That clause was desperately needed. I hope it works. There is common good will, and if we can do anything to help to improve it I hope that we can get together as necessary.
I am interested in the financial memorandum to the Bill; in particular, how the figures have been arrived at. I can well understand how the savings in the cutback on unemployment benefit have been arrived at. As to that, I say only that I agree with the noble Baroness that that is the one bad change in this Bill which is brought in by primary legislation. Therefore, it can be addressed in Committee, and I intend to do so. For today, I will concentrate on the other measures.
In the memorandum the estimated savings are given as £140 million in the first year and £270 million in the second year, of which £70 million in the first year and £220 million in the second year are, according to Mr. Roger Evans in a Written Answer on 24th November, attributable to the change in unemployment benefit. That leaves £70 million in the first year and £50 in the second year to be saved at the expense of the allegedly work-shy. I should like to know how those figures have been arrived at. Is the expectation that the savings will be made by putting people into work or disentitling them to benefit? How are the Government able to know in advance of the Bill how many work-shy there are and what they will do when pressure is put upon them? For

21
the Government to make a firm prediction without knowing how they will get there is a little like the young man in the predestinarian limerick, who exclaimed:
"Golly! I am not a taxi or tram, but a trolley."
This forecast has a suspicious resemblance to a target. In that context, I ask for an assurance that the employment officers who administer the Bill will not be on performance-related pay. We intend to put down an amendment in Committee that no employment officer administering this Bill shall have a financial interest in any decision that he takes. Should that amendment not be successful, I have already referred the issue of performance-related pay to the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life which will take up a second round of issues after its first report. It is possible that it may also take interest in this point.
The Bill appears to be a long succession of regulation-making powers. I did not count them—the night was not long enough. I mention only a few of the more important ones: Clause 3(2), which deals with regulations to prescribe conditions of eligibility for contributory JSA; Clause 4(1), which deals with contributory JSA (the amounts to be determined by regulation); and Clause 4(3), which deals with income-based JSA (the premiums to be determined by regulation). In this context, does the Minister deny the story, reported under the byline of Donald Macintyre in Friday's Independent, that the Government intend to cut back the single period premium? Can he deny that there is any risk of single parents being required to make themselves available for work? It ought not to be possible to bring in these kinds of measures by regulation.
Clause 6 is nothing but a mass of regulation-making powers: conditions of eligibility and disentitlement and what shall be "good cause" for non-compliance. Clause 7 deals with the jobseeker's agreement. Here we have something more than the ordinary delegation of powers to Ministers. This appears to be suspiciously close to a delegation of the regulation-making power right down the line to the employment officer. I know that the Minister said that the jobseeker's agreement is not a condition, but it looks remarkably like one. If the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, can convince me when he replies that this is not a condition I will be very relieved indeed. I very much hope that there is no prospect of market testing under that clause. If there were, I believe that there would be market testing of the power to make law. I would find that a bit rich coming from a government which regularly say that they are dedicated to defending parliamentary sovereignty.
I leave out quite a few clauses because there are too many to mention here. I refer to Clause 16 and jobseeker's direction. The length of disentitlement may be fixed by regulation at anywhere between one and 26 weeks. That is an enormous variation to leave to discretion. It does not say that at the end of 26 weeks it will not be done again. It refers to a disentitlement for failure to carry out the directions of the employment officer. In another place Mr. Alan Howarth described that as a profoundly illiberal power. We on these
22
Benches do not always agree with other parties' assessments of what is liberal. On this occasion we agree with it from the bottom of our hearts.
These are not merely powers that are likely to have a harmful effect on us. They are provisions which create powers to exercise real cruelty. I am sure that the Minister will say that the Government have no plans to do so, but that is not enough. This Government will not be in office for ever. They will leave those powers on the statute book for anybody to make use of—perhaps years hence. It is like leaving unexploded bombs around. Some of the things that may be done are quite startling. For example, I refer to the regulations under Clause 6 dealing with appearance. That is like giving the employment officer the power to say that he does not like somebody's face.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will undoubtedly tell me that all will be referred to the adjudication officer to determine whether or not it is reasonable. I do not see how it is possible to have a test of reasonableness on the exercise of an inherently unreasonable power. I believe that we severely underrate the gravity of the penalty of disentitlement to benefit. It is the next thing to a sentence of imprisonment. I have sometimes wondered whether I would rather be sent to prison than be disentitled to benefit. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will undoubtedly tell me later this evening that that will depend on the prison to which I am sent. I will accept that proviso, but I ask the House to consider the question as an open one.
The Minister may perhaps be familiar with the suicide of Rachel Cain who was denied benefit, wrongly as it turned out. She had already committed suicide before that was discovered. I do not believe that anyone will advocate suicide as a solution. However, I ask both Ministers the following question. If somebody comes to them who has been disentitled to benefit for 26 weeks and asks how he is to make a living, what answer will they give? If the answer is that the person should find a job perhaps I may be told how he can actively seek work when he has no money to pay fares. To actively seek work regularly involves travel. The next step—which is not far beyond this—is the creation of criminal offences by regulation.
The Minister said a great deal about 16 and 17 year-olds. What he did not appear to realise was that what he said has been made out of date by his own Bill. He referred to the danger of benefit dependency, but if the Bill does not remove the danger of benefit dependency then the Bill is being passed altogether in vain, and might as well be withdrawn.
The Bill is intended to stop benefit dependency, so if it does not succeed in doing that, it is useless. That means that the justification, which Ministers have trotted out more times than I care to count, is removed. I know that they keep on repeating it automatically. For that, I must take some share of the responsibility, and I am sorry for it. They should think again, and consider, before they talk about 16 and 17 year-olds living at home, that under the 1991 census, of people aged from 18 to 24, 1,116,000 were living away from home, very often upon the insistence of their parents. That ignores the fact we all know, that in that census there was

23
particularly gross under-enumeration of young people. That was a restriction that has outlived its justification, and it is time it changed.
Clause 27, and the effect on the homeless, I shall leave to Committee. But we have to think about the powers under Clause 16—arguably the most arbitrary clause in the Bill—of giving the unemployment officer the degree of power he has to decide whether refusal of work is with good cause. Take a case that I have here: a woman of 31, working in a bakery, became incapable of work because of tenosinovitis (an upper limb disorder—restriction of the wrist movement). She was finally found capable of work, though receiving the lowest component of the DLA. She was offered a job as a nude model. She was unwilling to do that because she felt embarrassed and upset at the prospect of sitting nude in front of art students. The Jobcentre staff said to her, "Are you saying that you are not available to work?" They threatened to withdraw her benefit if she refused. Under the old law, she was able to complain to her MP and obtain an apology. Under the new law, the jobseeker's direction will have the force of law.
I know again the Minister will claim referral to the adjudication officer. According to the latest report of the Chief Adjudication Officer, 40 per cent, of adjudication officers' decisions were found to be unsatisfactory; 92 per cent, of cases on refusal of benefit were found to be unsatisfactory. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, whether he can tell me, when he replies, how far it can be said that adjudication officers enjoy judicial independence. The question is of importance.
We have in the Bill a series of regulation-making powers. We need to look at what the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, said in the Hansard Society report Making the Law. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord has done as chairman of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, and to wish him good health and a speedy return to the House. What that report had to say was:
"We emphasise that statutory delegation should never leave an Act bare of everything except a framework of ministerial powers, with all real substance being left to ministerial regulations etc. This has been done (see the legislation on student loans in the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990, for example); it should not be repeated".
It was, once, in the Education Act 1993, but thanks to the courage and integrity of Government Back Benchers and the distinguished skills of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the offending provisions were thrown out. I hope that will happen this time. If it does not, I cannot consent to the Bill.
I am not threatening to vote against the Second Reading. I would not do anything so futile. I do not want to be the one noble Lord who murmurs, "Not Content" and looks very relieved when the Lord Chairman does not hear him. I am not throwing a tantrum, I am making a technical statement. There is no procedure in the Bill whereby my consent to its most offensive provisions can be expressed or withheld. I warned the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal, when the Bill was published, that it risks putting the convention that we do not vote against
24
regulations in this House under intolerable strain. I would rather see the Bill severely altered in Committee than pursue that line of argument any further.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, others in your Lordships' House will be dealing with physical and sensory disabilities in relation to the Jobseekers Bill. Indeed, I have received excellent briefs from the Disability Alliance and the Association of Disabled Professionals, which will, no doubt, help a number of your Lordships through this labyrinthine Bill. However, I shall try to wend my way through the problems facing people with a learning disability.
It is a little difficult to object to the principles that those who receive benefit for being incapable of work should be incapable of work; and that those who receive benefit because they cannot work, should be looking for work. The problems lie not with the principles, but with the law and with the practice that stems from the law. The worry is that disabled people who stand little chance of working may not satisfy the new tests of incapacity for work, while disabled people who are pushed towards the new unemployment benefit arrangements may have difficulty in establishing their eligibility for what used to be called unemployment benefits.
However, it is left to MENCAP and its Pathway Employment Service to speak on behalf of people with possibly the most complex problem—those with a learning disability. Our task is made no easier by the drafting of the Bill, apparently employing spirit-writing from the other side through the medium of the long dead Sir William Schwenck Gilbert. In "Ruddigore" we find the following words—and I shall not abuse your Lordships by singing:
"This particularly rapid, unintelligible patter Isn't generally heard, and if it is it doesn't matter"—
while in Clause 9(4) (a), (c) and (d) we find:
"Circumstances may be prescribed in which … a person is treated as possessing capital or income which he does not possess;"
or,
"income is to be treated as capital;"
or,
"capital is to be treated as income".
Unfortunately, that arcane drafting persists throughout the Bill, and one can envisage enormous additional savings being made by the department and its éminence grise (the Treasury) —savings being one of the main objects of the Bill, anyway —just because jobseekers and employment officers alike will be quite incapable of reaching an understanding of the rules and regulations laid before them—even if placed, as we have heard, on one application form, which I imagine will be longer than the Roll of the Lords—thus denying allowances to thousands of would-be applicants.
People with a learning disability fall smartly into that trap. I have been assured by Ministers on earlier occasions —no doubt with the firm intention of being both helpful and honest—that people with a learning disability are not the target of the changes, and should not experience any problems. It is pointed out that

25
having a severe learning disability is, truly, a passport to the non-contributory incapacity benefit; namely, severe disablement allowance. But there seem to be too many assumptions by Ministers and their parliamentary draftsmen. The first is that severe learning disability is readily identifiable and already established; the second is that people with a severe learning disability are simply not capable of working; and the third is that those of us who see problems ahead are Jeremiahs, with our heads in the sand or in the clouds, according to taste. Perhaps sand is to be treated as cloud, or cloud is to be treated as sand, as an additional clause to Part I of the jobseeker's jobseeking variation of the jobseeker's agreement.
Perhaps I may stress that MENCAP'S Pathway Employment Service has discerned a number of facts which contradict those gloomy assumptions. To begin with, we have more than 5,000 people in open employment—or in job training, leading to full employment—and often the nature of their disability is not always self-evident. Secondly, some people with very severe and, indeed, multiple disabilities can and do work for a modest living, thus proving that they will not always fit neatly into the boxes assigned to them. I am therefore extremely anxious to ensure that when they appear in the wrong box or move between boxes they suffer as little hardship as possible.
I suspect that in your Lordships' House there will be attempts to improve the Bill in a number of relevant aspects. But perhaps in this early stage in the proceedings I may seek to be helpful by asking four questions. If the Minister is unable to respond today, I would be happy—nay, relieved—to receive an explanatory note a little later. I am all too conscious of the fact that even those whose daily business is social security find it a rather complicated subject. If I had the choice, I should rather have a considered reply than an immediate one—quite apart from the fact that I should then have time to understand the Ouija board messages conveyed by Sir William, or his spiritualist medium in the department.
Question No. 1 is: how does the department propose to monitor what happens to people with severe disabilities who seem to be disadvantaged by the new distinctions between incapacitated and unemployed?
Question No. 2 is: will the Government share their findings with interested organisations and sit down with them to consider any changes that seem to be required?
Question No. 3 is: why is the full range of supportive measures to help people back into work restricted to people labelled "unemployed" and denied to those labelled "long-term sick and disabled"?
If the aim is to encourage employers to take on board people who have not had a foothold in employment for a long time—or indeed ever—and to encourage those people to get on board, it seems to me not to be a matter of any great relevance whether they are unemployed or disabled when it comes to the point of actual employment.
I have already hinted that one of the objectives of the Bill may be to save money. It also seems to have another prime objective—that is, the need to reduce the numbers on the unemployment register. However, the department
26
may find that the new incapacity benefit arrangements could in fact swell those numbers. That is a Gilbertian solution indeed!
I shall ask my fourth and final question and then I am finished—for the time being, anyway. I hope that I am not straying too far from the relevance of this Second Reading debate in asking for an assurance that charging employers for access-to-work provisions will not be introduced, for that would negate any improved incentives provided by the Bill, including those for disabled people who are searching for a job as well as those who have been offered a job. I am sure that we all share common ground in believing that disabled people need effective support while not working, and effective support to help them find and retain jobs so that they can be seen to be working in ever greater numbers.
I am sure too that we all share common ground in believing that it is contrary to the interests of disabled people, and to common sense and common decency, to complicate their lives and impede their progress by artificial obstacles. At a recent MENCAP conference, a young woman with a severe learning disability put it very clearly. She said, "I want a job; and I need money to live on". I am certain that your Lordships will agree that those are not unreasonable ambitions.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I welcome the provisions of the Bill. I enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who referred to the popularity of Her Majesty's Government. It is not fair to say that this Government are the most unpopular ever. I remember that in 1978 the then government appeared to be extraordinarily unpopular; and so it subsequently proved the case when the electorate were given an opportunity to choose.
Be that as it may, the Bill is warmly to be supported. The arrangements surrounding the payment of unemployment benefit, and all that goes with them, are ripe for overhaul. The Bill does exactly that. The jobseeker's allowance is clearly about improving incentives to work, removing the barriers which stop people leaving benefit and focusing the efforts of jobseekers on looking for work. The allowance will operate a simplified and more individually tailored approach to jobsearch and more incentives to find work. Surely that is greatly to be welcomed.
The existing two-tier system is wholly out of date and the introduction of a new single benefit will be simpler and easier to understand and to administer. Therefore, the unemployed will received a better service, financial support and back-to-work advice, generally provided in a single, one-stop service. That will be much to their benefit. As a result of a streamlined administration and closer targeting, the allowance will improve the operation of the labour market by helping people in their search for work, enabling them to secure better value for money for themselves and, above all, for the taxpayers and by providing a better service to unemployed people.

27
Much has been made of the Bill's effect on the so-called work-shy; those reluctant to look for work with any kind of vigour or enthusiasm. It is right that the taxpayers should have some protection from those who have no intention of looking for work and who put every obstacle in the path of those who are seeking to help them. Surely taxpayers and national insurance contributors have the right to be protected from those who are not genuinely available for or searching for employment. In that regard, the rules will be clearer and fairer to claimants and to taxpayers.
That will be achieved by the two routes that will be available to the new benefit; that is, the contributory route and the income-based route. As we heard from my noble friend the Minister, those who have worked and made contributions in the relevant tax years will be entitled to benefit, regardless of means, for six months. Surely that is right. Those who remain unemployed after six months will not qualify for a contributory benefit but will become eligible for a means-based benefit. I am certain that that too is right.
I also greatly welcome the introduction of the jobseeker's agreement which will set out the jobseeker's planned jobsearch and activity and the support and guidance which the Employment Service will be able to provide. In return for benefit and advice on finding work, the claimant will be expected to make every effort to find a job. Those provisions too are very much to be welcomed.
I turn more seriously to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. She referred to the importance of training and I agree with her. Indeed, I must declare an interest because I am chairman of the Engineering Training Authority, which will have a role to play in these matters. I am not certain that the Bill is the right vehicle for the provision of the various training schemes now in place, and nor does it provide for that. However, I wish to sound a note of warning. There is a risk that we become involved in training merely for the sake of training and as an alternative to gainful employment. It is important that training is tailored to the needs of employers as well as employees. Recently, there has been the risk of many people attending training courses simply as a means of finding something to do but with little hope of being better off at the end of the courses. To send young people on training courses of that kind is a delusion and I hope that there will not be too much of that. My own authority is obliged and concerned to ensure that the training provided relates as closely as possible to the needs of employers. I hope that that thought will continue to be in the Government's mind as they develop training courses now and in the future.
I do not believe that the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for those measures or for other matters relating to training activity. I welcome the provisions in the Bill and hope that it will find its way swiftly onto the statute book.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, when the Minister introduced the Bill, he tried to give
28
the impression that this was merely a simplification of the payment of unemployment benefits with one or two bolt-on extras which may be of assistance to the unemployed. I do not accept that premise. Indeed, if that were the case, we should not be faced today with the alarm and major opposition that has been forthcoming since the announcement of the Bill's provisions.
I suggest that the Bill has not been introduced out of concern for the unemployed. Indeed, I believe that it is a cruel, mean-minded measure which, whether or not it is intended by the Government, will stigmatise the victims of unemployment and their families. It will not stop there. It will impoverish the unemployed, and young people who have not even started their working lives will be included in that impoverishment and stigmatisation. It will have an impact on the sick, people with disabilities and carers. They will all be caught up in the Bill, which is supposedly a mere simplification. In fact, it is estimated that it will remove from benefits something like a quarter of a million people, with 90,000 people losing benefits altogether. Indeed, the savings on the face of the Bill show that the projected savings for 1996–97 will be £140 million and in the second year, £272 million. I suggest that the Bill does not take us forward as regards the extremely grave problem of unemployment.
Indeed, it takes away from those who have paid their national insurance contributions—insurance against being unemployed. People have paid for those benefits and recently have paid for them at an increased cost.
I believe that there is cross-party acceptance of the fact that unemployment is too high. I question whether Ministers really understand what it means to be unemployed. Have they seen the impact on families? Have they seen the despair, the lack of hope and the loss of self-esteem which unemployment brings with it? If one looks at the statistics in relation to people who are ill and the suicide rate, in the centre of that are large numbers of unemployed people.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, about protecting against people who are work-shy, but this is not the way to achieve that. It is not correct to imply —and I do not suggest that the noble Lord did so—that the majority of unemployed people are work-shy. They are not. I believe that the number of such people is so small that it cannot even be quantified.
The benefit cut from 12 months to six months is not a simplification. That is taking away money that has already been paid. In the first year of unemployment a couple over 25 years of age, where one partner is out of work, will lose over £1,100 in benefits. Their income will be cut by that amount in 12 months.
Part-time employment in Britain has been growing. There is a large increase in the number of men within that group. They are men who cannot find full-time employment. It is accepted—I believe that even the Government accept it—that part-time employment can be a bridge to full-time employment. But what do we find? The Jobseekers Bill will do absolutely nothing to help those people because all money over the first £5 will be taken away from them. It is no good saying that the compensation is the back-to-work bonus, because

29
that is not compensation. If we wish to build that bridge, why do we not make available increments or raise the upper earnings limit? I welcome the change from a daily to a weekly upper limit but it is just too low to be of any real encouragement.
The issue of training always arises when we talk about unemployment. It is not just a case of training for training's sake. The fact is that 38 per cent, of the long-term unemployed in Britain today—that is, those who have been unemployed for over a year—have no qualifications. We need a better trained and more highly skilled workforce to compete in the world economy. At present Britain is 2lst out of 22 countries in the World Economic Forum league table. That is nothing to be proud of.
What should we do? We should help people to train out of unemployment. But what do we do? In the past five years the Government have cut their training budget by 40 per cent. They have cut 55,000 places in the training-for-work programme. And yet there is still a skills shortage which tells us that we need to train people. In 1993 there was a 6 per cent, skills shortage when we were still in the depths of recession. Last year that increased by nearly 100 per cent.—it increased from 6 per cent, to 11 per cent. What will be the skills shortage this year? We desperately need to do something about training, and the Bill does nothing.
Indeed, I suggest that it penalises people who try to educate themselves out of unemployment because of the change from the 21-hour rule to the 16-hour rule. That will have an immediate impact by removing 6,000 students from benefits. Indeed, a recent CBI report called for a balancing of the skills shortage and the skills needed.
I turn quickly to the jobseeker's agreement. That is a misuse of the word "agreement". The Bill condemns people to poverty in the sense that the agreement requires them to be looking for work. It is right that unemployed people should look for work. But what does the Bill condemn them to? The abolition of the wages councils has meant that today in Britain just under one third of a million people are earning less than £1.50 per hour and more than 1 million earn less than £2.50 per hour. We are telling people that if they breach the jobseeker's agreement by refusing to seek any work which is regarded as reasonable by the officer, they will lose their unemployment benefit.
A recent Equal Opportunities Commission report established to look at compulsory competitive tendering, which is the Government's policy, identified the fact that that policy had driven forward the number of people in unemployment. Not only has it done that, but it has also driven down the level of wages which people were being paid.
I do not believe that the Bill does very much at all to get people back into work or to train them for work or, indeed, to understand their individual situations and those of their families.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the position of carers. I should declare an interest in that I am patron of the carers association on the Fylde coast area of Britain. The savings which carers bring to the taxpayer are absolutely phenomenal. It is important that we do not penalise
30
those people further. I welcome the statement made by the Minister indicating that there will be changes in the Bill as it goes through this House. I look forward to debating those changes because we certainly do not wish to have a situation in which carers, who are already penalised through lack of job opportunities, career promotion and costs at the end of their lives, are penalised even further.
The Government say that the Bill has been introduced to help the unemployed. I do not accept that that is a reasonable assessment of the position. I was concerned to read of the reservations expressed by staff in benefit offices. I was also concerned to read a leaked internal departmental report about the changes which would be necessary within those offices to meet the reaction of claimants. The unions have said that they are anxious about the safety of their members because they know that the measures within the Bill will be neither perceived nor accepted as intended to work for the welfare of claimants. I would suggest that that view was accepted in the internal report which was leaked in the Financial Times. The advice in the report said that the department needed to ensure that anything which could be seen as a weapon in the benefits office is kept away from the public; that additional private interview rooms with safety measures—I do not know what they are, whether they are cages, alarm bells or two-way mirrors—should be installed; that there should be provision of closed-circuit TV, personal alarms and also of security guards.
The report also said that Jobcentre managers should have training, that clear escape routes for the employees should be provided and that they should be trained in customer aggression. We are not talking about prisons; we are talking about Jobcentres, where, under the provisions of the Bill, unemployed people will go for assistance to help them get back into work. That is the impact that the Bill will have. That was certainly the view of those who produced the report.
The Bill has many drawbacks. In overall terms, I would suggest that it does nothing in most of its areas of provisions to assist the unemployed get back into work. The unemployed need work, training to apply for such work and counselling and assistance from experienced people who are doing the work, on the basis of a joint agreement; that is, one which is real and not a one-sided agreement.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I like the idea of a jobseeker's allowance. It seems to be much more positive than unemployment benefit. It recognises that most people who are out of work want a job and that they should be given every assistance to get one. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it must be right to improve incentives to work and remove barriers to people coming off of benefit and going back into work.
I am glad that the Bill proposes one allowance instead of two. Unemployment benefit and income support were run off different engines; indeed, they did not dovetail very effectively. I believe that the new arrangements will prove to be simpler and clearer to operate for everyone concerned. I also welcome the fact that the

31
Bill brings together financial support, on the one hand, and, on the other, advice on getting back to work and training. They are part of the same situation. It is only right that they should be dealt with by one organisation.
It seems to me that there is much in the principle of the Bill to commend it. I also welcome the financial incentives in the Bill, and elsewhere, to assist people to return to work. I refer to the back-to-work bonus; the improved provisions for working partners where one member of the household is on benefit; the jobfinder's grant; the job clubs; the national insurance credit improvements and the national insurance contribution holiday for employers who take on someone who has been out of work for two years. Individually, they may be comparatively small improvements, but, taken together, they should provide substantial, additional incentives and ease the passage back to work. Of course, they must also be considered against the background of the £600 million package of work incentives which was announced last autumn in the Budget. I very much welcome those provisions.
I also hope that the new arrangements will help to deal with the abuses involved in the black economy. I am not talking about moonlighting—someone who has two jobs. Such people are very often the most enterprising members of the community and, perhaps, have two jobs for a variety of reasons. For example, such a person may have two qualifications and wish to "keep his hand in" in both of them. Alternatively, in order to earn a better living for their families, such people are often prepared to work unsocial hours and undertake jobs which other people will not do. That is to be commended, provided those people declare their earnings and pay the appropriate level of tax and national insurance contributions.
The black economy is very different. It involves cheating and, sometimes, also lying. There are two aspects to it. The first is working and drawing social security benefits at the same time. Of course, that is fraud on the social security system and the taxpayers who provide the money for the system. The second aspect is that earnings are not normally declared. Therefore, no tax or national insurance contributions are paid. I hope that the new arrangements will make it somewhat easier to deal with those abuses of the black economy.
I turn now to finance, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I thought that the new model Labour Party was very keen on trying to find savings in the social security system. However, I was surprised that we did not hear anything like that this afternoon. As my noble friend the Minister mentioned, there will be modest savings in expenditure as a result of the Bill. It surely must be right that Her Majesty's Government—indeed, any government—should look out for justifiable savings in the social security budget which, after all, is very large. It is a budget which grows year by year and this month's uprating will add no less than £1.5 billion to the cost of pensions and benefits. I am one of the lucky ones who will draw a little of that by an increase in pension, for which I am suitably grateful.
32
I suggest that we must take into account the fact that the total cost of the social security budget this year will be no less than £84 billion and that that will cost every working person £15 per working day. In the light of those huge and growing figures, it surely must be right for the Government to ensure that the burden on present and future working and taxpaying members of the community is not insupportable.
I note that the main saving is the payment of contributory benefit of six months instead of one year. That seems to me to be sensible when we take into account that two-thirds of those who lose their jobs return to work within six months. However, the reduction of the period of benefit as of right to six months emphasises the need for adequate support for those who are still unemployed after six months, especially those in the vulnerable groups. Concern has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and other speakers that some people might fall through the net after the six-month period is over. There are two obvious groups which come to mind. The first group is the disabled, who have already been mentioned in today's debate, and includes those who will not be eligible for the new incapacity benefit which starts this month.
As has already been mentioned, disabled workers are renowned for being very conscientious and good at their jobs. They often struggle greatly to hold down a job. We have another welcome feature in the Disability Discrimination Bill which has just had its First Reading in this House and which one hopes, again, will assist in that regard. However, if disabled people or those who are not in robust health are still unemployed after six months it is most important that support for them should be adequate. It is equally important that the staff who will be trying to help them understand the particular problems that they have and the difficulties that they face which are not faced by those who are able bodied. I hope that when my noble friend Lord Inglewood replies to the debate he will be able to give the House some reassurance with regard to the disabled.
The second group that I should like to mention is one which, again, has been referred to by several speakers in today's debate. I have in mind the carers; that is, those who are caring for elderly people, sick people or children. They also have special problems and needs. I welcome the big increase in expenditure on various carers' social security benefits in recent years, but it would be helpful if, again, my noble friend could give an assurance that the special needs of carers are adequately catered for in this Bill. With those reservations, this Bill seems to me sensible and practical and I support it.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am going to speak on education and training. I hope that we can start from the premise that it is far better for an unemployed person to be encouraged and supported in his wish to study and acquire knowledge and skills he has not already acquired, and thus make a positive contribution to the needs of the country for a better qualified workforce, than it is for him to be idle or to be pulled out of a good

33
training programme to take up a temporary or part-time inappropriate job. This is not what is happening now under income support regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he spoke, poured some scorn on certain forms of training. I think it may be true that some of the youth training programmes were not very good. What we want is good training leading to a qualification which will improve the skills of the workforce. That, as several noble Lords have said, is badly needed.
The National Institute for Adult and Continuing Education—an organisation for which I have the greatest respect—suggested in a briefing paper last year that the jobseeker's allowance legislation offered an opportunity to clarify the position, to resolve anomalies, and to change the whole atmosphere in which unemployed people seek to learn and reposition themselves in a rapidly changing economy and labour market. What I want to try to do today is to look at what seem to be the Government's plans and ask the Minister how reasonable, co-operative and flexible they are going to be in framing the regulations and monitoring them; and I hope he will have some positive replies when he winds up.
No one is arguing that full-time students should be eligible for benefit support while studying, nor that part-time study should be an alternative to suitable employment. Most unemployed people do not want or expect such treatment. The existence of a tiny minority seeking to use study as a means of avoiding work—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the noble Baroness's pardon, I wonder whether I could ask her to withdraw one sentence she has just spoken? She said that no one is arguing for full-time students to have benefit while studying. That is not correct; I am.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg the noble Earl's pardon and certainly withdraw that as far as he is concerned. But I do not think many people are asking for that. Anyway, what I do not want the existence of that tiny minority to do is to frustrate the learning ambitions of up to 100,000 people seeking to hasten their return to the labour market and improve their chances in life by extending their skills and knowledge through learning.
The new proposals to change the regulations from April next year so that,
"people unemployed over three months would be able to undertake further education study for up to 16 guided learning hours per week",
begin to clarify and give substance to the real position of unemployed people wishing to study, and there is confidence that colleges and voluntary organisations have the skills and capacity to design programmes within this new framework, and to offer flexible forms of continued participation to students lucky enough to gain appropriate—I stress "appropriate"—employment during their period of study.
The FEFC considers that the new limit of 16 guided learning hours is broadly equivalent to the old 21 hours of supervised study; but colleges do differ in their estimates, saying it will vary from course to course. One said that the pressure on colleges to drive down the number of guided learning hours per course will
34
increase as a result of the rule change. I hope the Minister can give us some reassurance on that when he comes to reply.
But we should at last gain some consistency of interpretation from local employment and DSS officials. There have been any number of very bizarre decisions described by NIACE. The now irrelevant distinction between full and part-time courses will cease. It has been consistently argued that the old rule should apply to the students' hours and not the course—a 15 hour course could under the old system be designated full-time and a student taken off benefit. People will no longer have to declare they will give up a course if a job comes up. They may be able to continue their study by other means. That was announced last week by the DFE. I should like confirmation from the Minister that I have these plus points correct, including naturally that there will be no limit on the number of hours of private study allowed in addition to the 16 guided learning hours.
Now for the anxieties. The new JSA rules seem to be based on the assumption that work is always there if you search for it; the application of the "actively seeking work" regulations appears to be tightening with targets for officials to get people off the register; and the number of low paid, low skill, part-time and temporary jobs is growing. So that, even if a course of study is pursued as the result of advice given at a Restart interview it will not be "a positive outcome"; all the immediate availability for work rules will apply and since the Restart interviewers have positive outcomes to meet, it is unlikely that part-time education will often be the recommended path. Part-time study of 16 hours or under will not be disregarded by the Employment Service in availability for work tests. So just what questions will they, the officials, continue to ask? For example, if the course offers a qualification, will claimants be asked about their continued willingness to take unqualified work? Will they be asked if they can always be contacted by telephone at the college? One fears that such questions, experienced by many poor and vulnerable people as threatening their only source of income, will continue to deter many. Can the Minister give any reassurance that there will be more sympathetic understanding at these interviews? The targets seem to me dangerous, and I would entirely go along with the noble Earl's comment about performance related pay for these people, and would certainly support him in any amendment he puts down to that effect.
There is no serious attempt to define suitable jobs and no assurance that current pursuance of a qualification will be taken into account in considering a job's "suitability". I gather there is something called the "McJobs syndrome" because so many of these young people are asked if they will take a job at McDonald's, that being, I presume, one of the lowest paid jobs available. In the past the pursuit of a qualification has even been interpreted as proving that the claimant was not available for other jobs.
European Social Fund courses (designed for the long-term unemployed) will, unless run under the Training for Work scheme, continue to be subject to the JSA 16 hour rule. This is an absurd anomaly. Sometimes

35
these will need to be short, intensive courses, including work simulation, and will naturally take more than 16 hours in one week. The hours are to be counted per week and not averaged. Some unemployed, and perhaps particularly the long-term, would clearly benefit from full-time study and a total re-orientation of their work path; yet there is no proposal to reintroduce a scheme like "Learning for Work", which offered this opportunity, and, with all its limitations, was welcomed by many education and training providers as a really useful element in any serious strategy to provide comprehensive training and education services for unemployed people.
What one hoped for, probably foolishly, was that there would be real progress in the move to change the whole atmosphere in which unemployed people seek to study from one of concession, inquiry, insecurity and even threat, to one of positive encouragement and support. That we have not got.
Ann Widdecombe's highest claim for the changes is that the same number of people will be able to study as now. That is simply not good enough. If we were serious about building a high skill, high tech. economy, we would not be looking for a pool of unemployed people to put into any part-time, temporary, unskilled jobs that come along, or, alternatively, offering low level, narrowly instrumental training programmes. We should be encouraging and supporting ever increasing numbers of unemployed people (and others yet to reach their full potential for learning) to participate in education and training of all kinds as a major contribution to eliminating the learning and skills deficit from which this country now suffers.
I trust that the hopes some people had that there would be a more liberal, imaginative and understanding scheme for the unemployed, and in particular for the 16 to 25 year-olds, will not be completely dashed. They deserve better than the Bill, and the regulations that go with it, now seem to offer. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will use their best endeavours to influence the outcome in this House when we come to Committee stage so that a better Bill will leave the House than has entered it.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am on unfamiliar territory but my concerns are education and the vulnerable young. I am very sure that I should despair were I to be unemployed and without resources today in the face of the sheer bureaucratic complications that I should face in dealing with the state; and I am deeply sorry for those who will have to administer the Bill. I should also have serious doubts about the common sense of the promoters as regards some parts of the Bill. Not for the first time (the last example was the issue of student unions which the Government believed still to be the same animal as it was in the 1960s) the Government are to some extent legislating to curb an outdated stereotype—those who positively prefer to live in a squat on benefit rather than work—
36
and are not considering sufficiently those today who want to work but wish also to secure at least a vocational qualification.
Of course there are still people who want to play the system. I remember two years ago an Oxford taxi driver telling me in justifiable anger about the three young men he had driven from the station to the Oxford United football ground who were discussing the useful tactic that they employed to apply for jobs but never to gain them. It was to attend in filthy jeans with a punk hairstyle and an earring, all designed to put off a prospective employer, which apparently it usually did. There are others drawing benefit and working in the black economy, as my noble friend said. Of course it is right to prevent exploitation of public money by such people. But I hope that we shall not penalise the vast majority of people who honestly want to work and to be valued by the society in which they live. I was very glad to hear the Minister make that very point.
I found great difficulty in wrestling with the acronyms and the professional jargon in the briefing that I received from many well-informed organisations—the CAB, Child Poverty Action Group, the Unemployment Unit, and many others. I freely admit to my noble friend that I may make mistakes in my comments on the Bill. However, I should like to focus briefly on the following issues.
First, in the Employment Service annual performance agreement, why are part-time educational courses not listed as a positive outcome while training for work, jobclubs, and work trials are among the 10 positive outcomes listed? We surely want the unemployed to take positive steps on their own to become eligible for employment. That means qualifications. Why, therefore, is voluntary participation in a course not explicitly recognised as a positive outcome? Since so much depends on the agreement and on the assessment made by the Employment Service officer, I urge that the Bill should clearly and unequivocally spell out recognition that a part-time course leading to a vocational qualification, or positively enhancing the education of the claimant and thus his or her employability, should be regarded as a positive outcome.
My next point concerns the decision to change the existing concession which at present allows the long-term unemployed who receive unemployment benefit or income support to study a part-time course in further or higher education for up to 21 hours of supervised study a week. Those who receive the jobseeker's allowance, which will replace those benefits, are to be allowed only 16 hours of what is now called "guided learning". Moreover, the proposed tightening up yet further of the requirement to be instantly available for work—any work—if notified, even to the point of dropping a course just when a student is about to complete it, represents an extraordinary approach to the idea of increasing the employability of the claimant. It will deal a severe blow to the economic viability of many colleges doing good or vital work in the further education sector. If numbers decrease because claimants have to give up their courses, the fees from the Further Education Council's fee remission scheme will decrease too. That could be

37
serious for the institutions. I hope that there will be close consultation between the Department of Employment, the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education to ensure that one aspect of government policy does not torpedo another. It is surely vital to the country to produce as many qualified people as possible. Germany and other European Union citizens take many qualified jobs in this country. Surely we should be doing all we can to produce a skilled workforce ourselves.
It would be a sad day if the very real commitment by the Government to promote education should be negated in this vitally important vocational area by unrelated legislation in another part of the wood. It seems to me that the Home Office, too, may have some concern at the prospect of young people without a job or money on the streets. What will they do to survive?
I feel great concern, as I think we all must, that under the Bill those between the ages of 18 and 24—even those who have paid national insurance contributions— should be losing 20 per cent, of their personal allowance. Surely they eat as much as 25 year-olds—do they not, my Lords?
I am concerned, too, that the over-50s who have tried to provide for time of difficulty by saving and by taking out occupational pensions should be caught in a savings trap and see relatively modest savings depleted, and with that any hope of saving, for instance, to start a self-employed venture. That is taking away their independence.
My last plea to the Government is for really effective training to be given to those officials who will administer the legislation. That is in part where the CSA went wrong. There should, therefore, be at least a year's training before the Act becomes effective. In 1994, as a Member of the Committee of this House which reported on the poverty programme, I visited a project in Pilton in Edinburgh. The Pilton partnership between a deeply impoverished community, the district council and local industry has been very successful. One of its successes has been the setting up of the Granton Information Centre, working closing with the CAB, to help interpret the complex social security legislation so that those who are entitled to benefit could claim it. We saw a 40-page form which had to be completed, often by barely literate claimants, to secure disability benefit. We learned that the DSS officials themselves needed help from the CAB and the centre to understand the immensely complicated regulations which they had to operate.
Now there is to be yet another dense hedge of bureaucratic procedures to break through and more and more regulations on which denial of JSA may depend. The discretion given to officials who may not themselves understand the rules is great. I was glad to hear from my noble friend that everything is to be simplified. But too much power will still be in the hands of individual, overworked officials.
Perhaps I may urge the Minister most strongly to ensure that guidance is indeed clear, that training for officials in the sophisticated techniques which will be required is available, that application of the allowance is uniform, and that the Bill's objective is to help people
38
back to good employment and to acquiring real skills. Not least, time must be given for the new legislation to be understood before it is applied.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I could not recognise the Bill from the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. He is wasting his talent in his department. With his great diplomatic skills and capacity for presentation, he should be in the Foreign Office.
The main purpose of this distasteful Bill is to save money at the expense of unemployed people—the poorest and the most vulnerable in our society. The Bill will have the dramatic and disgraceful effect of reducing benefits for, and even removing benefits from, nearly a quarter of a million people. I cannot envisage how the Government can defend that. Few governments can be as unscrupulous as that, especially at a time when Ministers are permitting greedy executives of companies to line their pockets with millions of pounds in share options.
In the other place, there were smooth ministerial phrases about the Bill which failed to obscure the savage cuts involved. The real motive for them can be glimpsed from the occasional sentence uttered by Ministers there. The Secretary of State for Employment, for example, laid bare the basic premise of the Bill when he said:
"No one has a God-given right to decide to be idle and to live off others".— [Official Report, Commons, 10/1/95; col. 52.]
He is after the popular vote. The Minister thereby reveals an attitude to unemployed people which is not only arrogant but at variance with the facts. Unemployment is a shocking, dismaying and demoralising catastrophe. It is a personal disaster which impoverishes the person and families. It has become a social and economic disease affecting vast swathes of our society. It is not only working class people who are affected, as was the case when I was a young man. All sections of society are affected. Some 40 per cent, of our workforce have been out of work for some part of the past five years. A large number of workers are fearful that they also will lose their jobs.
I admit that unemployment is a worldwide phenomenon, but the Government have little to be proud of. The Minister said, "We don't want any nonsense about figures". I shall give the reality about the figures and not nonsense about them. Britain has lost 40 per cent, of its manufacturing capacity over the past five years. We are the only one of the top seven industrialised nations to have seen no rise in employment since 1979. Unemployment here among the unskilled is still rising. I am open to challenge by the Minister, if he wishes. Has he seen today's report in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy? It makes dismal reading. In 1993 only 36 per cent, of the working population had full-time jobs. We hear all the glowing testimonials to the Government's policy by proud Ministers, but that is a massive drop from the figure of 55 per cent, in 1975. We have a two-tier labour market, with great uncertainty for one tier.

39
The economists' ultimate solution is investment as a backcloth to market labour measures. There is a difference of opinion among economists, but those economists give little support to cutting and limiting benefits. The measures which are the central theme of the Bill, contribute far more to poverty than to solving unemployment. Those are not my words; they are the views of the Oxford Review of Economic Policy.
The question today is: would earlier publication of the report have changed the Bill? I do not think so. I can almost see how ministerial minds were working in the other place: "Let's see", said the Secretary of State for Employment. "Let's take a leaf from the book of the Home Secretary. We'll go for a really good populist cause because we're a very unpopular government. All the polls say so; the local government elections will say so; every political realist says so. Let's drop the term 'unemployment benefit' and call it an 'allowance'. That's a good idea. It will then look as though we are being generous", they probably said. "Let's call it a jobseeker's allowance. That would strike a positive, friendly note. We will lose the word 'unemployment'. That is a marvellous idea. We'll just drop the word 'unemployment' from our vocabulary. The great virtue of that is that it will distract attention from the fact that there are no jobs available. It's a marvellous idea, this Bill, so let's peddle it like mad and get someone of the genius of Lord Mackay, with his brilliant presentational abilities, to put it forward in the House of Lords as one of the greatest Bills since Parliament began".
You can see the Government's mind working. All the civil servants say, "Yes, Minister, that's a wonderful idea. Press on with it". There is a phone call to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, asking whether he will do it. He says, "All right, I'm a loyalist", so he does it. He made a marvellous speech, but it was a little lacking in realism.
I am very serious about the Bill. The Government have now begun the painstaking job of humiliating unemployed people and cutting benefits. Unemployed people now have to parade before officials to prove that they are actively seeking work. They have to draw attention to their availability. They have to write and rewrite their CVs and prove that they are highly motivated for work.
What can they expect? There are currently limits on the conditions claimants can impose, but undoubtedly there will be a tougher regime. That is the reality. Regardless of the circumstances, the unemployed person may have to agree to the dirtiest job with the longest hours, peanuts for pay and possibly even moving away from home.
The final irony of the situation is that the officials may well conclude the interview by saying: "Well, that was a fascinating discussion. There are only a handful of jobs anyhow and we have another 1,999,999 people just like you who are also jobseekers. But we will give you the allowance. If you've paid enough stamps, you can have it as a right, but only for six months, not 12 months. There is nothing for your partner. We're very sorry about that. If you haven't paid your stamps, you may get something provided you are poor enough. You will have to watch it though. If you keep the wrong
40
company at home with someone earning a small fortune like £10 a week, well, you know. Here you are, you can have it, but please keep looking eagerly for a job".
That is what will happen when the House of Commons and the House of Lords pass the Bill. That is why we shall be active in the Committee and Report stages. The marvellous speech by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, posed a number of significant questions for the Minister. I hope that his colleague who is to reply to the debate will give the assurances we are anxious to have on the questions raised.
We have come to a sorry pass under a sorry government—a government unable to refrain from hitting and humiliating unemployed disabled people. An estimated 200,000 people will lose invalidity benefit and will not receive incapacity benefit with its far more stringent conditions. Another estimated 70,000 will suffer the same fate annually. Many of them believe that they are not capable of work, yet it is judged by others that they are. The Government tell such people that if they want to appeal—and to appeal is a great right in a democratic society—they must take a cut of 20 per cent, in their income support. What kind of system is that? Alternatively, they can sign on. In doing so, they must state that they are fit for work. That is entirely the opposite of what they believe; they believe that they are not fit for work and that is why they are called "disabled".
That is a disgraceful choice to impose on disabled people. It is threatening a poverty penalty, to prevent appeals and minimise the number of appeals, even though we know from the citizens advice bureaux that most such appeals are successful. Social security doctors are far from infallible. We must face the fact that many more disabled people will seek jobs in the future—some because they want to and some because they are forced to. Many of them may have been out of the labour market for years. Others will be able to work only under limited conditions because of their disability. The £71 million that will go to the Employment Service to fund specialist help for disabled people is welcome but inadequate.
To make sure that the Minister does not feel unemployed himself and has something to talk about when he winds up, let me add to the questions of the noble Earl, Lord Russell —I want to make sure that he has a very full list when he answers—and put the following questions to him. Who are the people to be trained as advisers? What will be their background and who will train them? What form will the training take and for how long will they be trained? Will the new advisers be sensitive to the great variety of disabling conditions that they may meet? Many disabled people will have chronic but fluctuating conditions or there may be a mental element involved. Will there be training about the ways in which new technology can help to deal with disability? Above all, will there be an understanding of the discrimination which abounds in the workplace and will continue to obtain in the workplace for many years to come? Those are just a few of the questions that arise as a result of the Bill.

41
Unless there is extensive help for disabled people, there is a danger that in today's tight employment market they will perpetually lose out to non-disabled people. There will be an army of people who do not qualify for incapacity benefit and yet are not sturdy enough to take part in the job market. It will be a mortifying charade to force such people to sign on fortnightly and go through the motions of job seeking when they and the employment agency know quite well that the chance of their getting jobs is virtually zero. I believe that the provisions of the Bill are unrealistic with the present level of economic activity in our society.
A sense of outrage will be felt when the provisions of the Bill are implemented. Alan Milburn, MP, has revealed advice to Ministers by senior Employment Service health and safety assessors—I am willing to be contradicted by the noble Lord when he replies—who say that Jobcentre staff are at risk of assault and abuse from unemployed claimants about the jobseeker's allowance. The report urges the introduction of "clear escape routes" and personal alarms in some instances when unemployed people receive "unpalatable and unwelcome information". It is one thing for Ministers to present their proposals to Parliament with polite euphemisms; it is quite another for unemployed people who are already suffering poverty to be told the brutal truth of sanctions and cuts. But any government pushing through legislation which provokes angry protests, social unrest and public outrage cannot claim that they have not been warned in this House and elsewhere.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I shall take only two or three minutes and thus reduce the average length of time of speeches so far made in this debate. I shall be able to do so because of the quality of the speeches that have been made, not least that of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke.
I have a feeling that we should make greater use of our time in Committee rather than on Second Reading of this Bill. We have recently been considering the way in which our time is spent in order that the House may rise by 10 o'clock at night and not have to sit until the early hours of the morning. On this kind of Bill, for which we are the second Chamber and know we have only limited powers, it might be better to have spent this Second Reading day on an extra day in Committee.
I hope that the Government will listen to the immense amount of persuasion to which they have been subjected and will indeed find another, further day in Committee than has already been allowed—at any rate, I hope that they will keep their mind open on the subject—so that we do not have to spend night after night in the Chamber after 10 p.m.
I have only a few points of general principle to state. I cannot forbear to give them. They are very brief. First, I find it an odd conjunction to consider such a mean Bill as this one, which impoverishes and coerces the most vulnerable members of our society, at the same time as tax cuts seem to he promised in the next Budget for the benefit of middle England. Secondly, I find the increase in powers and the extension of what is in effect the policing of our society to be very worrying. Thirdly, the similarity
42
between the Child Support Bill and this Bill in policing powers—which will be given massively by subordinate legislation and not by this House or another place where they can be amended—is deplorable. As this Bill is skeletal, and no more, we shall need an assurance from the Government that its fleshing out by subordinate legislation will be the subject of most minute consultation and be given plenty of time. Indeed, drafts should be laid before the subordinate legislation is brought before Parliament, when either House can say only yes or no; and under the Whips' system in the other place that is always a "yes". The Bill is too important to be treated as a matter of party politics. We shall not be allowed parliamentary procedures whereby we can amend what might otherwise have been two-thirds of the Bill. So I feel that special attention must be paid to the subordinate legislation after the Bill has been enacted.
I believe that, as in other legislation, the discrimination against young people, who as a category (including students) very much demand our support and encouragement instead of treating them as though they were dependent children, is to be deplored in the Bill. Also the element of violence is extremely unpleasant. It is so implicit in the Bill. It must be remembered too that the Child Support Act has already driven several people to commit suicide. It may well be that this Bill will have the same effect, and not merely on several people but very many. I am also alarmed at the possibility of violence in the benefit offices. We have heard evidence of that possibility from the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and others.
I have made some rather rough comments. There are some credits to be given to the Government, which I am happy to do now. It is a very great achievement to have knocked together two huge bureaucracies. I hope that a great deal of benefit will come from it. I also like the back-to-work bonus scheme and the holiday tax allowance, which no doubt will be of great benefit. Those are imaginative schemes. One should give credit for them.
As I say, although, judging by the extremely fine speeches that we have heard this afternoon, the time of this House has been well spent, I believe that it could better have been devoted to the Committee stage. I therefore propose to reserve any further remarks to that stage.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, although not a benefit designed to cater for the needs of disabled people, the proposed jobseeker's allowance will affect long-term sick and disabled people who will be expected to sign on following the replacement this month of sickness and invalidity benefit with the more restrictive incapacity benefit, as mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree. I should perhaps declare an interest in the Bill in that I am employed by the John Groom Association for the Disabled and therefore earn my income attempting to help people with disabilities.
The conditions for the jobseeker's allowance are that applicants must be capable of work; they must be available for and actively seeking work, and have entered into a jobseeker's agreement. Disability organisations are concerned that people could fall between the two benefits—not sick enough for

43
incapacity benefit but not fit enough for jobseeker's allowance. A narrower incapacity test is estimated to move some 190,000 people from incapacity benefit to jobseeker's allowance in the coming financial year.
The current rules allow for people to place restrictions on their availability for work, such as limiting the type, hours, location or conditions of work where those are reasonable, given the person's physical or mental condition. If the restrictions are accepted as reasonable, the individual is exempt from the requirement applied to claimants with other restrictions; that is, to show that he still has a reasonable prospect of finding work. Though Ministers stated that, as now, people will be able to restrict their availability for work by reference to the type or hours of work, it is still unclear whether the current law will be fully reproduced in respect of other types of restriction such as location or distance to work.
At Report stage in the other place the Minister said that there would be a section in the jobseeker's agreement which would enable disabled people to,
"add extra points that are not necessarily to do with hours or the type of work".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/95; col. 371.]
However, to me it is still unclear whether disabled people will remain exempt from the requirement that there must be "reasonable prospects" of finding work despite the restrictions.
At Report stage in the other place Ministers clarified that the claimant's own evidence about restrictions on their availability would normally be accepted. Medical evidence would only be required in a limited number of cases, when general practitioners would be expected to provide a certificate free of charge. My honourable friend Miss Widdicombe said on Report that she would ask the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security to speak to the Department of Health about the matter. Can my noble friend say whether that conversation took place? If so, what was the outcome?
People who move off incapacity benefit onto unemployment benefit after this month stand to lose out financially. There is a difference of over £32 a week between the average weekly invalidity benefit payment, which is £79, and unemployment benefit, which is £46.45. Under the jobseeker's allowance the contributory benefit will be payable for only six months instead of 12, as now. The reason for the change is that many people return to work within six months. However, that rationale does not apply in the case of disabled people, who may take twice as long as able-bodied people to find work.
The contributory jobseeker's allowance will be reduced pound for pound where people receive an occupational or private pension of more than £50 per week. Previously that applied to pensions of more than £35 payable to people over the age of 55. That rule could adversely affect some disabled people taken off incapacity benefit when they have a payment from a previous employer in recognition of their ill-health or disability. For example, a 50 year-old man with an occupational pension of £55 a week will lose £5 weekly
44
from his contributory jobseeker's allowance. Under unemployment benefit that would not have been reduced.
Removing the dependant's allowance for a non-working spouse or partner means that contributory jobseeker's allowance will amount to a personal allowance only. An earlier means test could bite particularly hard for people with income or savings above the limit. That could disproportionately affect disabled women, particularly if leaving incapacity benefit, who are more likely than male claimants to have partners or spouses working full-time. It would exclude them from the means-tested jobseeker's allowance. The savings limit of more than £8,000 could exclude disabled people with capital derived from compensation for personal injuries.
The Jobseekers Bill includes provision for back-to-work schemes. That includes a bonus for people working less than 16 hours which, as I understand it, amounts to 50p out of every £1 of earnings above the earnings limit (£5, or £15 for someone with a disability premium). That is payable once someone moves into work of more than 16 hours a week. Another clause provides for a year's national insurance contributions holiday for employers recruiting people who have been unemployed for two years, which is most welcome.
Amendments to extend the provisions to people on incapacity benefits or carers were not accepted during the Commons stages of the Bill. Ministers argued that disabled people who were claiming jobseeker's allowance or income support would be covered, but those who were on incapacity benefits were not the target group for the bonus. The Government expressed some sympathy with the position of carers and promised to consider their position in the development of the back-to-work schemes. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us whether or not he will bring forward suitable amendments at a later stage of the Bill.
The Bill misses an opportunity to assist the movement of disabled people on incapacity benefit from benefit into work. The announcement that ex-carers can use a period on invalid care allowance to link to jobseeker's allowance and therefore qualify for contributory benefit, provided there has not been a break of more than 12 weeks, is welcome. However, despite the indications in Committee in the other place, I understand that that 12-week linking rule will not apply to incapacity benefit. That means that people on incapacity benefit will have only eight weeks in which to try out work and requalify for their previous level of benefit. There was also no acceptance of the use of pilot schemes to test out other models of a partial incapacity benefit.
When opening the debate my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said that the Government will protect people with disabilities.
I hope, therefore, that he will look kindly upon amendments that I and others will table to improve the position of disabled people as the Bill progresses through your Lordships' House. I took considerable note of what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in relation to the number of regulation-making powers

45
within the Bill, which is quite extraordinary. Perhaps my noble friend will bring forward at the next stage an amendment to retitle the Bill the "Henry VIII Bill".
Clause 3 relates to the question of partners. I find that to be a particularly difficult concept. What is a partner? How long does one have to remain in a partnership? Are partners always of the same sex? Can they be changed frequently? There does not appear to be any real watertight legal definition of that term. I would have preferred to see the term left as "spouse".
5.20 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I must crave the indulgence of the House in the presentation of my remarks because I may not be as articulate as I would normally hope to be. I am suffering from 'flu at the moment and so I ask the House to bear with me.
I want to say a few words about the background to the Bill, to touch on what the Government are trying to do and then to suggest what will probably be the result of the Bill. Before I do so I think it is worth reflecting a little on my own experience. I have been unemployed three times during my working life: once for a period of about a week in the 1960s, but I obtained employment fairly quickly thereafter; once in the 1980s for 12 months; and once in the 1990s for 11 months—to date.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, pointed out how British manufacturing industry had been decimated in the recession to which we have been subjected under the Tory Government of the past 16 years. I can remember a trade union official telling me in the mid-1980s that Margaret Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe had done more damage to British manufacturing industry than Hitler and Goering in the last war. That is a fairly strong statement, but it is quite intriguing to think that after the war this country was capable of building ocean liners. We built quality motor cars for affluent people. We built a number of motor cars —not just Jaguars and Rolls-Royces but Rovers and one or two others. What is the situation now? We seem to be incapable of building ocean liners to the requirements of P&O. There seems to be quite a fashion among rich people in this country to buy prestige motor cars that are not made in this country. I am talking about BMWs, Mercedes and so on.
The whole concept of unemployment benefit as we have known it since the war is built on the basis of trust—the trust that the Government, of whichever party, would run the economy on the basis of full employment. That was part of the bargain. The other side of the bargain was that the individual agreed to work. The payment of unemployment benefit allowed for dislocations in the economy; it provided some fluidity in the economy and it enabled change to take place without undue hardship to the individual. The intriguing point is that it was actually paid for by the individual through national insurance contributions. For the past 15 years this Government have broken that trust. They have said in effect that the job of government is not to run the economy on the basis of full employment; that the job of government is to run the economy on the basis of some modern gold standard and that it does not matter about unemployment. The
46
implication of that is mass unemployment. However, the old mechanism—the payment of unemployment benefit—has continued until the advent of this Bill.
Why are the Government introducing the Bill at this time? A number of speakers have mentioned the escalation in the social security budget. The Government would accept that the reason they are introducing the Bill is to save money—the way they put it is that it will save taxpayers' money. But it is money which people have contributed through national insurance contributions. It is not the Government's money; it is the workers' money in the sense that it is an insurance fund.
A number of eloquent contributions this afternoon have dealt with some of the implications of the Bill. The risk of violence in the unemployment offices has been mentioned; the increase in poverty that individuals and their families will experience has been mentioned; the ludicrous situation that, unless changes are made to the Bill, people will be denied a sensible opportunity of gaining education and training has been mentioned. One of the points that has not been mentioned is the effect that the Bill will have on marriage and on people living together. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, touched on that point when he suggested that the word "spouse" should be used rather than "partner". What will be the effect on marriage?
When a man is made unemployed it is an enormously stressful time for that person as an individual and for the family at large. With unemployment benefit as we know it today the payment as of right of a non-means tested benefit for 12 months provides a cushion to that feeling of lack of self-worth and the feeling that the spouse or the partner of the man may have that he is not contributing to the household, especially when the Government keep saying that the reason we have unemployment is that people are not prepared to work, as opposed to the fact that they cannot get a job. That has an effect on families and on the relationships between people. For quite a large proportion of families that line is held because the man is contributing something—he is contributing unemployment benefit to that household's income for 12 months. One of the effects of the Bill will be to restrict that to six months.
One of the problems that I can see—I am sure that if the Government were prepared to listen to sociologists who work in the field they would probably see it in similar terms to myself—is an increase in the breakdown of marriage. That is part of the problem, but the position is a little worse than that. One of the other effects is that, in trying to do the best for their families, men may leave their wives and go and live in a flat somewhere in order to ensure that they can claim income support. The flat rent will be covered by housing benefit. They will then have some money of their own which they can contribute. What will be the net effect of that? The net effect will be a waste of national resources. Instead of having a family living in one house there will be a divided family in two houses. It is a wasteful use of housing accommodation.
One of the other effects of the Bill will be to drive down unemployment benefit, income support, national pension provision and student grants. What will the Government do with the money they save? They will

47
give it back to rich people in the form of tax cuts. What will be the net effect of that? Those rich people will buy BMWs and Porsches and go on holidays on the "Oriana", which will have a negative effect on the British economy; whereas if those benefits were increased, the people would spend their money on British goods and services. That would increase employment and there would be a virtuous circle.
It is a little too late for this Government, but I hope that we can persuade, as I am sure we can, some noble Lords on the Government Benches—we have heard some interesting contributions today—to make some changes to the Bill in order to make it a little less pernicious than it otherwise would be. But the real salvation will be the next Labour Government.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I intervene very briefly. My name was on the list of speakers, but I withdrew it in anticipation of a personal difficulty which, I am happy to say, did not arise. I do not normally take part in employment Bills, but I find some aspects of this Bill so offensive that I am quite unable to remain silent. However, today I shall respect the conventions about speaking in the gap and simply put on record that I hope to be able to support my noble friends in improving this Bill at the later stages.
5.31 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, since January and through to July, this House has been and will be discussing and debating four social security Bills. We have had already the Pensions Bill; today we have the Jobseekers Bill; soon, there will be a disability Bill and soon after that a Child Support Agency reform Bill. Three of those Bills we on this side of the House will and do broadly support, although I have no doubt we shall wish to amend, strengthen and improve them.
But not this Bill. It contains a sprinkle of small goodies which have been repeated tonight, such as the back-to-work bonus, the national insurance employers' holiday, the roll over of housing benefit and council tax benefit, which we all welcome. But the core of this Bill we believe to be nasty and pernicious because, quite simply, it takes as a starting point the blaming of the unemployed for their unemployment and therefore seeks to make their life on unemployment benefit, to coin a cliché, mean, nasty, solitary, brutish and short.
But, despite the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, the problem is not those who will not work but could, but those who want to work but cannot. There are probably 5 million people today who are seeking work but cannot find it. There are 3 million fewer full-time jobs in the economy now than there were in 1979. Even though wage rates have fallen for the lower paid—1.25 million people earn less than £2.50 per hour, as many of my noble friends have cited today—there are still eight or 10 claimants for every registered vacancy. As my noble friend Lord Ashley quoted, we have had today the devastating report from Oxford which shows a fall in the number of men in full-time
48
work. Having wrecked our manufacturing economy and made the employed unemployed, the Government now finger them for their unemployment, and hence this Bill.
Beveridge said that,
"The only satisfactory test of unemployment is an offer of work".
What we have instead in this Bill is a jobseeker's agreement—not, as Beveridge would have it, that if one seeks work one will obtain it, but that unless one seeks work which is not there one will not get benefit for being unable to find it. That so-called "agreement" is going to be reinforced by a deep cut in benefit. Not only will contributory benefit fall from 12 months to six months, but in all sorts of other nasty ways, including the removal of the adult dependant's allowance, age reductions, the tightening of part-time study work and the harsh treatment of redundancy money, its financial value will be cut. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, so rightly said, in the process some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society are still further attacked—that is to say, women, the young, the disabled, the homeless, old and redundant men and the longer-term unemployed.
So we oppose this Bill as my noble friend Lady Turner so eloquently argued. We despise its principles—no, they are not principles—we despise the ideology that informs it. We oppose it on four main grounds. First, as many noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Park, have mentioned, we object to the authoritarianism of this Bill. This jobseeker's agreement is not an agreement. As my noble friend Lady Dean said, there is no equity of contract; it is a directive backed by powers to impose benefit penalties covering highly personal matters such as appearance and behaviour at interview. How many holes are there in the jumper and how long does the hair have to be before one risks losing benefit? What many of us find so offensive about the new Right, Tory ideology is that the Bill demonstrates a deeply unpleasant reading of human nature. It assumes the worst about people. They are workshy, scroungers and layabouts unless they are browbeaten or penalised, not into work but into the fruitless and demoralising search for work that does not exist.
The Department of Employment, the DSS and all the major research foundations, have found abundant evidence—and I know the Minister knows it—that the unemployed are desperate to work. We have plenty of research to the effect that single parents, the disabled and the long-term unemployed all want to work not just because of the money but because of the need for sociability and self-esteem. What is stopping them is not lack of moral fibre, the lack of a punitive jobseeker's agreement or a too-generous benefit level, but the lack of childcare for women, the lack of suitable skills for older men with manual skills; discrimination and poor health records for some disabled people, or limited access to and information about the labour market. Above all there is the loss to our economy of about 5 million full-time jobs.
The problem is not because they are workshy, choosy or because they are not accepting wages that are not realistically low enough or because they are receiving benefits which are unrealistically high. Over one half of

49
the unemployed receive in benefit less than one half of what they last received when in work. That is some incentive! As the department's own social security advisory committee has argued, in times of high unemployment actively seeking work rules and jobseeker's agreements should be eased and not tightened. Instead this Bill pushes in precisely the opposite direction, to our shame.
The second objection to this Bill is because it increases the poverty of the unemployed. Not surprisingly, the Minister said very little about that. That is because, as my noble friends have said, 90,000 people will lose their benefit and 150,000 will receive between 20 per cent. and 70 per cent. less in benefit. Existing benefits are already far from generous. Already over one half of unemployed men fall behind with their rent, council tax, mortgages and fuel bills. They will now move even deeper into debt. Only a short while ago this House raised the national insurance contribution by about 10 per cent., raising an extra £2.2 billion for the Treasury. Now that same insurance-based benefit is being cut from 12 months to six months and thereafter it will be means-tested.
But is not just that: because the Government are not content they are putting on some pretty unpleasant topspin. If one wants or needs to claim an allowance for one's wife because one has young children and the wife is not in work, then one is not allowed any contributory benefit at all. One moves immediately to means-tested benefit, whereupon one is promptly penalised for any modest savings that one might have, either built up over the years or perhaps a redundancy payment. If a woman, the situation is even worse. Having paid national insurance contributions, 60 per cent. of women will lose their jobseeker's allowance because their partner is in work and it is means-tested. Not, therefore, being eligible for benefit, those persons will usefully disappear from the unemployment count.
This legislation also hurts and damages disabled people, who will find the simplistic and unrealistic "either/or" test of fitness or unfitness to work for incapacity benefit interlocking with a similar simplistic and unrealistic approach in the jobseeker's allowance so that, as many noble Lords such as the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lord Ashley have argued tonight, those with fluctuating conditions, with less severe mental health problems or with learning disability difficulties or those whose pain and fatigue are cumulative will find themselves barred from incapacity benefit but unable to meet the jobseeker's agreement and may be left with nothing at all.
The Bill deepens the poverty of young people. That was the special concern of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Although they have paid national insurance at the standard rate, those under 25 will nonetheless see a 20 per cent. cut in benefit whatever their home responsibilities.
The Bill also worsens the poverty of the single homeless, who may be told that their first step, under the jobseeker's agreement, will be to get accommodation. That often requires a month's rent in advance, which they cannot find. So, because they are
50
homeless—and remain homeless—they will be deemed to have failed the jobseeker's test. On what then will they live?
I think that I am right in saying that, for the first time in the history of the welfare state, potentially large groups of adults will have no benefit—no legitimate income whatsoever—once the Bill becomes law. I ask your Lordships to think of the implications of that. In the United States, where single men are not entitled to a legitimate benefit, they get their income illegitimately, off the streets, and 2 per cent. end up in prison. One might think that that is a rather expensive form of income support.
Thirdly, we object to the Bill not only because it is authoritarian and demoralising to the unemployed and not only because it deepens their poverty but because, while doing so, it will increase, not decrease, our public expenditure on benefits—the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, notwithstanding. Such a Bill is not only indecent hut—almost as unforgivable—it is stupid also. I shall seek to follow my noble friend Lord Monkswell in explaining why.
Let us take the case of a husband who is in work and whose wife is in part-time work earning perhaps £80 per week. They have two children. They are work-rich. If the husband loses his job, he will get contributory benefit for the first six months and his wife will remain in work. Some benefit will be paid, such as housing and council tax benefits, totalling perhaps £109. However, after six months, the husband will move on to means-tested benefits if he is among the third who are unable to find work. If his wife remains in part-time work, his benefit will be docked virtually pound for pound. With the extra costs of work, such as clothes and travel, it will not be worth her working, so she will stop work. That household is now work-poor. Both are now on benefit and will need additional allowances, such as full housing benefit, full council tax benefit, free school meals and free prescriptions. Their total benefit bill will increase from £109 per week to £180 per week. Precisely because it had been means-tested, we would be paying more in benefit than would have been the case if the benefit had been contributory. If the wife had remained in work, she could have continued to float them off the benefit trap. Instead, we as taxpayers are paying more than £70 per week more in benefits than would be the case if the family were not means-tested.
That is stupid. Indeed, it is even worse—precisely because both husband and wife have now become so dependent on benefits, the husband would need to earn about £200 per week to spring them off benefits. He cannot—and so they will not be able to come off benefits. They are locked into benefits, and the longer they remain so and the more out of touch with the labour market they remain, the harder it will be for them to get back into work. Means-testing will cost us, as taxpayers, more and for longer. That is perverse. It takes some doing for a government to produce a Bill which simultaneously constructs a poverty trap, a dependency trap and a savings trap, but the Government have managed all three. When will the Treasury learn?
Finally, we object to the Bill because it does not do what it says that it will do in its Long Title, which is,

51
"to promote the employment of the unemployed".
As my noble friend Lady David and the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, nowhere is that more evident than in the 21-hour study rule. We all know that we need to skill and educate our workforce. All of the research shows that general educational qualifications are at least as valuable as vocational training in obtaining work, yet it is proposed not only to cut benefits for those in part-time study for more than 16 hours per week, but, if someone is in part-time study for only five hours per week but nonetheless has paid fees of, say, £100 for a computer course or for lessons to teach them to drive heavy goods vehicles, the fact that they have invested so much of their own savings in that course is taken as evidence that they are not sufficiently committed to seeking work. Again, that is stupid. Such people will be required to take temporary, part-time, insecure, low-paid work rather than being allowed to become skilled (at their own expense) for useful and decent work. Again, that is short-termism of the worst sort. In this Bill, we see not efforts to promote the employment of the unemployed, but efforts to harass, police and coerce them—and to cut their benefits.
Back in December 1992 this House passed the actively seeking work regulations. But that did not produce the effect for which the Government had hoped, which was to reduce benefit levels. That was precisely because the Government found that people were actively seeking work. So, in April 1994, the target for disqualifying people from benefit was doubled to 150,000 per year. I ask your Lordships to note that we are talking not about a target for getting people into work, but about a target to disqualify them from benefit. What a goal at which to aim: "Get 150,000 off the books!" And it is on those new operational targets that staff performance and performance-related pay may be based. The inescapable conclusion, which I am sure is as distasteful to the staff as it is to these Benches, is that benefits staff will earn more if they ensure that benefits claimants and up getting less. That is the ugliest of all social contracts, yet at the same time the chief adjudication officer worries about the quality of the decision-making. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, the annual report of 1993–94 found that 92 per cent. of appeal decisions were unsatisfactory.
There we have it: the Minister professes to be worried by the workshy; we are worried by the work-poor. I ask your Lordships: in what way will the Bill create one extra job'? What we do know is that it will humiliate and impoverish the unemployed while simultaneously adding to the benefits bill that we shall all end up paying. As the Oxford Review of Economic Policy, which was quoted by my noble friend Lord Ashley, shows today, so-called labour flexibility and making benefits conditional upon job search are irrelevant. What matters is investment and the skills bank to exploit that.
52
As other noble Lords have said, we have had 15 wasted years and another wasteful Bill. It is wasteful of people, wasteful of opportunity and wasteful of money. We have nothing but contempt for it.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Government are committed to giving unemployed people a better chance of taking a fair share of the increasing number of available jobs. The new jobseeker's allowance will play a vital part in targeting our help on every individual who wants work. It is designed to meet the needs of unemployed people from the time they start to look for a job until they are back in work.
We have had a useful and wide-ranging debate this afternoon about the interface between the labour market and the benefits system. As was made clear by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, much of our debate has been not about the Bill, which is the skeleton of the new system, but about the policy details which will be attached to it in secondary legislation.
There is a consensus in this House that the priority must be to help people back to work. I agree. I believe that we have shown in this debate that JSA will do this. Nonetheless, a number of important concerns have been raised about the impact of the new benefit. Whilst I believe that those concerns are unfounded, I should like to address some of the points that have been raised. First, the jobseeker's agreement provides a new focus on the experience and actions of unemployed people as individuals. Each has different needs and will follow different paths in the labour market. The jobseeker's agreement will enable each jobseeker, and the Employment Service, to plan the most effective steps back to work for that person.
The agreement will ensure that each jobseeker fully understands his duties and responsibilities in return for the benefit that he receives. At the same time, it will ensure that he receives expert advice and is aware of the help and services that the Employment Service is able to offer for successful jobsearch. To say, as was intimated unintentionally, I believe, that the Employment Service does not put its efforts in to finding work for those it is helping is a calumny. Each agreement will set out the terms of the jobseeker's availability for work, including any restrictions that he wishes to place upon it and the steps he will take to look for work. That will bring greater clarity to the conditions for benefit. But the agreement itself will not change the conditions for benefit. As my noble friend the Minister of State has made clear in his opening, the conditions remain those set out in the legislation.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister giving an assurance that regulations will not change the conditions of benefit? If so, that is very welcome.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, referring to Clause 6, it is clear that the subject matter of the regulation is what is contained in subsection (2) (a) and (c). Those paragraphs simply define and interpret the law to the facts of the particular case, according to my understanding.

53
In introducing the initiative of the agreement we have sought to ensure that the jobseeker is fully protected against being required to take any unreasonable steps. If an agreement cannot be reached, both the jobseeker and employment officer will be able to refer proposals for an agreement to independent adjudication and appeal.
A number of associated points were raised. For example, the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Hollis, raised the question of the Employment Service having a target for disallowing benefit. This is not a target for disallowance or suspension of benefit. It provides a requirement for Employment Service staff to meet high standards of quality and accuracy in the submissions that they make to the independent adjudication officers. A question was also raised about the reduction in the contributory period for the jobseeker's allowance. It is important to appreciate that this is not a contributory scheme. The national insurance scheme is a pay-as-you-go scheme, and it is an established principle that Parliament can alter the rules with reasonable notice.
I turn to the proposals for jobseeker's directions that have received some criticisms. I do not accept them. Of course, there may be occasions when a jobseeker is not prepared to accept the help offered to him and will not agree to make reasonable efforts to secure a job. In those circumstances, it is entirely reasonable that the Employment Service adviser should be able to require the jobseeker to make the most of the available opportunities, whether it be to undertake training or to improve jobsearch skills. It goes without saying that claimants will always be treated reasonably and fairly. Any decisions to impose a benefit sanction will be made by an independent adjudication officer. He will decide whether a direction is reasonable in the light of the claimant's circumstances. No sanction will be imposed on a claimant who can show that he has good cause for refusing or failing to carry out a direction. Benefit will continue to be paid in full until the adjudication officer has made a decision.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the status of the adjudication officer. He is an independent officer and is ultimately subject to the rules of natural justice in the exercise of his tasks. We regard it as important that decisions on questions that arise from claims for jobseeker's allowance will be taken by independent adjudication officers. I emphasise that there is no truth whatsoever in the suggestion that decisions on JSA will be privatised.
The introduction of JSA will mean a number of changes to the manner in which adjudication decisions are taken in the Employment Service and in the Benefits Agency. We are currently considering those changes and are continually looking at ways to improve the speed of adjudication decisions. If locating some adjudication decisions closer to the work with individual jobseekers will speed the process of adjudication and give claimants a better service, it is right that such ideas should be properly considered and piloted if appropriate. I hope that your Lordships will welcome such a commitment to improving services.
54
The noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Dean, together with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, raised the question of the possible danger in Employment Service offices during the exercise of their jobseeker's allowance functions. The functions previously carried out by the DSS and the Employment Service have been brought together. The document to which reference was made was one that was leaked but not taken further forward. Clearly, it is important that there is safety for staff in the offices. That is a matter which must be properly taken into account. At the same time we must make sure that the premises are user-friendly for those who are to go into the offices. I assure my noble friend Lady Park that proper training will be given to those who are involved in administering the new system.
A number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Ashley, my noble friends Lord Dean of Harptree and Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, raised anxieties about disability issues. Throughout the planning of the new benefit the Government have been concerned that we should include and not exclude people with disabilities, and that we address their needs specifically and not assume that somehow they will fit in. No disabled person need face exclusion from both incapacity benefit and JSA. There will be no grey area between the two benefits. If a person is found capable of work through the new tests for incapacity benefit that decision will apply also to JSA. Of course, all JSA claimants must be available for employment, but we recognise that some people's mental or physical condition may cause them difficulties in making themselves available for the full range of employment opportunities. Therefore, we will make specific provision in JSA that they should he able to restrict their availability to the hours of work that they are able to undertake within the limits of their condition.
The Employment Service offers a range of specialised services to people with disabilities. Every week they help over 1,000 disabled people into work; and next year they aim to do even better. The new challenging targets for the Employment Service announced last week will call for that service to place 75,000 in jobs, the highest total ever.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, in Gilbertian mode, asked me four questions. Since I reply in my capacity as captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, I will reply fully to him in writing, if I may.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, raised the question of discrimination against disabled people. This is a matter that will be fully and widely dealt with in the context of the disability Bill that will be discussed in this House before too long.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen raised the question of the cost of medical evidence in cases of restricted availability. He referred to some remarks that had been made by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the other place. This matter is still under consideration, and we shall return to it at Committee stage.
Another group whose special needs your Lordships are concerned about are those jobseekers with caring responsibilities. As my noble friend the Minister of State emphasised, the Government accept the special

55
circumstances and needs of these people. We will allow them to restrict the hours of their availability to fit in with caring responsibilities. We have also responded to concerns that carers can lose entitlement to contributory unemployment benefit if they have been receiving invalid care allowance for some years and earned no national insurance contributions during that time. If their caring responsibilities come to an end, their entitlement to contributory JSA will he based on their contributions record before they claimed invalid care allowance. That further underlines our commitment to those people who devote themselves to caring. I very much hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree who raised those matters.
As has been mentioned, on many occasions the House has debated the help and support which the Government provide for 16 and 17 year-olds. I should like to begin by emphasising once more that the Government guarantee every young person who is not in employment or full-time education a suitable training place if they want one. That comes with an allowance which in many cases is topped up by a trainer. Most young people need not, and should not, look to the benefit system. They should not become dependent upon benefit.
We are spending £676 million on youth training in England—a significant investment in the future of our young people and the nation's economy. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne made the point about the lack of constructiveness of training just for the sake of training as opposed to training to help people, and that was a point that was well taken.
If young people are in a vulnerable group, or if they are at risk of severe hardship because a suitable training place and allowance have not been provided, we will provide for them and continue to do so. There is no change in policy in JSA in that respect. But young people should take any suitable opportunity of training, or work with training, that is offered to them. A minority of young people should not be allowed to abuse the system by rejecting without penalty the help offered. That is why we are ensuring in JSA that there is a clear and fair system of sanctions for young people.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady Park asked why the allowances for those under 25 are not the same as those for a higher age group. The answer is simple. It is that they do not have the same earning expectations and commitments as those who are older. At the same time, I must emphasise that, where there are families, they of course are entitled to income-based JSA like any other family.
A number of speakers, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Dean, Lady David, and Lady Hollis, and my noble friend Lady Park, urged the Government to look further into the matter of benefit provisions to allow unemployed people to study while still receiving benefit. Full-time students are not allowed to claim unemployment benefits, because it is not their first priority to find a job. Those who wish to study full-time should look elsewhere for support. The benefit regime—
56
this is an important distinction—should not become an alternative source of funds for education provision. That was a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Of course I accept, as the noble Baroness. Lady David, said, that courses of study can help unemployed people to get back to work. That is why unemployed people are currently allowed to study part-time and to continue to claim benefit, provided that they remain available for and are actively seeking work. That will continue under JSA. But the current rules are becoming increasingly difficult to administer.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Will they he allowed to continue their course if they are being asked to do an unqualified job, which is something that will interrupt their training and not he worthy of them?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness's question is a hypothetical one. The crucial point here is that the way further education is going, as I understand it, means that there is frequently considerable flexibility in how the learning is presented. We understand that in many cases it is possible, if there appears to be a clash, to find a mutually satisfactory outcome by negotiation.
As I said, the current rules are becoming increasingly difficult to administer, and we have faced calls from all sides for greater clarity in the arrangements. That is what we shall achieve with the JSA. People claiming JSA will be able to enrol on FEFC-funded courses of up to 16 guided-learning hours per week. There will be no such change in higher education, where the full-time/part-time distinction is still recognised, and will continue. There will he no restriction on private study, provided that people remain available for work. I hope that that confirms the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David.
The debates over those changes, especially in earlier stages of the Bill in another place, have been characterised by misunderstanding, so let me make it clear: this is not an exercise in cutting provision. The same number of unemployed people (about 80,000) will be studying and claiming benefit. On the contrary, it introduces a clear and workable regime, and should he welcomed as such.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, expressed concern at the use in the Bill of delegated powers. The House takes very seriously its responsibilities for scrutinising the use of delegated legislation, and it is right to do so. But I think that it will by now have become clear to your Lordships that the Bill deals with extremely complex and detailed issues—issues which it would he inappropriate to draw into primary legislation.
It has long been recognised that the nuts and bolts of social security rules should be issues for regulation and not primary legislation. Social security legislation needs to he flexible to cope sensitively with changes in circumstances; with changes in operational requirements; with a labour market of many facets. That can best be done through secondary legislation.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers will, I am sure, examine in great depth the Government's proposals for secondary legislation. We have given the

57
committee a very detailed account of the Government's policy and our reasons in each instance why we believe secondary legislation is an appropriate vehicle. Where our intentions still remain unclear from the face of the Bill we will of course explain our policy proposals in Committee.
Very many of the powers in the Bill carry across provisions in the 1992 Social Security Acts. As far as possible the Bill proposes the same procedures for control and scrutiny of delegated powers. It seems to the Government sensible to follow what Parliament has found satisfactory in the past. The Bill therefore ensures that all regulations made before the allowance is payable will be subject to affirmative resolution, I am sure that your Lordships will wish to consider the regulations when they are brought before you.
Pilots brought forward under the new power in the Bill to run pilots of regulations under JSA and the income-related benefits will also be subject to affirmative resolutions. I believe that it is right that your Lordships should be given the opportunity to examine and debate on each occasion the Government's proposals under that unprecedented power.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said about the opportunity to discuss. Will he tell us how the House can give or withhold its consent?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, there is a convention on how those matters are dealt with. Let us see what the memorandum says, and then, if noble Lords wish to raise any different matters, that may be the appropriate moment to do so.
The Bill is a comprehensive, coherent and innovative measure, as my noble friend Lord Trefgame said. It is part of a wide-ranging reform of labour market and benefit measures. It is comprehensive because it does what no government of either party have attempted for 80 years. It creates a single system of support for unemployed people while they look for work. Where there have been two benefits, there will be one. One benefit with one set of rules means clarity and simplicity. It means better service for unemployed people.
The Bill is coherent because it is informed by an approach which the Government have applied with consistency and conviction. We have created a climate in which businesses can flourish and so create jobs. We have cut down on the kind of public spending which costs jobs. We have liberated enterprise and the ambition of individuals. We have promoted active labour market policies to increase the responsiveness of the workforce to changes in the world of work and to help people back into jobs.
We should not forget that recently the European Community pointed out that in our country it is no job rather than low pay which is at the root of poverty. The results are clear to see. Unemployment has fallen by over 600,000 over the past two years and is now lower than in all major EU countries.
As my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree pointed out, the Bill is innovative in the incentives it introduces to encourage jobseeking and the take-up of work. In
58
doing so it creates real winners: the 150,000 winners who will benefit from the back-to-work bonus; the 120,000 winners who will be covered by the NICs holiday; the 200,000 extra people who can take advantage of employment on trial; those who will be guaranteed their existing rates of housing benefit and council tax benefit in the first weeks of starting a new job; those whose partners will now be able to work up to 24 hours without the work affecting the family's benefit.
Our proposals for jobseekers will help Britain to generate more jobs. They will help unemployed people to find work; they will strengthen Britain's economy and will give better value for taxpayers' money. They will be welcomed by those who want to sec a prosperous economy, the only source of all benefit payments, and who want to help unemployed people achieve their main goal: a job. I commend the measures to your Lordships and I invite the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Charities (Trustee Investments Act 1961) Order 1995
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Blotch Baroness Blotch rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order would use powers in Section 70 of the Charities Act 1993 to modify the effect of the 1961 Act in relation to charities. Central to the purpose of the order is the importance of achieving an appropriate balance between risk and return in relation to a charity's investments. What is at issue here is the best use of charities' assets; in the first instance by way of investment so as at some time in the future to secure effective work by charities. Also relevant are questions of accountability and safe keeping where possibly substantial assets have been donated by the public and are being held on trust by the charity.
Trustees are subject to important obligations of care in relation to such assets and must in general avoid risk. When the Trustee Investments Act was enacted in 1961 it was, therefore, an important liberalising measure, allowing trustees to invest more freely. In particular, it introduced the classifications of "wider-range" investments, such as equities, and "narrower-range", such as government gilts. The Act requires that where trustees divide assets for investment they must do so equally—50:50—into the two classes. The Act also requires trustees to obtain and consider proper investment advice and to have regard for the suitability of investments and the need for diversification.
We recognise that there has been concern in relation to the restrictions these provisions have imposed for charities. In addition, professional investment advice has now been strengthened by regulation under the Financial Services Act 1986. Concerns in relation to charities were voiced particularly by the deregulation task force on charities and voluntary organisations, which reported in July last year. The task force review was an important exercise and the Government have responded very

59
positively to its many recommendations. The number of recommendations has meant that to give proper consideration to each we have had to prioritise the action that we take. Already we have made some changes to the Charities Acts of 1992 and 1993 through the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and have taken careful account of their relevant recommendations in provisions we brought into force last month and in an important consultation document issued recently.
The deregulation task force also recommended a modification to the effect of the Trustee Investments Act in relation to charities and, indeed, other trusts. The Government accept the case for change. This order would mean that, where charities divide funds for investment in pursuance of the 1961 Act, three times as much money would be invested in typically higher growth, wider-range investments, compared to more secure, narrower-range investments—a change from a 50:50 split to 75:25. This is a good and worthwhile measure.
I can also inform your Lordships that last week the Treasury issued a consultation document inviting views by the end of June on the proposition that a similar change should be made in relation to trusts generally, using powers in the Trustee Investments Act.
The present order does not meet in full the recommendations of the deregulation task force, which proposed a change to a 90:10 split and suggested that consideration should be given to allowing further investment powers beyond those permitted in the definition of "wider-range" powers. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that the current order is, at the least, a substantial move towards that recommendation. The Treasury proposal for further reform is another step in that direction and in that case is the maximum extent to which the relevant modification can be made without amendment to the primary legislation itself.
Further amendment is, of course, possible in principle. I am reasonably sure that those who may wish to argue for such change will continue to do so. However, at this stage, the Government's view is that a change to 75:25 is the one they consider it right to make. In relation to this draft order, there is the additional reason that there is a logic in keeping the rules for charities in line with what is proposed, and it is the maximum possible under the law as it currently stands in relation to trusts generally.
Charities which consider that there is a particular need for wider investment powers in their individual circumstances are, of course, able to apply to the Charity Commission seeking a modification to their trust deed by a scheme. Investments by charities in common investment funds do not need to be taken into account for the purposes of any division into wider and narrower-range funds under the 1961 Act. Perhaps I may allay any fears which charities might have and say that this order would not compel funds long since divided 50:50 to he re-divided if, over time, more than 75 per cent. of their current value were now in wider-range investments. On the other hand, Section 70(2) of the Charities Act 1993 means that, once this
60
order has been made, a charity will be able to make one further re-division of funds previously divided 50:50 should it wish to take advantage of the 75:25 split.
Your Lordships may also wish to know that the power in Section 70 of the Charities Act 1993 enables this order to apply not only to England and Wales but also to Scotland. I am pleased to say that, with the agreement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, the order will also apply there.
I have emphasised the need for a balance in relation to investment and the fact that the Government have accepted the case for considerable change. I recognise that some would like to go further, but I have explained why we are not at this stage persuaded that that would be justified. I invite your Lordships to agree on the current proposals set out in the order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will he grateful to the Minister for introducing the order with a good deal more seriousness than it was introduced in another place last week. There the Minister introduced it in a rather cavalier manner and I do not believe that he knew what would hit him. My honourable friend Alun Michael, who had done his homework on the subject, pointed out a number of grave deficiencies in the order. The order is not in itself wrong but it contains inadequacies which Mr. Baker had not considered possible. I am glad to see that today the Minister's brief has been substantially amended to take account a number of the points made by my honourable friend.
Perhaps I may make clear the extent to which the order is inadequate. The 1961 Act was, in its time, a measure of liberalisation. It gave a degree of freedom to charity trustees to balance their portfolios between equities and gilts and between wider and narrower-range investments. However, by 1982 the Law Reform Committee had described it as being no longer a matter of liberalisation but of severe restriction on the ability of trustees to maximise the return on their investments as they are required to do by law. That was confirmed in 1989 by a Government White Paper. It was confirmed again in 1990 by a National Audit Office report and again in 1991 in the debates on the Charities Bill. Finally, as the Minister reminded us, the deregulation task force described the inadequacies of the 1961 legislation in considerable detail. It made detailed recommendations as to how it should be changed.
As the Minister reminded us more successfully than the Minister in another place did there, the scope of the order is more limited than might appear. First, it applies only to charitable trusts and not to charitable companies. Secondly, the disposition of investments which have already been made, and which have resulted in a balance of investment different from the 50:50 provided in 1961 or the 75:25 provided under this order, will not he affected by the order because those investments can remain.

61
Thirdly, charities—and this is true for many of the larger charities—may have discretion in their constitutions to make investment activity outside the scope of the order. Even if they do not have discretion in the constitution, they may obtain a scheme from the Charity Commissioners to secure exemption. Therefore, on the whole the order will apply only to a minority of charities or perhaps a minority of charity funds, although it will probably apply to a majority of the smaller charities.
But let us think of the opportunities that are being missed in bringing forward this petty little order now instead of taking the issue seriously and trying to give charity trustees the opportunity and the duty to maximise the return on their investments. The Minister reminded us rightly of the changes that have been made in the role of investment advisers under the Financial Services Act 1986. But the 1961 Act takes no account, of course, of the provisions of that Act. Investment advice—I am looking at the Good Trustee Guide produced by the National Council of Voluntary Organisations—may be given by accountants, bank managers, stockbrokers, members of the charity staff or one of the trustees. That provides no protection.
The Good Trustee Guide reminds us that trustees who give investment advice should consider the extent of any professional negligence liability which they may incur by doing so. Would not this have been an opportunity to make sure that the giving of investment advice to charities was codified; that the advantages of the Financial Services Act 1986 were made available to charities; and that they should be required to seek investment advice from those who are approved to give it under the 1986 Act?
I turn now to what is called the measure of liberalisation. Why have the Government not taken the advice of those bodies to which I referred as reporting on the 1961 Act and their deregulation task force not merely to change the percentage from an arbitrary 50:50 to an arbitrary 75:25 but by removing altogether the restriction? I shall not go into the same detail as Alun Michael. I suspect that he was moving into the arguments of Goneril and Regan about King Lear's need for a train of retainers:
"What need you five and twenty, ten, or five?"
Seriously, there is no magic in 50:50 or in 75:25. Good investment advice, provided by someone qualified to give that advice and who is regulated by the Financial, Services Act to give it, could well be different for different charities and need not follow the same percentage pattern. Therefore, in that sense too, the order is inadequate.
Above all, after the experience of Barings, we know that there is an urgent need to prevent charities investing all their resources in a single institution, even a single hank, as my noble friend Lord Chandos reminded us last week. That opportunity too has been missed.
62
Of course we shall not oppose the order. It is no worse and very, very marginally better than the original Act. But it is not the order which should be before your Lordships today.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, by and large I welcome the order although, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I should have preferred it to go further.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, told us about who had been involved in the decisions. She indicated that the Government had accepted that there was a case for considerable change. She referred to the work of the deregulation task force. The only thing missing from her speech was any reference to the discussions we had in Committee on the Charities Bill when we were applying our minds to exactly those issues we are debating today; namely, whether we should give trustees greater authority to make their own investment decisions.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will be astonished to learn that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was wholly opposed to that amendment and the Government were defeated on the issue. In future perhaps the noble Baroness will pay tribute to the work of your Lordships' House on that issue because if the Government's view had been accepted by the Committee we should not be in the position in which we are today.
As I indicated, I have no difficulty with the central thrust of the proposal. The only point I wish to make is as regards the explanatory note. There are two sentences, the first of which consists of 110 words. It is almost wholly unintelligible. I say "almost wholly unintelligible"; it is wholly unintelligible. Its purpose is to tell trustees what are to be their powers. It seems quite unacceptable that the best the Government can do is provide such an unsatisfactory explanatory note. I cite it as an example of how not to do it. The next order we are to debate—the Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the Registration of Companies) Order—has a wholly admirable explanatory note which explains clearly what are the proposals in the order. I hope that in future the Home Office will do rather better.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for at least saying that they will not oppose the measure, although they would have preferred it to have gone further.
I wish to make only three points in response to what has been said. First, the order does not apply to charitable companies because, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows, the Trustee Investments Act does not apply. I have given an indication that there will be consultations as regards taking that matter further. As regards the Financial Services Act 1986, the order has no power to introduce requirements for that Act in relation to advice. But the point which the noble Lord made is well taken. This is not the measure through which to address that point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the Minister saying that Section 70 of the Charities Act would not allow an order to be made to take into account the provisions of the 1986 Act?
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, as I have been reminded once or twice at the Dispatch Box, I am not a lawyer

63
and I shall not give a categorical reply. I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Lord. The point that I am making is that, as I understand it, the Financial Services Act 1986 has no power to introduce a requirement in relation to financial services advice.
I shall not respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about my noble friend Lord Ferrers because I do not know the context in which he opposed the amendment or whether any consultation had taken place.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it was quite clear that the noble Earl was speaking on behalf of the Treasury and not on behalf of the Home Office.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, therein lies another tale—cautious, ever cautious.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to the explanatory note. I often agree with the sentiments of what the noble Lord says. The explanatory note does not seem to qualify for the plain English award. I should perhaps say in defence of it that it explains the "legalese" contained within the order. The department goes further than that and issues what I hope is plain English guidance which goes a long way towards helping the charity world and the voluntary sector to understand what is very often extremely complex legislation. We shall continue to do all we can to help to make sense of legislation. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the Registration of Companies) Order 1995
6.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order is made under Section 77(2) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. This is the first use of the important power which enables certain statutory functions to be discharged by contractors where at present they may only be discharged by public servants.
The power was introduced as part of the Government's drive to ensure improvements in the quality of public services and efficiency in their delivery. The Government's "Competing for Quality" programme has produced a sea change in the way such services are delivered, ensuring better value for money for the taxpayer and higher standards for customers.
Companies House has been part of that success story. Since it became an executive agency in 1988 and achieved trading fund status in 1991, it has shown continuing improvements. In 1992 it received the Charter Mark for excellence in the provision of public service. In 1988 it used to take 30 days for a document to be processed and made available to the public; nowadays it takes less than five. Similarly, the proportion of companies which meet their annual filing
64
obligation has risen from 80 per cent. in 1988 to over 90 per cent. this year. Those are very significant achievements. Companies House is now deservedly held in high regard by its users. Of course, that was not always so and I pay tribute to the management and staff of the agency for the improvements that they have already achieved. Like every organisation, Companies House must strive for continuous improvement. The timely incorporation and dissolution of companies, the proper keeping of company records, the pursuit of compliance and the speedy and accurate dissemination of information are essential to our commercial system.
Noble Lords will be aware that it is standard practice to review the status of each agency periodically. The review into the future of Companies House was undertaken to see how best to build on its record.
The Government's decision following the review was announced by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade on 20th December 1994. We have concluded that the best way of achieving further improvements is through the closer involvement of the private sector in the running of Companies House.
However, the business information industry is in the early stages of a major technological change as microfiche is replaced by digital technology. We therefore plan to proceed on a progressive basis. Companies House will remain an executive agency and work in partnership with the private sector to develop the new technology. At the same time it will work through a programme of contracting out a number of specific areas, putting each out to tender to private providers. I envisage that some 270 jobs out of a total of about 950 will have transferred to the private sector by 1996. Just over 100 of them will be in Cardiff, the rest mainly in London and Edinburgh.
The programme involves a number of statutory functions, which is why the order is necessary. They are presently carried out at Companies House London, the satellite offices in Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester, Companies House in Edinburgh and—in the case of postal search—at Companies House Cardiff.
In London and the satellite offices, the statutory functions are to provide facilities for inspecting company records and to receive documents for filing. The offices also undertake same day incorporation and changes of name of companies. The Edinburgh office carries out the full range of Companies House functions in Scotland, including the recording and retention of company information.
It may help the House if I briefly explain the purpose of the main articles in the order and their supporting schedules. First of all, I turn to England and Wales. Article 3 enables any function of the Registrar for England and Wales which is listed in Schedule I to be contracted out. A number of different Acts require documents to be delivered to the Registrar of Companies. Schedule 1, paragraph 1 ensures that they can be delivered to a contractor.
Paragraph 2 covers functions which relate to the incorporation of companies or a change in a company name. It will enable the contractor employed to run the

65
London and satellite offices to continue to offer same day incorporation, re-registration and change of name services on behalf of the registrar.
Paragraph 3 covers functions in relation to the delivery of documents and the making of them available for public inspection. It has been framed to ensure that, while the receipt and dissemination of information may he carried out by a contractor, decisions as to how the relevant functions should be undertaken are retained by the registrar. For example, the decision as to which medium is used to make information available, presently microfiche, will still be up to the registrar. The paragraph will enable a contractor to run the search room services provided by the London and satellite offices. It also covers the postal search activity carried out from Cardiff, which is included in the contracting out programme. Paragraphs 4 to 8 of Schedule 1 cover duties conferred under other enactments, particularly the provision of certified copies of documents.
I move now to Scotland. Article 4 of the order permits the Registrar for Scotland's statutory functions to be contracted out, with the exceptions of those listed in Schedule 2. The exceptions are limited. They consist of two types of power. First come powers to seek a court order against a company. Those functions are exercised only rarely by the registrar. They entail the exercise of discretion as to whether to commence legal proceedings. We believe it right that they should be retained by the registrar. Secondly, there are powers to decide how functions should he undertaken—for example, decisions as to the form in which documents are presented for registration or the form of numbers allocated to registered companies. Decisions like this, which are fundamental to the design of the companies registration system, will be retained by the registrar.
In addition to the registrars' statutory functions, there also also a number of functions conferred on the Secretary of State which are exercised by Companies House. They apply to Great Britain as a whole. Article 5 of the order and Schedule 3 enable a limited number of those functions to be contracted out. They are ones where the activities concerned can he set out clearly in guidance to a contractor, in line with well established current practice.
As noble Lords may he aware, applications for incorporation or a change of name are checked against a list of restricted words, which are set down by the Secretary of State through regulations. Registration of names which include those words requires the approval of the Secretary of State. In addition, the registration of certain other names which might constitute a criminal offence or he misleading—for example, "pharmacist" or "bank"—is allowed only if the relevant body (such as The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain or the Bank of England) confirms that the applicant is entitled to use the name.
Subparagraph 1(a) would enable the contractor to consider applications for incorporation or re-registration against the criteria set for each restricted name and, if the criteria had been met, to incorporate the company. But decisions on which words should be added to the list of restricted words and on the criteria which would need to he met before confirming an incorporation will
66
remain with the Secretary of State. That activity will need to be covered in the London, satellite and Edinburgh contracts.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 relate to the approval of business names. Approval is necessary for business names which contain a restricted word. They are assessed in the same way as company names. Inclusion of paragraphs 2 and 3 will enable a contractor to approve business names which meet the criteria set out by the Secretary of State. Subparagraphs 1(b) and (c) relate to the extension of periods allowed for laying and delivering accounts and reports. That is relevant only to the Edinburgh contract. The function is exercised regularly there and the procedures are well established. The contract will lay down precise guidelines.
The order, therefore, sets out the statutory functions which the contractor may be employed to carry out. But it is by no means the whole story. In the first place, under Section 72 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, in all cases where statutory functions are contracted out, the registrar —or the Secretary of State, as the case may be—will remain legally responsible for anything done, or not done, in connection with that function.
Secondly, the extent to which particular functions will be delegated and the procedures and guidance which the contractor will be required to follow will be set out in the contracts. They will also specify the levels of service which a contractor would be required to provide; for example, setting out opening hours and the speed with which activities should be carried out. There will be effective monitoring procedures so that we can be sure that a contractor is performing his duties properly.
Thirdly, the fees and charges to users of Companies House services will continue to be set by the Secretary of State through statutory instrument (subject to affirmative resolution by Parliament if they are increased) whether the services are carried out by the agency or through contractors. Obviously, the contractor will not, therefore, be able to set his own fees for statutory services.
I should also emphasise that contractorisation is a process of testing. Potential bidders will be required to demonstrate that they can offer and deliver better value for money than would be achieved if the activity were not contracted out. By value for money, I do not just mean low prices. It is essential that the contractor maintains and, where possible, improves current levels of service. Unless that can be demonstrated, contracting out will not go ahead.
Our intention is to make rapid progress with the programme and to have completed it by 1996. We expect to issue an information memorandum and invite expressions of interest in respect of the contract for the London and satellite offices soon after the making of the order, with the invitation to tender following before the summer. Details of the contract for postal search and Edinburgh will follow later this year. The information memoranda for the other, non-statutory activities in Cardiff will he published during the spring and summer. Those activities include things like building management and cheque processing.
As I said, we believe that the contracting-out programme offers the best way of building on the excellent record of Companies House. The agency plays a crucial role in the commercial system of this country. Our aim is to ensure that it operates as efficiently as possible and that, as taxpayers and users, we get the best possible value for money.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord Inglewood.)
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order and explaining to us what it was all about. The Minister told us how Companies House became a Next Steps agency in 1988 and achieved trading fund status in 1991. The Minister implies that this is the reason for the improved performance. I think that is an exaggeration. Any change in business and industry is always caused by a variety of factors. Probably in this case it is largely due to the sensible introduction of information technology, good training, setting proper standards and introducing an ethos of harmony, co-operation and pride so that the service is delivered quickly, efficiently and effectively. That is what has been happening in thousands of companies and organisations throughout the country over the past 15 to 20 years and it is totally unrelated to privatisation.
As the Minister reminded us, this is the first order under the deregulation Act. We recognise that the Government have followed the correct procedure under Part II of the Act and have consulted the registrar. Ironically, he is the last person to consult, because he has a conflict of interests. It is the users who should be consulted as we have suggested in our amendments, but they were rejected by the Government. In fact it was the consultant who consulted the users.
The conclusion of the Government's own consultant seemed to be that the users and customers would clearly prefer Companies House to remain a public sector agency. They value the Civil Service virtues of impartiality, reliability and public service and they were concerned about providing documents to a private sector contractor who might not have these virtues. As consultants usually do, they also have to give their clients what they think the clients want, so there are a couple of rather grudging suggestions that the operation of the London Search Room could be contracted out, as well as certain aspects of the Scottish registry. To cover themselves, the consultancy group pointed out that a company ignorant of the business could make things worse.
It is obvious from the consultant's report that the main essential in Companies House is quality management. It is unclear how this dogma-driven contracting out will achieve this. Perhaps the Minister can tell us. The consultant's report shows overwhelmingly that it is the quality and excellence of the service and accuracy of the information, together with the even-handedness, confidentiality and professionalism of the enforcement, which is important to the users of Companies House. If the profit motive is being introduced in what is essentially a public service,
68
the Government have to see that the functions are carried out even-handedly, with adequate concern for the public good and at a sufficiently high standard so that the operation of the nation's business is not inhibited. How will the Government do this?
The Minister referred to some of the functions to be contracted out. I can understand that the users will be concerned. Article 5 of Schedule 3 allows a contractor to take over from the Secretary of State responsibility for prohibiting the registration of certain business names and extending the period for delivering accounts. Has the Minister any idea of the worry it would cause if this crucial power over business was contracted out to a private company open to all the pressures of the marketplace?
The same concern applies to the functions of the registrar in Article 3, Schedule 1. According to the first provision in that schedule, he can contract out the enforcement to receive the documents required by him under the Companies Acts. Is the Minister aware of the power he would be conferring on a contractor and the deep disquiet that this would cause? I would share that concern, Company registration is not like an ordinary service where companies can take their business elsewhere if they do not like the way registration is being handled. UK companies are a captive market and have to register here. Therefore it is no wonder that the consultant's report emphasises even-handedness and quality management. It is no wonder also that there is no requirement in the order to consult the staff, because the Minister knows that from them he will hear good reasons why the service will not be improved by contracting out. In addition he will be given an excellent technical development strategy, including electronic filing and document imaging.
The approach to this order is a good example of the differences between these Benches and noble Lords opposite. It is a difference of vision. On these Benches we have one ambition for Companies House, and that is for it to become a world class centre of excellence satisfying its users and contributing to the efficiency of British industry, and the effectiveness of British Government. What is the vision of the Government? It is sub-contracting, which will involve more supervision, more regulation, less control of standards, more uncertainty and additional layers of management.
This order to contract out parts of Companies House shows how out of touch the Government are with modem thinking in industry and business. Industry has moved on and the search now is for world class centres of excellence. This should be the objective, and not some minor bit of privatisation, discredited and outdated, in order to reduce the Civil Service by some few dozen employees. In view of what he has heard this evening, perhaps the Minister will reconsider this order. He will also perhaps reconsider the action to he taken under the order and even withdraw it altogether.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I welcome the recognition by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, of the improvements—we can all share in commending the staff—gained at Companies House and of what the staff

69
and others have achieved there over the past few years. The noble Lord referred to the consultant's report. If one looks at that report, one will see that it paid tribute to and recognised the improvements that have taken place in Companies House recently. The consultant's report very much appreciated the value which was placed on the quality of the operation of Companies House by those who are using the service. Further—this is the important point—the consultant recognised that it would (having taken soundings from other people in the information delivery business) be possible to improve the operation of Companies House by contracting out some elements.
The concern on the part of the users of Companies House was that they were anxious about the unknown. At one time it had been proposed to privatise the whole enterprise. However, it was thought appropriate at this stage simply to see whether contracting out certain parts of the operation might result in delivering the benefits of the service without causing widespread unease and disquiet.
It is important to recognise that this order does not mean that the enterprise will definitely be contracted out—that is, those parts of the enterprise which are subject to that process. On the contrary, it provides for the possibility for that to happen. If contracts are put out to tender and there is an unsatisfactory response, the contracting out process will not go ahead. That seems to me to be the important safeguard. As I said earlier when I was talking about value for money, by that I do not just mean low prices. It is essential that the contractor maintains, and where possible improves, current levels of service. Unless this can be demonstrated, contracting out will not go ahead.
The noble Lord also referred to an anxiety that some may have at the fact that information would he provided to a private contractor rather than to someone on the public payroll. However, just as those on the public payroll are subject to the rule of law as regards how they deal with the information that they receive, precisely the same legal principles will apply to those in the private sector, should they do that job. There is no fundamental difference in that regard. It seems to us that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is being quite unnecessarily alarmist about all this—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I hope I may just ask one question. Does the Official Secrets Act apply to private sector employees?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the answer to that question.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord has just said that the rules will he exactly the same, he they for public sector employees or private sector employees. Does the Official Secrets Act apply to private sector employees?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I said, I do not know the answer. But we are talking about Companies House registration services. I am advised that the answer is no.
70
The crucial test is this. How does one provide the public with the best service? The order provides the possibility of contracting out services. Those services will be contracted out only if the placing of the contract will be to the benefit of the public. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
6.50 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD SKELMERSDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Sexual offences against children outside the United Kingdom]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved the amendment:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("18") and insert ("14").
The noble Lord said: Because of a long-standing prior commitment I could not take part in the Second Reading debate on the Bill. However, I was able to attend part of the discussion and, of course, I read thoroughly the entire debate the next day in Hansard.
I note that speaker after speaker referred to "children" and to "paedophilia". Indeed, it was clear that it was paedophiliac behaviour which almost all noble Lords saw as the proper target of the Bill. Indeed, at col. 895, my noble friend Lord Hylton stated:
"Child abuse happens to combine elements of both slavery and torture".—[Official Report, 15/3/95; col. 895.]
I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend and others that paedophiliac abuse of children is dreadful and disgraceful and ought to be combated as vigorously as possible. Unfortunately, by stipulating the designation of "child" to include young people up to the age of 18 the Bill casts the net far too wide and includes cases which could not possibly be described as having anything to do with slavery or torture.
I understand the technical reasons which led my noble friend to fix an upper age limit of 17. However, I suggest that the United Nations categorisation does not conform to present day realities. Whatever was the case 40 or 50 years ago, few people nowadays would describe a young person of 16 or 17 as a child. Certainly no 17 year-old football hooligan would ever be described as a child in the press or elsewhere. It was clear from the debate that few speakers had young people in their mid-teens in mind when supporting the general principles of the Bill. Apart from anything else, young people in their teens would be too old to interest paedophiliacs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke of the requirements for dual criminality. That is a worthwhile safeguard. However, it is one which has interesting and somewhat quixotic consequences. Even if consensual sexual relations with a 16 or 17 year-old girl took place,

71
for example, in Moslem countries where the age of consent was 18, there could be no prosecution in this country because here the age of consent for girls is 16.
However, there is one interesting exception to the rule under the 1956 Act where the girl concerned is an heiress in expectation of inheriting a large fortune. Members of the Committee may remember a famous case 30 or so years ago involving a Bolivian tin mine heiress. No force was involved. I wonder whether the Bill is intended to cover such a case, as it would as it stands. I cannot believe that that is desirable.
In contrast, if the incident of relations with the young person involved a young man of 16 or 17, is it really intended that it would be an offence in this country but not in most other countries? I make no complaint about it; I was one who voted for the homosexual age of majority to he 18. I merely point it out as a possible anomaly.
What about non-consensual sex? One could argue that the upper limit of 18 ought to be retained to cover the rape of a girl of, let us say, 17¾. But if a 17¾ year-old is to be protected in this way—perhaps they should be so protected —so should an 18, 28, 58 or even 88 year-old. How many dreadful cases of the rape of elderly women have we not read about recently!
As drafted, the Bill covers indecent assault of even a relatively trivial kind. Is that intended? There is also the question of female sex tourism which was not mentioned at Second Reading. It is common knowledge that many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of women from Western Europe and North America travel to the Caribbean, East and West Africa and elsewhere every year with the specific purpose of finding a virile young sexual partner. In the tropics people mature early and often look and act older than their age. Theoretically, British women could he prosecuted for having sexual relations with a 14 or 15 year-old in Gambia, the West Indies, or elsewhere. Is that really what Members of the Committee wish?
Another anomaly is this. Under the 1956 Act, a 23 year-old male can escape prosecution if he can demonstrate that he genuinely thought that a 14 or 15 year-old girl was 16 years or over. A 24 year-old male, or older, cannot successfully advance that defence.
Finally, in the United States, and perhaps in other federations, different states have different ages of consent, varying quite considerably by several years, down to the age of 12 in Mississippi. That certainly used to be the case. Therefore young British backpackers, when travelling from state to state, doing what young men have always done and will always do, could find themselves in real trouble. If caught by the authorities in the United States, that is entirely their own problem. But I do not see why Britain should become involved once those young people have arrived hack on these shores.
I hope that I have said enough to convince the Committee that a maximum age of 18 is too high in a Bill which very commendably (and I mean that) sets out to curb paedophile abuse. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I think that I understand some of the concerns that have moved my noble friend to put down his amendment. However, the age of 18 to which his amendment refers was chosen after consideration and for precise and practical reasons. It corresponds with the definition of a child—in this case "child" includes young person—as laid down in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is a worldwide convention for the protection of children and young people which this country ratified as recently as 1992. The convention places specific duties on states for preventing the exploitation of both children and young people through prostitution, as I mentioned at Second Reading.
I believe that the Committee will be just as concerned about the abuse of people aged 14, 15, 16 and 17 as they undoubtedly are about similar offences against an even younger age group. The dangers of contracting HIV, AIDS, cervical cancer, and possibly an unwanted pregnancy, do not suddenly stop at the age of 14. I suggest that the forced prostitution of young people who should be either in training for lawful work or else in education is a matter of deep concern to Parliament, as is shown by the strong support which the Bill has received not only from Britain but also from overseas countries.
The amendment may well also be unnecessary. I say that because Clause 1(1) (a) and (b) require the offence to be such under the laws of both the country where the act was committed and of the United Kingdom. Therefore, if it is lawful to have sexual relations with a person over 14 in the third country, a person cannot be prosecuted in Britain for such relations, however indecent, brutal or vicious they may have been. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with my reply and that, on reflection, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, explained, the amendment would lower the age of children covered under the Bill from 18 to 14 years. The Government would not support the amendment.
If we were to adopt the kind of extra-territorial jurisdiction over sexual offences that the Bill proposes, it would seem sensible for it to apply to all children, not just those aged under 14. We would not wish to have a situation where a 15 year-old child had been sexually abused by a British tourist and the abuse clearly constitutes an offence both under UK law and that of the country where it occurred, but the extra-territorial extent of the Bill would not apply simply because the child was over 14.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, previously explained, a child is defined under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as any person under the age of 18. I agree that that sets a reasonable basis for the

73
age below which the provisions of the Bill should apply, although I recognise that a case could be made for restricting the Bill to children under the age of 16.
The definition of a child for the purposes of the criminal law obviously varies between different countries, but the Bill already provides that dual criminality would have to exist before an offence would be caught. That is the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. For certain sexual offences under UK legislation, the victim would have to be under the age of 16. That would apply in the case of such offences committed by a British tourist abroad, since the Bill would only cover acts which are offences under our law.
To lower the age to 14 would also create additional problems in terms of practical enforcement. For example, many child prostitutes in South East Asia are in their mid-teens, but it would be difficult to establish a precise age for many of them, since birth records are scarce. A court would, nevertheless, have to establish the age of a victim before being able to determine whether an offence had been committed. An offender should not be able to rely on the defence that he believed the child to be over 14. If the child is 15 or 16, the offender should still he prosecuted. It would be easier for a court to ascertain whether a child was under the age of 18 and more likely, therefore, that offenders could be successfully prosecuted.
For those reasons, I am not in favour of the amendment and the Government cannot support it; although in line with the convention which exists in your Lordships' House, I shall not vote against it.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to both my noble friend and the noble Baroness for their comments on the amendment. My noble friend is right and I agree with him that HIV and pregnancy are no respecters of age when we are talking about the teens. That is a perfectly valid point. Where I not so much disagree with him but return to the points I made in my opening remarks is that we are not only talking about exploitation via organised prostitution but also about illicit relationships with young people who may be slightly below the age of consent. It may not involve any payment, or if it does it may be on a freelance basis. It does not involve the abuse to which the noble Baroness referred: I agree that if we are talking about abuse, it is a different matter. However, as I tried to demonstrate, it covers all kinds of things which do not fall into that category.
Retaining the age of 18 would be less worrying if some filter could be introduced which would weed out prosecutions for minor offences of such a nature which do not involve abuse or exploitation—for example, if the consent of the Attorney-General had to be obtained before any prosecution could be brought.
However, I do not intend to press the matter any further, given the opposition of the Government and the lack of support from any other quarter in this sparsely attended Committee. Nevertheless, the debate has been valuable. It will give Members of another place the opportunity to examine what has been said and possibly they may arrive at a conclusion along the lines
74
suggested by the noble Baroness. The age of 16, for example, might be a reasonable compromise. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

HM Prisons Blakenhurst and Leeds
7.6 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take following the reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons on HM Prisons Blakenhurst and Leeds.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Chief Inspector of Prisons produces many reports which demonstrate the admirable work which has been carried out by governors and staff in our prisons, often working in the most difficult conditions. The reports seldom arouse a great deal of interest, either in the media or in Parliament. But inevitably when things go wrong the situation is altogether different. In the case of the prisons which we are discussing tonight, a great deal went wrong. Once again, we should all pay tribute to Judge Tumim and his colleagues for having produced the reports which are of high quality, fair-minded and yet rigorous.
One report deals with a brand new Category B local prison for sentenced and remand adult male prisoners which has been handed over to the private sector to manage. The other is an overcrowded local prison in the public sector, constructed nearly 150 years ago, which is in the process of being redeveloped.
I shall deal first with the report on Leeds Prison. It is a deeply disappointing analysis, for although it indicates that there is an impressive strategic plan for the future of the prison—and I recognise that substantial improvements have taken place since the inspection by Judge Tumim and his colleagues last June—the overall impression given is quite dreadful.
Let me ask the noble Baroness a few questions. Why have Ministers tolerated a situation in which little was done to rectify the severe criticisms directed in the Chief Inspector's report on the prisons six years ago? I say "Ministers"; it is not a matter for the director-general of the Prison Service. I hope that we shall not have the business of trying to argue about the distinction between operational questions and policy questions. We are talking about a report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons which goes to Ministers. It is Ministers who must accept responsibility for the unsatisfactory situation.
We all know about the redevelopment of the prison, but how can Ministers justify allowing the lamentable conditions at Leeds to persist over such a long period since the last highly critical report'? Judge Tumim said that many persons were living in grossly unsatisfactory conditions. Precisely the same criticism was made six years ago.
At the time of the recent inspection, working conditions in a number of departments were said to be "appalling". An exercise area was found to be contaminated with human waste and an underground holding and transfer area was said to be,
"filthy, unhygenic and unsuited for its purpose".
Remand prisoners on one wing were crammed into cells for over 22 hours a day, a position said by Judge Tumim to be,
"far removed from the model regime for local prisons promoted by the Prison Service".
The report said that Leeds staff were trapped in a warehouse with apparently no chance to put things right because of unremitting overcrowding and insufficient activity. That is the price being paid as a result of the philosophy of "prison works". Ministers again must accept direct responsibility for the situation at Leeds and, I fear, a number of other local prisons which could be subject to precisely the same criticism.
I do not doubt that the governor and many members of the staff at Leeds are endeavouring to cope with those conditions to the best of their ability. For instance, catering staff—a critically important group at a local prison—have clearly done well, according to Judge Tumim. So have the PE staff. But many serious questions remain. Why have there been so many changes to the planned redevelopment of the establishment? Why, even before the new wings were fully occupied, were significant structural alterations made which the chief inspector found to be unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will deal directly with that question. Ministers speak continually about achieving value for money. How can value for money be secured when changes of such a character, costing significant sums of money, are made, which the Chief Inspector of Prisons says are unnecessary?
The difficulty is that changes of that sort, as I indicated, made at considerable public expense, have had a clear effect on the quality of life in the establishment. The report on Leeds is a disturbing document. Certainly it discloses some welcome shafts of light in an otherwise gloomy landscape. But, overall, I found it one of the most depressing accounts that I have read of conditions in an overcrowded local prison, where we should remember that a significant proportion of the inmates held have not been convicted of any criminal offence.
I turn to the report on Blakenhurst, the private sector establishment. There, the new managers had every apparent advantage. The prison was not overcrowded and facilities were incomparably superior to anything provided at Leeds. The report pays tribute to some of the successes at Blakenhurst. For instance, the education service was said to he outstanding and the treatment of inmates by staff was described as very good. There were other tributes to the character of the regime at Blakenhurst. All that was clearly deserving of praise.
But then came the criticisms, some of them of a fairly remarkable character—not, I may say, that they were set out in the press notice sent out by the prison department's press notice. As is always the case, there
76
were two press notices, one summarising the position of the Chief Inspector of Prisons and the other the position of the department.
The press notice from Judge Tumim reads:
"Inspection finds 'confusion of cultures' at Blakenhurst Prison".
That is related to the fact that part of the ownership of the prison is vested in an American company. So far as the Prison Service press notice is concerned, it reads:
"Blakenhurst staff impress HM Chief Inspector of Prisons".
Those two documents make a rather interesting contrast.
Not until we read through the Prison Service press statement do we find, at the foot of the second page, a faint suggestion that there have been some criticisms in the report by Judge Tumim. Until that moment it is difficult to believe that the chief inspector found anything at all to criticise.
I have rarely read a more misleading summary of any government report. Indeed, it reminds me of a headline in the Daily Herald, during the 1947–48 fuel crisis; the Daily Herald at that time being as loyal to the government of the day as the Daily Express is to the present Government. At that time in 1947–48, when factories were being forced to close down all over Britain because of a severe shortage of fuel, the Daily Herald came out with the headline: "Booming Britain outpaces pits". The press notice about Blakenhurst comes well into that category.
Let me present some of Judge Tumim's other findings about Blakenhurst which did not find their way into the Prison Service summary. Judge Tumim said that custody staff were not fully in control of the inmate population. Not fully in control? We are talking about a category B prison; one of the highest categories of security that exist in the Prison Service. It is said that bullying had been a worrying feature in the establishment and conditions for vulnerable prisoners were highly unsuitable. Systems were poor. Inmates were found wandering around the corridors at times when they should have been taking part in purposeful activities. And where were the drug dealing and bullying taking place? It was taking place in the corridors of the prison, where people were wandering around without any adequate form of supervision. That seems to me to be a matter of some concern. I am sure that the noble Baroness will tell us that she shares that concern.
When the staff were interviewed by Judge Tumim and his colleagues, they told the inspectors that the training that they had received before taking up their duties had not been adequate; staffing levels were too low and managers had chosen to ignore the warnings from staff before the major disturbance in the previous year. The managers told the inspectors that they had not received adequate training, communications were poor and there were inadequate constructive activities to keep inmates occupied when out of their cells.
That last point brings me to the question of whether UKDS, the company which runs Blakenhurst, is taking compliance with the contract sufficiently seriously. For instance, in its tender submission UKDS undertook to provide commercial wage rates in one work activity area. Nothing has been done. Why not'? Will the noble Baroness tell us this evening?
But the problem is far wider. Judge Tumim states that the Home Office should have ensured that UKDS was contractually obliged to deliver all that was promised in its tender submission. That sounds unhappily like some of those applications for independent television franchises: much is offered; all too little is delivered. Quite apart from that, UKDS was not even delivering what it was legally contracted to do.
All that being so, what do Ministers propose to do about this matter? If the tendering process is to be taken seriously and not merely as an essay in imaginative journalism, what steps do they propose to take to ensure that UKDS is obliged to fulfil the assurances given at the time of awarding the contract?
I have deliberately avoided discussing the issue as to whether private prisons are acceptable. I have stated my opinions on this matter both in this House and outside on a number of occasions. I have little doubt that if there is a change of government at the next election establishments like Blakenhurst will be returned to the direct control of the state.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: But in the meantime it is essential that the serious inadequacies disclosed in this report are corrected, and at once. No one reading either of these reports can fail to be disturbed by what has been tolerated for far too long in both of those establishments. I hope that tonight we shall hear that action, albeit belatedly, will now be taken.
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I find it irresistibly tempting to say a few words —and they will be only a few—in a debate on prisons initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whose wide and deep knowledge of prisons is familiar to us all. He made one of his most deadly speeches tonight, and I am glad that I do not have to respond to it. It was a formidable indictment.
Owing to my inattention to duty, I did not realise that this debate was coming on so soon and therefore have not done what I should like to have done and what I have done before now; that is, to visit the two prisons in question. I visited Leeds Prison years ago and have visited most of the leading prisons in this country. However. I have not visited Blakenhurst. I might say in passing that I have visited The Wolds, which is a privatised prison, and have a pretty good idea of the issues involved. I shall therefore deal with these matters only briefly tonight.
As regards the issue of privatisation, I was glad to hear my noble leader for the night confirming the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Harris; that if and when a Labour Government come to power they will put all this to right. In other words, Blakenhurst will be returned to the public sector. That is good news. But I am bound to say, as I have said before—and others have said before—that privatisation of the prison establishment is an obscenity; I repeat, an obscenity. The idea of trying to make money, possibly for foreigners, out of helpless people under our control is revolting.
78
It is no good my pretending that I approach the subject of the privatisations of prisons with an unbiased mind. But one can perhaps stress one point arising out of what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. The training is bound to be inadequate. The Government's passion for privatisation is no doubt widespread in other spheres, but in the case of prisons the specific motive is a desire to bypass the Prison Officers' Association. What does that mean in practice? It means recruiting an ignorant staff; throwing away all the knowledge and wisdom acquired over the years by the Prison Officers' Association and prison staff generally, which means we could not expect any result much better than the one indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
As regards the overcrowding at Leeds, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, we had what can only be called the "Howard revolution" in the autumn of 1993. But it is not fair to say that it is entirely the fault of Mr. Howard. He was appointed by Mr. Major who, at the same Conservative Conference, informed us that we should understand a little less about these matters. The Government have certainly lived up to that promise.
We are faced with the fact that in the Government's view prison works, and works much better in Mr. Howard's view if it is made more austere or unpleasant for prisoners. That is the Government's philosophy and the philosophy which has led to the great increase in the prison population. It is now at record levels and, according to a Home Office projection which I was reading today, it is expected to reach 56,000 some years from now. In other words, it will continue to rise if the present Government have their way.
It is obvious that there will be a lot of overcrowding in the course of the reforms and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, it is a product of the philosophy of the Government in this last phase. When I say "the Government" I am not referring to Conservatives in general. There have been great Conservative penal reformers—Sir Winston Churchill, though he was a Liberal at the time, and Sir Samuel Hoare when he became president of the Howard League after being Home Secretary. Then there was Rab Butler, later Lord Butler, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and a Minister of State like the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. They are all Conservative penal reformers. The last six Home Secretaries, with the exception of the one before Mr. Howard, may be described with a little charity as leaning towards penal reform.
But there has been a revolution. Never let us forget that we are dealing with a revolution produced by the Government as a whole, Mr. Howard being the mouthpiece since the autumn of 1993. We must expect disaster and we are duly getting it.
7.25 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must confess, and it is greatly to my discredit, that until I found myself preparing for this debate this evening, lying on my bed of pain during the day, I had never read any of Judge Stephen Tumim's reports on prisons. They are an eye opener. I had never quite understood the extent to which Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons actually go into a prison and ferret into every single

79
activity, every corner of the building, every corner of the minds and lives of the inmates and staff in those prisons. I have never read anything more impressive in their perspicacity and perseverance than the two reports by Judge Stephen Tumim and his team that I read today. Having read them, I endorse everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about the two prisons.
In relation to Leeds Prison, it is truly shocking that, having made a report in 1989 which was so critical of the regime at Armley at that time, the sort of macho spirit which says, "We can receive any numbers at any time: we will take them in and tame them", appears to have been the dominating ethos in the prison. In the result, Leeds took in 250 prisoners out of Wymott. It managed to open a new wing which was prepared to be opened but had never been opened. It was not prepared to spend the money to open the wing when it was really needed for the continuing care of the prisoners already under its care.
At the same time the physical conditions in Leeds Prison; the way in which a large number of prisoners are still slopping out; the degree of overcrowding; the physical conditions of the recreation area for vulnerable prisoners which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, described; the inadequacy of the education provision—not its bad quality when it is provided, but the fact that not enough of it is being provided—and many other aspects of the prison are appalling to read about. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the situation in Blakenhurst, which should be such a shining contrast, is no contrast at all.
It is profoundly disappointing that a prison which starts up in May 1993 can be inspected in May 1994 when virtually all the custody officers (as they are called in privatised prisons) have been recruited from outside the Prison Service. I am not referring to the managers; they came from within the Prison Service. The custody officers come from outside and may be thought to be open to persuasion that there are better ways of dealing with prisoners than those which are so often current in the Prison Service. Yet still it is a deeply disappointing report. It is disappointing in the quality of the care provided, but even more, I suggest to the Government, it is deeply disappointing in the way in which the bid document—the document which was the basis of the contract being awarded to UK Detention Services—is being so widely flouted. Indeed, it appears only from a careful reading of the report that schedule 2 to the contract, which is the guts of it, is not a legal requirement on UK Detention Services. The company is required only to act in the spirit of schedule 2. That is stated in paragraph 2.13 of Judge Tumim's report. It is an extraordinary state of affairs that we have a legal contract, on the basis of which people are being paid to do a job, and then we find that the contract which the Government have drawn up with this private sector company does not require it to conform with the conditions laid down in its own tender document. How can the Government explain that? How can they justify that kind of relationship with the private sector?
80
That does not in any way get round the profound moral repugnance, which I share with the noble Lord. Lord Harris, at the idea of private companies being responsible for the compulsory detention of our fellow citizens. I gladly confirm what he said, and what my noble friend Lord Longford said, that it will be the policy of the next Labour Government that there will be no more privatised prisons and that the existing contracts for privatised prisons will not be renewed when they expire. It is both morally repugnant, and, from the point of view of contractual relationships, the policy seems to me to be profoundly wanting.
Underlying the situation in both Leeds and Blakenhurst and the reason why the Question before your Lordships this evening is more important than what is happening in either is the whole issue of overcrowding in prisons. It is the overcrowding which on the surface has led to the riots and the disturbances that have taken place in prisons; but even where riots have not erupted overcrowding has led to the bad conditions, the ineffectual regimes and the ineffective reformation being provided in our prisons. That must he laid fairly and squarely at the door of government. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 very properly set statutory restrictions on the extent to which custodial sentences should be applied. As a result of that, there was, when the Act came into force in 1992, a quite rapid drop of between 5 and 10 per cent. in a few months in the proportion of those convicted of offences being sent to prison. As a result of that, there was an actual decline in the total numbers in our prisons, to 40,000 or so in December 1992.
Then what happened? We had Mr. Howard, who thinks that prison works and is prepared to pander to the worst instincts of Conservative Party conferences by boasting of his willingness to see the expansion of prisons and to provide for the expansion of prison places, although he knows, as we all know, that one can by acting tough increase the prison population but one cannot increase the provision for the prison population anything like as fast as one can expand the numbers inside. The present plan is for six additional prisons, of which two will open in 1997. That is not much consolation for those in prison now or for those who are suffering the effects of the lack of reformatory influence in our prison system.
The former Director-General of the Prison Service, Mr. Joe Pilling, said to the Woolf Inquiry after Strangeways in 1991 that overcrowding dominated the prison system. It was correct then and it was put right to a modest extent by the 1991 Act. All of that has gone by the board. We now have an increase in the prison population from just over 40,000 to more than 50,000 in February 1995. We have 8,500 prisoners two to a cell where the cells were designed for not more than one person. We have very large numbers of prisoners in the wrong category of prison—a direct cause of the Everthorpe riots in January this year. We have many prisons—the Whitemoor prison visitors' report of last year gives evidence of this—being stretched to breaking point by capricious and excessive transfer and entry policies. We have riots such as that at Wymott which

81
can only be explained by the wrong category of prisoner being in the wrong prison at the wrong time and brought from the wrong place.
One recommendation out of the 12 which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made to the Government which was not accepted was to my mind the most important. The noble and learned Lord said that there should be a legal ceiling on the number of prisoners in individual prisons. I ask the Government to recognise that their rejection of that recommendation can be held directly responsible for so much of the trouble that has taken place in the prisons in the past two years. I can do no better than quote the noble and learned Lord in the debate on prison overcrowding on 2nd February last year. He said:
"As a result of a change of climate, the importance of avoiding custody when it is appropriate to do so has been forgotten. A factor which has undoubtedly contributed to this change of climate is that the Government, who give a lead in these matters, have abandoned preaching the need for restraint in the use of prisons…It is that policy which is resulting in the bulk of the increase in the population of our long-suffering local prisons. It is people who previously could expect, for example, to be remanded on bail who are now being remanded in custody".
Later in his speech he said:
"It needs to be reiterated repeatedly that if prison is used when it is not necessary, then it is frustrating, not furthering, the objectives of the criminal justice system. It is an expensive way of making the criminal justice system less effective".—[Official Report, 2/2/94; cols. 1276–1277]
I suggest that that is a truer reflection of what our penal policy should be than the facile comment that prison works. I suggest that that is the lesson of the reports we have been reading about Leeds and Blakenhurst prisons and the justification for the noble Lord's Question.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for providing this opportunity to debate the reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons on Blakenhurst and Leeds prisons and to describe the action which the Prison Service is taking in response to both.
Blakenhurst is a new local prison. It is the second prison to be managed by the private sector and was the first to hold sentenced prisoners. The prison was inspected in May last year when it had been open for just one year. It would be wrong for your Lordships to go away from this debate with the impression that the inspectorate's view of Blakenhurst was a damning one. And in no sense can it be taken as a basis for an argument against private sector involvement in the Prison Service. Indeed, the report—and subsequent developments—provide evidence of the benefits of privately managed prisons which have led to better value for money and higher standards both in those prisons and in the public sector.
The inspectorate's overall impression of Blakenhurst was that prisoners were being held securely in good modern conditions with staff treating them in a humane manner. The report also acknowledged the positive developments in the regime and the achievements of a committed staff who were growing in confidence during
82
a difficult first year of operation. It also praised the quality of -activities provided for vulnerable prisoners and the "outstanding" education service, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Also highlighted were a number of other significant achievements, such as the provision of an out-of-cell regime for 13 to 14 hours a day for three-quarters of prisoners; the provision of employment for more than 400 prisoners for 35 hours a week; and the availability of prison visits from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m., seven days a week. All these achievements indicate solid work on the part of staff at Blakenhurst in its first year to build good quality regimes for prisoners with the right focus on purposeful activity.
There were, as has been said, weaknesses identified by the inspectorate. Many of these flow primarily from the newness of the prison and are being addressed as the operation of the prison beds down. The inspection team identified a need for better systems to ensure that the level of service outlined in the operational specification and tender submission for the prison are actually being provided.
The contract for Blakenhurst preceded the establishment of the Prison Service as an agency, and the subsequent introduction of performance indicators for the work of the service generally. If I may answer one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, it is for this reason that performance measurement criteria were not included in the contract for Blakenhurst. This shortcoming has, however, now been addressed. All subsequent contracts for private sector prisons have included performance measurement criteria and they will be built into the Blakenhurst contract from May 1995, which is the beginning of the next contract year. These performance measures will enable the Prison Service to ensure that Blakenhurst continues to provide secure and humane conditions for prisoners at a competitive price to the taxpayer.
The inspection team also commented on what they considered to be inadequate systems for controlling inmates and the lack of challenge to prisoners' offending behaviour, both of which the team thought were caused by the inexperience of staff. It is common in new institutions for prisoners to test the staff. That it happened at Blakenhurst is perhaps not surprising, but it did highlight the lack of experience of some staff. The weaknesses in control early in 1994 underline the inherent difficulties in opening any new prison, whether in the public or private sector, and much has been done to rectify them.
Considerable staff resources at Blakenhurst have been concentrated on improving control and, as staff have naturally gained experience and confidence, the situation has improved greatly, as is evidenced by the dramatic drop in the number of assaults at Blakenhurst since the inspection. Prisoners' movements are carefully monitored and no prisoner is allowed to change his cell without the permission of staff. The management at Blakenhurst has also been strengthened by the appointment of an experienced prison middle manager.
Technology has also been deployed at Blakenhurst to improve control and security. Closed circuit television is used extensively to monitor prisoner movements, and

83
bar-coded wrist bands are used to identify them. Hand recognition equipment and an ultraviolet light scanner are also used to improve security during visits. A number of additional programmes to address prisoners' offending behaviour have also been introduced since the inspection report. These include sex offender assessment, drugs and alcohol awareness, and stress management.
The inspection team also commented that Blakenhurst was required by the Prison Service to absorb too many prisoners too quickly which did not allow a culture to develop in the prison and contributed to control problems.
Even with the provision of other new accommodation, the alternative to making full use of Blakenhurst would have been to house prisoners in police cells. That option is costly and places prisoners in accommodation with unsatisfactory conditions and facilities. It is not therefore one which ought readily to commend itself either to your Lordships or to the Prison Service.
Blakenhurst Prison has made a good start. It has overcome the problems identified in the inspection report and its performance compares favourably with the public sector. An average of 28 hours a week per prisoner are spent in constructive activity, compared to an average of 20 hours for publicly managed prisons. Prisoners are held in secure, good quality accommodation. Blakenhurst is an active, positive, well controlled prison which, at a cost of about 15 per cent. less than comparable prisons in the public sector, represents good value for money. We have had a spending pledge today of what it will cost to revert to publicly-owned prisons. No doubt that is a promise which the noble Lord is happy to make.
In terms of accommodation, Leeds Prison is in marked contrast with Blakenhurst. Leeds is an early Victorian local prison to which additional accommodation has been added over the years. There is no ducking the fact that the report on Leeds Prison is a critical one. The inspectors were concerned that conditions for both prisoners and staff were unsatisfactory. They pointed to the poor standard of the accommodation and facilities; to overcrowding; and to the failure to provide enough activity for the number of prisoners being detained. But the prison is currently undergoing the largest redevelopment programme in its history.
There have been major improvements at Leeds over the intervening years. The most important of these has been the opening in the autumn of last year of two new wings together with a new hospital. The new wings have provided an extra 427 places complete with integral sanitation, association and facility rooms, and a new kitchen, library and gymnasium.
In addition to the two new wings, slopping out has been ended for 600 prisoners; no prisoners are held three to a cell; and new suicide awareness routines have been introduced, which have led to a significant fall in the number of suicides.
84
In addition to these improvements, a major redevelopment programme, on which the substantial improvements to both the conditions and the regime at Leeds largely depend, is currently under way. The main elements of the redevelopment are the refurbishment of the four Victorian wings; the provision of a new inmate activity building; and the construction of a new entry complex, which will include new reception and visiting areas, and a new communications centre and administration unit. As I said, this work has already started. The prison's A wing was taken out of commission for full refurbishment, including the provision of integral sanitation, in January this year and is due to become operational again in February 1996.
Plans are also advanced for the refurbishment of C and D wings. Work on these wings will start in February 1996 and will be completed around the end of 1997. Again the refurbished cells will all have integral sanitation.
Schemes are also being prepared for the work on the inmate activity building and entry complex which will begin as soon as funding allows.
This programme of work is a clear signal of the Prison Service's commitment to complete the refurbishment of Leeds, and to bring its accommodation up to a fully acceptable standard, and to do so as quickly as possible. The work which has already been completed has cost over £33 million, and the remaining work is likely to cost a further £20 million. This level of investment is evidence of the priority that the Prison Service attaches to Leeds.
It is really very unfortunate that neither of the two Front Bench noble Lords opposite thought fit to make any reference whatever to this substantial programme of work.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? What she has just said is nonsense. I specifically referred to the programme at the prison. I very much wish that in future she actually listens to speakers in this House rather than make a comment of that sort which indicates that she did not pay the slightest attention to what was being said.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I take exception to what the noble Lord has just said. I listened extremely carefully to what he said. I can say that the overall tone of the noble Lord's speech is that almost nothing has happened. In fact, he said, "How have Ministers stood by for six years and seen nothing done?" I have just given a substantial catalogue of what has been done. Ministers have not stood back in those six years and done nothing.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I did not say that Ministers had done nothing. When I receive—as I am sure I will—a letter of apology from the noble Baroness at the end of this week, in that letter she will be able to confirm that I did not say that Ministers had done nothing. I said that six years ago a highly critical report was produced by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. In that situation the record of Ministers was lamentable

85
because some of the criticisms in the most recent report were precisely the same criticisms made in the report six years before.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall be just as robust in my answer. Ministers have presided over a programme of work costing £33 million and they have in train expenditure of a further £20 million. A great deal is being done and a great deal has been achieved. I have also put on record that a great deal more needs to be done. I believe that the overall tone of the noble Lord's speech hardly recognised any of that work.
The inspection report observes that progress at Leeds has been hampered by overcrowding at the prison. The population pressures have been increased by the need to maintain the major refurbishment programme of Victorian prisons in order to bring them up to modern standards and, in particular, to fulfil our commitment to provide all prisoners with 24-hour access to sanitation within the next year.
Any reduction in the capacity at Leeds would almost certainly have the effect of placing prisoners in police cells, where the conditions and facilities would be substantially worse than would be available at Leeds.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the answer to this particular conundrum is easy: we should simply imprison fewer people. The Government's position in this respect is, however, quite clear: it is for the courts to determine the appropriate sentence in any particular case. Our job, which we are undertaking with vigour, is to ensure that prisoners are held securely and humanely, and that appropriate programmes are provided to tackle prisoners' offending behaviour and to prepare them for release. I must defend my right honourable friend who has said that prison works. He has said that prison works for some people, but he is also robust and vigorous in making sure that non-custodial sentences also work.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is there not a contradiction in this in that, on the one hand, the Government are boasting, as at the Conservative Central Council this weekend, about the fall in the crime rate while, on the other hand, the Minister is recognising that the prison population has increased from around 40,000 to around 50,000? Are magistrates and courts being perverse and ignoring the wisdom of the Government or is there some truth in what we are saying: that the Government have been encouraging more custodial sentences and that that is the major cause of the increase in the prison population?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, all that I can say is that the Government hope and wish to see appropriate sentencing. However, the Government have no locus in court when sentences are passed by judges and magistrates.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, what is the explanation? Why is the prison population increasing while the crime rate is falling?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is because people are being sentenced to custody by the courts. The fall in crime has happened over the past two years. All that I
86
can say is that my right honourable friend believes that prison works—perhaps I should add that many members of the public believe the same. It is important that some people are put into custody to protect the general public. It is also the case that my right honourable friend supports robust non-custodial sentences where appropriate.
Despite the ongoing redevelopment work at Leeds, and the population pressures, credit should be given to the staff there for their achievements. They have been able to double the number of prisoners who have access to daytime education, and to offer prisoners group work schemes covering areas such as substance abuse, anger control and personal development, and provide access to the job club.
There remains much to be done at Leeds. But the Prison Service, both nationally and locally, is investing considerable money and energy in addressing the shortcomings. The inspections were carried out in May and June last year. Much has happened at both establishments since then to address the shortcomings identified by the inspection and to build on the prisons' strengths.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was concerned about contracting out. All contracts for privately managed prisons include penalty clauses for failure to deliver contracted services. Those are being enforced. The noble Lord also asked why nothing was being done in response to the 1989 report. Much was done between 1989 and 1994 and I have reported already that slopping out ended for 600 prisoners. Two new wings have been opened, with increased ancillary services. It is not right to say that either Ministers or the director general of the Prison Service have taken no action.
The noble Lord was concerned about the chief inspector's criticism of design features. If the noble Lord will allow me, I shall write to him on the detailed criticisms that he made. I shall give him a comprehensive reply and make a copy available to all who have spoken in the debate, as well as placing a copy in the Library.
I have been asked whether contracted-out prisons have to reach the Prison Service's performance targets. The answer is that they do. Performance targets are being introduced across the Prison Service, but at contracted-out prisons there are financial penalties for not achieving the targets.
To answer a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the aim of privately managed prisons is to raise standards and improve value for money throughout the Prison Service. Every pound saved by efficiency is another pound that can be spent in the public sector. There are encouraging signs that competition is proving to be a spur to higher standards and greater cost efficiency throughout the Prison Service. Traditional attitudes and work practices are having to change to improve competitiveness. The private sector will provide sustained competition and a source for comparison with the directly managed sector. Private sector prisons are under more scrutiny than those operated by the public sector. Apart from the usual

87
oversight by HMCIP and the board of visitors, a Prison Service controller is based at each prison to ensure that the contract is being delivered.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I used to be considered the fastest speaker in the House, but the noble Baroness has outdistanced me by a mile. However, I should like to ask her whether she feels any moral objection to putting people (perhaps rightly) into custody and then allowing other people to make a profit out of it. I know that the Minister is a moral woman, so does she have any moral qualms at all about that?
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, the most important thing is that the prisons should be properly run. If they can be run more cost-effectively, that will benefit the Prison Service, the public sector and those who have to pay, the taxpayers. Staffing levels are a matter for UKDS, the company, to determine. The Prison Service monitors the service which UKDS provides. If it fell below the standard required because of a shortage of staff, the company would need to employ more staff to bring the level of service up to what is required.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned staff training. Initial training for uniformed staff is based on the required Prison Service model, with strong emphasis from UKDS on maintaining good relationships with prisoners. However, experience has shown a need for more assertiveness training, and that has been incorporated.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the criticisms about conditions for vulnerable prisoners. The unit for vulnerable prisoners which was seen by the inspectorate was closed in November, and a new one was opened in B-Wing, ending slopping out for that group of prisoners. The noble Lord also referred to
88
schedule 2 of the company's contract and suggested that it was not enforceable. That is precisely the problem that we shall be overcoming from May by introducing performance measures into the contracts. The companies will then be held fully accountable.
Much has been said about overcrowding. Overcrowding has been virtually eliminated. The number of prisoners sharing a cell has been cut dramatically, and trebling has been eliminated altogether. The largest prison building programme since Victorian times is taking place, and 21 new prisons have been opened since 1985. That programme has created over 11,000 new prison places at a cost of £1,200 million. Furthermore, 8,000 new places have been built at existing establishments since 1979. Those new places have allowed poor quality accommodation to be closed, and have ensured that the growth in the prison population has not been reflected in overcrowding. In 1987–88, an average of over 5,000 prisoners shared three to a cell designed for one. That has now been totally eliminated. In 1987–88, an average of nearly 13,400 prisoners shared two to a cell designed for one. By 27th February this year, that had been reduced to 7,900 and is improving all the time.
Prisoners are now spending more time in regime activities. Average hours spent by prisoners in constructive activity increased from 23.7 hours per week in 1992–93 to 26.2 hours in the period April 1994 to January 1995. That is an 11 per cent. increase. The proportion of prisoners who remain "unlocked" for 12 hours or more on weekdays has increased from 24 per cent. in March 1993 to 36 per cent. in January 1995.
I have agreed that much needs to be done, but I appreciate this opportunity to place on the record what is being achieved and how the issues are being addressed.
House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.

  Turkey: Proposed Customs Union
  Turkey: Proposed Customs Union
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Legislative Review
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Legislative Review
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  The European Movement: Grant
  The European Movement: Grant
  Mr. Mordechai Vanunu
  Mr. Mordechai Vanunu
  Civil Service Year Book
  Civil Service Year Book
  Education Staff: Asbestos-related Illness
  Education Staff: Asbestos-related Illness
  Tourism: Tax Revenue
  Tourism: Tax Revenue
  Barings
  Barings
  Chief Charity Commissioner
  Chief Charity Commissioner
  Automatic Train Protection
  Automatic Train Protection
  NHS Expenditure on Private Medical Consultants
  NHS Expenditure on Private Medical Consultants
  Emergency Treatment: Charging Policy
  Emergency Treatment: Charging Policy
  Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens
  Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens
  Special Areas of Conservation
  Special Areas of Conservation